"Poker Tells", Recruiting & Life

It's funny how a topic can seem to surface repeatedly in a fairly short period of time.

The subject of 'tells', like a poker tell, or behavior that serves as an indicator to others, has popped up several times recently.

Several movies and shows recently touched on the subject:

"Lucky", with Drew Barrymore, Eric Bana, and Robert Duvall, revolves around poker playing, including "tells", both at the poker table, and in life.

"Next", with Nicolas Cage and Jessica Biel, stars Cage as a Las Vegas magician of sorts, who makes some side money playing poker using some special abilities.

"2 1/2 Men", with Charlie Sheen, recently had an episode that referred specifically to poker tells, when Charlie was playing cards with his nephew.

About the same time I saw the above, one of ROI's recruiters and I got into a discussion about 'tells' on the part of candidates.

One of the most critical dynamics in recruiting is the give-and-take of information sharing between recruiters and their network. Trying to recruit without trying to sincerely help candidates, doesn't work very well. Likewise, candidates that want you to find them a new job, without helping you, don't provide a lot of motivation to the recruiter.

However, the sharing of information takes at least a little time to develop. I give a little, you give a little, I give a little more, you give a little more.

We've discovered that as long as we, as recruiters, are being reasonably generous with our time, and sharing, that we frequently get a pretty accurate and consistent 'tell' on the quality of the candidate based on how they respond.

Candidates who are a bit insecure, have had sort of average, or bounce around type of careers, or are more junior level, frequently don't want to share information on their contacts and friends. They give the perception of either mistrust, or fear that one of their contacts might win out over them for either a position we are discussing, or some future position, so they don't want to increase their competition.

High caliber candidates, on the other hand, typically have the attitude that there are plenty of jobs out there, the right one will come to me, and I want to help my friends and contacts so they'll help me. If someone I know is a better fit for a position than I am, then they should get it. They are more discerning about positions they go after, are quicker to disqualify themselves when it doesn't seem to be a fit, and frequently volunteer other contacts without even being asked.

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

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.

Assessing a New Recruiter

I'm often amazed at how few candidates spend any time asking about my background experience vs. the details of specific job posting. Most just zero in on the details of one position they saw or heard about.

A good recruiter will probably have a number of openings at any one time. Probably a number of them of a similar type (see discussions of a recruiter's 'space' or specialty).

Before you bare your soul to a recruiter, it might be worthwhile to ask the recruiter a few questions about his/her background.

If it turns out they do have some experience, you may want to find out more about their relationship with the specific client in question. Some questions to ask:

Are you on contingeny, retainer, contract or a company employee?
How long have you worked with this client?
How many placements with them?
What is the company culture like? Profitability? Turnover? Growth?
What is the hiring manager like? Style? Personality? Background?

They may not wish to answer all these questions immediately if they are on a contingency search, preferring to qualify you as a candidate first. The process should be a give and take, and if they insist on extensive questioning of you without divulging any information about available positions, you may want to proceed cautiously.

Some recruiters may represent that they have positions available that they may not. This could include positions that have been filled, may potentially be available, but are not yet, or in some cases, that are totally fictitious.

In other cases, they may have legitimate openings, but be new, ill-informed, or working with a client who uses multitudes of recruiters while providing little information for the recruiters to go on other than the printed job spec. Recruiters in these situations are generally either inexperienced, or not very capable, and generally provide little value to the candidate. Experienced, capable recruiters also work with new clients from time to time, and they should be willing to inform you if that is the case. A capable recruiter, even one working with a new client, should stand apart in the quantity and quality of information he or she can share, from those that simply have a job spec, and are pressuring you for details and to commit to interest in a position about which you know little or nothing.

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 and the Internet

One irony of the 'internet revolution' is that it hasn't seemed to really make life much easier. Although more information than I could have imagined a few years ago, is now available at our fingertips, the bar of performance has been forever raised. You are now expected to do more, faster, and cheaper. Because somewhere the competition is. So you do, or you eventually die.

One result is that we are seeing large numbers of what I would call 'enabling' businesses, that are growing out of the internet. Initially everyone seemed to think a new class of internet versions of old line businesses (drugstore.com, homegrocer.com, etc) would replace the old businesses. But now it seems like many of the new businesses are serving the needs of the internet itself -- Google of course, but also SEO's (search engine optimizers, web hosting sites, social networking, video sites, etc).

There are a number of new ones with either most or some of their slant geared towards the impacts of the internet on recruiting.

Networking sites like Linked In, Jigsaw, etc are one example.

Another area in particular caught my eye recently. There's been an explosion in tools and services to help recruiters search the internet. AIRS certifications and training are one... go to a class and get trained on how to use Google. If you are too lazy or inept to do that, pay Zoominfo to catalog some names for you. Broadlook Technologies offers a variety of internet crawling tools that compile lists, for several thousand dollars a pop.

The problem with the automated tools and services is that you seem to get mostly information that is not very difficult to obtain to begin with. Company executive names are often readily available on their websites. Technical names are often mentioned in articles and forums, but without location and contact information, so they can be difficult to track down (although guessing emails is a recruiting art in itself).

The more the tools change, the more the game remains the same. It's the man (or woman) in the middle, the recruiter, who gets the job done. Or doesn't.

What's In It For Me? (WIFM)

WIFM. A four letter word. Or abbreviation anyway.

The philosophy seems to be pervading American business these days.

Execs and board members focusing on short term corporate performance to trigger their options and bonuses. Backdating options. Overstating revenues. Or for that matter, underfunding Social Security and leaving it for future generations to deal with (a personal pet peeve).

We all have to make choices between today and tomorrow, sometime what benefits us vs. what benefits others.

Recruiters too. Some can get too focused on getting a deal done for the sake of a fee, when perhaps it shouldn't get done. I know one recruiter who practically uses WIFM as his motto as often as he writes it on his white board.

I've run into recruiters who claim to be client focused, but have no problem recruiting your Controller out while placing someone else in your IT dept. A former colleague used to advocate plying candidates for info on other jobs for which they were interviewing, so as to market other candidates to the potential new client. When questioned about the ethics of the practice he said "if they are stupid enough to tell me, it serves them right".

By the way, we also ask candidates about what else they have going on. And then we ask their permission about contacting the other companies, if they no longer have interest.

We believe we can serve our interests and the interests of others by focusing on the long term benefit of clients and candidates. Then WIFM doesn't have to be a four letter word.

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.