Cover Letters

The following is a copy of my response to a query on Linked In. Thought it was useful to repeat here:

I generally skip the cover letter and skim the resume first to see if the candidate's background is relevant to the position at hand. Most aren't, and most cover letters are over lengthy, rehash of the resume and provide nothing useful in addition. I may go back to it and skim if the person's background is of interest and the cover appears to offer anything useful. Most cover letters' impact, if any, is negative, in that it turns out to be generic, or references the wrong title, (they forgot to change a generic letter to reference the correct position), contains typos, or as noted by others, demonstrates poor writing ability (the resume may or may not have been written by the candidate). It is a rare cover letter that is well written, brief, addresses the position at hand and provides any useful information to the subject at hand.

As an aside, with resume databases and the passing around of info, it is generally advisable to include all pertinent info in one document, as emails and cover letters and resumes may get separated by scanning applications, and handlers. Always include all contact info in the resume. It's also advisable to include your cover/objective info in the resume as well to keep from getting separated.

Do You Have What It Takes to Be a Recruiter?

Do you like working independently?
You will spend most of your time talking with others on the phone, emails, research, developing and maintaining a contact network.

Do you have a lot of self discipline?
You need to be able to devote adequate attention to the various aspects of recruiting – research, finding search orders, finding candidates, screening, following up, negotiating, maintaining your contact database, etc. You cannot focus on certain aspects and neglect others and expect to be successful. Not everyone is equally strong in all areas, but if you are particularly weak in any of them, it will probably impact your success.

Do you have what it takes to overcome adversity and frustration?
Like any sales position, there will be disappointments, busted deals, and things that seem out of your control that impact your success. The fact of the matter is that you can control more than you think, by developing the ability to identify issues early on and avoid them. We can teach you how, but you have to take control and learn. Most people that try recruiting give up after a few months. I would say 75-80% in my experience, 10% achieve some level of success. 5% considerable success, and 1 or 2% spectacular levels, meaning $250K - $1M annually.

Does your financial situation and time horizon make sense?
Depending on variety of factors, it will take time to ramp up. Depending upon your finances, income expectations, age and other factors, are you prepared to commit to this field long enough to make it pay off? If you are used to making $200K annually in your present career, you can achieve that as a recruiter also, however, it may take 2 or 3 or 4 years to get there.

Do you have expertise in a particular industry or function (IT, Finance, Sales, etc) that you can leverage and is that area a good market for recruiting services currently, OR, is there an area which you can and would be motivated to learn that is a good market for recruiting?

Do you have good computer skills, internet skills, google searching, etc?
This isn’t an absolute requirement, but is increasingly helpful in today’s world. There are still recruiters out there who do it all ‘the old fashioned way’ through word of mouth referrals, etc. And frankly, that is still the best way. However, the more tools you have in your toolkit, the more successful you can be, and internet research, and the ability to maintain a database, copy and paste contact info, upload and download documents etc is a part of the job. The more adept you are at these skills, the more useful they are, and the less time consuming.

Copyright 2007 ROI Recruiting

Information without the BS

I've wondered a bit about the question of style in writing this blog. Should I stick to the typical corporate politically correct, bland, model? or go with a more rogue, bare-knuckles approach, where some posts might offend?

I guess I've tried to strike a middle of the road approach and provide some real information on how recruiting works (from my point of view anyway) and not worry too much about how much or how little marketing value the blog provides (while hoping that somehow it does provide some). Some may disagree with some of the content, but I doubt much of it is going to get anyone's temper up, though some people may have a different point of view on some of the topic.

Judging from the site traffic statistics, it gets some readership, but I'm not likely to make a gazillion dollars selling it off to someone any time soon.

I have gotten several notes from others who said they liked the style and found it refreshing.

In reviewing the site traffic statistics, I'm able to see where the traffic comes from. Google searches are of course one of the large sources, and the traffic info actually provides the phrases entered as search criteria. Frequently, the search phrase is not an exact match for any of the content, but nevertheless, was close enough to lead someone here. So for a new wrinkle, I thought I'd review some of those and make them a topic for a subsequent post.

One recent query was: "sales and recruiting what is a pipeline" ?

Not having the option to ask the person to clarify, I suppose I can interpret the question as best I can and take a stab.

A "pipeline" refers to the business, in this case, search assignments, that are in work, or coming. It could refer to actual searches in work, or possibly potential searches not yet started. A key metric for a recruiter is his/her ability to have plenty of searches in work, and therefore a fair number of opportunities for candidates. However, having too many can also mean that the recruiter is not serving the needs of the client well if they are spread too thin. Quality is also a key factor. Some assignments may come from clients that are using a lot of recruiters, or who won't pay the recruiter's normal fee. Or that may be using the recruiter as a back stop while they try and fill the assigment themselves.

The best pipeline is usually made up of a small number of quality clients with whom the recruiter has done business in the past. There is a high degree of communication, and a well developed relationship, which translates into the recruiter being able to share much more detailed information with the candidates with whom they work.

Expertise and Specialization

I saw a reference to an article today on the risks of promoting your 'expertise'. The article sort of began to coalesce some of my own thoughts, ie. it's better to under-promise and over-deliver, rather than the other way around.

My own experience has been that if you sell a client on your abilities and then fail to perform, you may be in worse shape than if you'd never sold them at all. Sort of along the lines of the saying, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.

When I started in recruiting, my career had been in IT. It covered a number of areas; lots of enterprise project management, a little development, operations, ERP, supply chain, EDI, etc. As a matter of fact, I had just come off a bunch of EDI projects for a telecom company.

My first search assignment ended up being an interface programmer position for a hospital. Now granted, I hadn't worked in a hospital, hadn't worked on Egate (the tool in question), or used HL7. And I didn't tell the client I knew anything about those. But I did ask questions that told them I understood applications integration at a reasonable level, EDI, and some of the issues involved. After filling that position, and many other similar ones, eventually candidates and clients started telling me how surprising it was to talk to a recruiter who actually seemed to understand what they were talking about.

The point is, I didn't proclaim myself a specialist, the clients and candidates did.

Too many recruiting firms hire newbies and proclaim them specialists in some area the minute they sit down. Once they talk to a few people and remove all doubt as to their 'expertise', they have already set the stage for their failure.

My personal philosophy and the philosophy of ROI is to under-promise, and over- deliver. Our reputation is built on performance, and we do very little advertising. We believe in telling you and showing you what we do, and letting you be the judge of how well we perform.

Full Desk Recruiters vs. Split Sales and Recruiting

Like any business, there are different ways to run a recruiting firm. Besides perm vs. contract, 'space', and contingency/retained, there's another differentiator.

Some firms are comprised of 'full desk' or 'full-cycle' recruiters, and some split sales and recruiting. There may be other terms used which can mean the same thing, or a hybrid, like 'team approach', or different titles, Directors, Account Managers, Sr. Recruiters, Jr. Recruiter, etc.

A true full desk recruiter finds his/her own clients, recruits the candidates, and handles the entire process. A split sales and recruiting approach means one person deals with the client and another does the recruiting. Some have researchers, assistants, junior recruiters or whatever.

Most of my contacts tell me they prefer full-desk recruiters. They want to be talking to the person that knows the client, the position, the culture, not someone with a watered down, passed along job spec, or be getting screened by a junior person. Recruiting firms who adopt this approach are, in my mind, sacrificing quality of process in an attempt to scale revenues.

It is difficult to bring someone new in and have them do full-cycle recruiting. Firms that do may tend to have more turnover than others, because it is a real sink or swim approach. Believe me, I started that way, and I swam, but most sank.

The team approach in recruiting is a way to bring junior people on and learn pieces of the business slowly. But how do you think a CIO is going to like getting pre-screened for a CIO slot by 26 year old with 12 months experience as a recruiter? Do you think they'll be thrilled spilling their life story to someone like that, and then again (maybe) to the Account Manager, and then to the client? Probably not.

There's a place for junior people, doing research, handling lower salaried search assignments, etc.

Other Recruiting Firms

If you are looking for a recruiter and ROI is not a match for your "space", you might try these resources:

http://www.ere.net/search/DEFAULT.ASP

http://www.hireability.com

Codestorm.Org Post

I responded to a post on another site the other day. The candidate had some concerns about the behaviour of a recruiter that contacted him. The recruiter provided very little info on the firm, was pressuring him somewhat for information, and the firm name seemed to be associated with 2 or 3 other domain names etc, when he researched them on google, etc. He concluded that they might have been some sort of scam. The incident reveals the risks of not having a two way dialog with candidates, and not sharing information about yourself, your firm and your background, rather than just drilling the candidate for information. Here's my response:

First, you could be correct. I don't know this firm, and there might be something screwy going on. As I note in my blog, candidates OUGHT to ask a lot of questions themselves, not just be on the answering end of things, coughing up all kinds of information.

However, there can be legitimate reasons for some of what you saw. I am familiar with one of the names you ran across, techiegold, which I believe is some kind of co-op job board. In my experience, recruiting firms frequently have different firms for different segments of the business, ie. one firm that does candidate or executive coaching (which you need to be careful of, since this area usually involves costs from the candidate side). Firms often separate their perm recruiting business and temp or contract business, to develop different brand identities, and for legal and HR reasons due to the fact that you may not want to have the same HR policies and benefits for the recruiting staff as the contract staff that works there. (Perm recruiters don't hire candidates, they charge a fee to the client for placing. Temp or contract groups hire the candidate and bill out to the clients for those people's services).

A firm may have acquired another and maintain both the old name and the new name, if they have good, well-established identity and reputation.

All of your comments are fair questions. Really the recruiter blew it by not engaging you in a more 2 way conversation to educate you about him/her and their firm, rather than just rushing you along.

First Contact: Email

Your objectives and a recruiter's objectives when you first make contact are not that different; you are trying to determine if he/she can help you, and they are trying to determine whether you can help them.

When your first communication to a recruiter is via email, the most important thing is to state clearly why you are contacting them and explain your reason for doing so. Most candidates miss the mark by either:

Providing too little, or practically no information - resume only, or just a question or two with no context.

Sending an overly long email or cover letter that just rehashes the attached resume, or is full of flowery words like 'visionary', 'strategic', 'executive' (an analyst is not an executive), and says looking for a new opportunity, but with no detail.

Forgetting key contact info like phone numbers or emails, or having incorrect info.

Copying a cover letter and forgetting to edit so that it refers to the correct position, etc.

An ideal introductory email contains:

A well written resume (including accurate dates; don't list latest position as "-present" if you are no longer there)

Accurate and complete contact info and info on best dates/times/means of contacting you.

Explanation of present status: just considering a move, beginning to look, actively looking, unemployed, contract ending, and how long, or if a change is looming, when this likely will occur.

Objectives: position type, location, travel percentage, salary range, type of company, etc.

Recruiters are used to doing a little counseling with candidates, however, it is not our job to decide for you what you should be pursuing for a career, or how to deal with you and your families disagreement on locations, travel, etc. If you can't define what you want, then a recruiter is either not going to bother trying to help you, or will end up trying to push you into whatever they have available.

Last, but not least: When I receive a well written introduction, I immediately (until proven otherwise) assume that I am dealing with an "A" candidate - sharp, decisive, confident and who knows the value of working with a good recruiter.

Even if they are not a fit, they stand a good chance of getting a response and whatever help I can provide. A candidate that provides me little or nothing, is likely to get the same.

Types of Recruiters - Continued

I've heard or seen rants about recruiters, from time to time, regarding issues like seemingly illegitimate postings, not posting complete info on job, etc.

I saw one rant recently where the candidate said that recruiters 'ought to be required' to be post company name, salary, complete contact info on all positions.

Frankly, I wish that I always could. It helps attract better candidates, and more of them, when you provide more info.

However, there are several reasons why recruiters don't always do that. I'm going to gloss over the convenience reasons; someone doesn't want to be bothered with phone calls from unqualified candidates, or the position is held by someone else they are trying replace, etc.

One of the major reasons is the nature of the recruiter's business relationship. If the recruiter is a company employee, full-time hourly or salaried contract, or on retainer, then there is one important thing that they don't have to worry too much about - getting paid. All 3 of those groups of recruiters get paid, at least partly, a guaranteed or up front compensation. Although they may also get bonuses, or in the case of a retained recruiter, get part of their compensation on completion. However, the retained recruiter theoretically doesn't have any competition, he/she has an exclusive on the search. This is why retained recruiters frequently, but not always, share information on the company they are working for, etc.

Contingency recruiters, on the other hand, (which make up the majority by the way), get paid only when they complete a search assignment and place someone. Most positions from staff level up to Director or higher are contingency, and many positions at VP and other executive levels can be contingency. The arrangement can be fairly exclusive, but often is not, and the company and other recruiters can be working on the assignment as well. In these instances, sharing too much information prematurely (job postings, etc) can result in candidates contacting the client directly, or other recruiters contacting the client with candidates to present. Either of which can result in the recruiter getting paid nothing, while having at least indirectly helped fill the position.

However, once you have initiated communications with a recruiter and established that you are a potentially viable candidate for a role, the recruiter should be willing to share more detailed information on the opportunity. How much info, how quickly, is based on trust, the fit of the candidate, and the depth of their relationship with the client.

Next we'll discuss how to assess your recruiter's relationship with the client, and how legitimate an opportunity they are presenting.

Types of Recruiters - Contingency, Retained, Contract, In-House

In my experience, most candidates, even those that have been hiring managers, are only vaguely familiar with the different types of contractual relationships between recruiters and employers that are out there.

These relationships have a significant bearing on how recruiters operate, and to some extent perhaps, how experienced or competent they might be.

Retained

This service is usually reserved for management to executive level positions, or high value individual contributors. Fees are paid 1/3 up front, 1/3 upon candidate slate presentation, 1/3 on completion.

Contingency

This service can be used for any level of position, but is most common on staff, manager and some director level positions. Fees are due upon placement. The client and other recruiters may also be working on the search assignment.

Exclusive

This is similar to contingency, except that the recruiter has exclusive responsibility for filling the position. Fees are due upon placement.

Contract

Terms can vary, but this could include hourly, part-time, or a combination of retainer and commission, with specified recruiting objectives.

In-House

Refers to company HR type recruiters who work for a single firm. To some extent, contractors may operate a bit more like In-House recruiters, but for this discussion, we'll assume these are permanent in-house employees.

More on Selecting a Recruiter....

As I mentioned previously, finding someone with prior successful recruiting experience is a good place to start when trying to find a recruiter to work with.

I regularly get into discussions with candidates about locating the right recruiter(s) for their needs. What else goes into the equation?

Probably number one is simply the trust or connection. Finding someone you like, whose style you appreciate and whose approach and integrity you trust. A very bright woman, who has also been a hiring manager, told me yesterday that she had a recruiter recently who kept insisting that he was going to submit her for a position that she repeatedly told him not to. She put his firm on a list to never work with again.

Another factor is the recruiter's 'space' or specialization. A recruiter's space can have a number of dimensions - the level of their positions - C-level, executive, manager, staff, etc. Geography - local region, southeast, US, or international. Some work mostly contract assignments, some mostly perm. Function is another - Information Technology, Finance, Engineering, etc. Many may specialize in sub-displines within those areas, such as IT Security, or Programming within Information Technology. Some are industry focused - pharmaceuticals, healthcare providers, apparel and textiles, etc.

Firms may cover a variety of areas, but individual recruiters can only cover a limited space with any effectiveness. Most who have been around a while will identify a fairly specific space that they work. Individual recruiters who spread themselves too broadly limit their effectiveness, and often end up working on assignments for marginal positions, employers and fees.

This is not to say that recruiters cannot shift their focus. Industry and economic trends or other factors can sometimes dictate a shift, and a smart recruiter needs to evolve to thrive. Some recruiters have worked the same space for 20 years or more, others have stayed in a space on a downward spiral for too long, with disastrous financial results.

Recruiting 2007

All signs are pointing to continued heating up of the search market in 2007. Both current hiring trends, and long term demographics seem to support the idea of continued growth in demand for hiring and consequently, search services.

Whether a hiring manager or candidate, one should realize that this 'hot' market is going to attract hordes of recruiters back to the field. This has already been happening since around 2003 when the 'dot-bomb' slowdown bottomed out and started to turn.

While this means there will be more recruiters to choose from, it also means that ever increasing numbers of recruiters will be newbies and marginal performers. As always, your time is your most important investment, and it will be important to figure out quickly and efficiently who you should be dealing with.

Some points to think about:

Most recruiters are essentially entrepreneurs. Even those working for large firms typically find their own clients, find their own candidates and do their own deals. Craig Silverman from Hireability forwarded a link recently to an article by Margaret Graziano talking about developing recruiting teams. The third paragraph talks about the high turnover of recruiting firms, and the resulting dilution of talent at those firms:

http://www.hireability.com/recruiter_news_03.12-Employee-Development.html

My own experience and discussions with other agency recruiters confirms her findings. 75-80% of recruiters at most firms are newbies or marginal performers. The majority won't last long. Most of the rest, the performers, are likely to leave for other firms or start their own. Your attention should be on identifying the performers that can help you. Wherever they are.

Be careful of new recruiters who claim or imply expertise or accomplishments based on the performance of others. Key questions to ask:

How long have you been a recruiter?
Do you work both sides of the desk? (search orders and candidates)
How long have you done both?
How many positions have you personally filled?
What types of positions?
What types of clients?


Simply put, if they have not been a performer previously, you would be better off investing your time with someone else.