Direct Sourcing: How Companies Can Recruit The Candidates They Really Want

I read a very interesting piece from the WSJ recently describing a sea change taking place within the corporate hiring world, where in-house teams were now being asked to adopt proper headhunting techniques, rather than sourcing candidates from the response to online adverts.  Clearly the sheer volume of response currently from job boards et al is proving difficult to handle. But is this the only good reason to change tack? As and when the employment market tightens, then recruiters will surely be using every avenue including job boards to source new candidates, as they did 3/4 years ago when the economy was far more buoyant than now.

No, the real issue here is how companies can change their strategic approach to the recruitment of top-quality, X Factor candidates (see blog of Jan 20th, below).

I gave a presentation a couple of years ago at the job board for which I then worked saying that although the bulk of our income came from the recruitment agencies, increasingly our business would be direct with corporate recruiters.  The reason that I gave was that corporates would do their own recruiting simply because they now could.  The networks which had for so long been the private preserves of the headhunting community were now open to all.

So, in the light of this, I have been a little surprised by the way in which many corporates have looked to manage their recruitment process.  Many large corporates still opt to outsource through a rigorously-managed network of preferred suppliers where cost and speed of response are the critical criteria.  Others mix outsourcing with some direct hiring. Where the recruitment is done direct in-house, the processes are very passive, i.e. relying on the internet to provide the answers, filtering CVs from online adverts etc, which is pretty much the same process as many of the agencies use.

But, ignoring the fluctuations in the employment market, does this activity reach the candidates that companies are really looking to recruit? And if companies are going to commit resources to developing an in-house capability, shouldn't it provide a level of service that the market isn't?

There will always be a certain number of top quality candidates looking to move at any given time, but for the most part they will not be looking for a new job and will need to be identified and actively encouraged to consider a change.  This is the essential principle of headhunting.

So is it easy to change the focus for the in-house team?  Short answer: no.  Headhunting requires a different mindset and approach. The internet is a fantastic tool for recruiters, but like every tool you need to know how to use it properly before it works well.

So what may in-house recruiters need to do differently?

• A thorough understanding of the role. Not just a JD, but a close relationship with the hiring manager which should encompass: knowing what the background to the role is; is it new; what happened to the previous incumbent; why recruit now; how does the role fit in to the current corporate game plan; who are the personalities involved; what is success going to look like; what are the potential barriers to success. Understand the competences and the skills the successful individual will need, not just the experience.
• Prepare a target list. Good recruiters can analyse the mechanics of the role and use their judgement to suggest avenues of search outside the recruiting company's core businesses, where appropriate.  Target companies and relevant individuals in those companies.  This is where the internet is so powerful - there is a huge amount of raw information to tap into.
• Develop sources.  This is a key skill.  It should be possible to get information on a candidate before you approach them by talking to someone who has previously worked with them.  Again, the internet can provide the information, there are countless numbers of professional networks/groups/associations out there. Also use internal networks, recently hired individuals etc. Talk to people you rate about people they rate.
• Cold calling.  At some stage, you are going to have to pick up the phone and call someone out of the blue.  You need to have the skill to develop a professional conversation on the phone with someone you have never met.  This is why you must be properly briefed and prepared.  You must be able to start making an assessment of both the experience and character of the potential candidate while you speak.  It helps if you have some prior knowledge of the candidate from your sourcing calls.
• Sell the role.  A huge difference from CV filtering.  Top quality candidates in jobs will need to be persuaded that a change is right for them.  They are not applying to you, you are interested in them, and this changes the whole balance of the process.  It is a two-way street! You need to have very cogent reasons why the candidate should be interested, including a very firm grasp of the employer brand values.
• Management of the Candidate Experience. You have set the process in motion and it is up to you to drive it. Provide any information that you say you will; call when you say you will call (even if it's to say that you can't give any further information currently); manage expectations through the process (especially the timescale); explain the interview/assessment process; try not to change arrangements which have been made.  Remember that, initially, you are trying to attract the candidate. They may not want or need another job, so your behaviour will make a considerable impact on how attractive the candidate sees the company and the role. Keep in regular contact with the candidate.  Be as honest as you can and explain at the soonest possible moment if the discussions will not lead any further.  Always leave the door open to future contact, and this will be easy if you have made a good impression.

This is a very simplified overview of the process, but hopefully it shows that good headhunting starts with a good underlying process which can make the most effective use the internet's reach.

Against the current model, headhunting does have some drawbacks.  It is inevitably a longer process.  Posting a job online will always generate pretty much instant response, headhunting will not. For this reason headhunting doesn't lend itself to the specific requirements of interim/contract recruitment. Although the increased visibility of and accessibility to candidates on the internet at all levels of seniority has meant it is possible to headhunt for a broader range of roles, headhunting is not a suitable process for all the recruitment a company is likely to do, particularly at lower levels. Companies will also need to be fully committed to creating an in-house headhunting resource, and may need to review the suitability of any recruitment software that is used.

By its nature, much recruitment is transactional, an immediate response to an immediate requirement.  But with a proactive mindset it is possible to extend the process 'at either end'.  By which I mean it is always easier to recruit well if you know in advance what you might be recruiting for, and it is always easier to recruit when you already know the right candidate. It makes sense to keep close to the business you serve to understand what the succession plan looks like, where the skills gaps may be, which skills/roles are most in demand, what upcoming initiatives may need resourcing and to better understand the dynamics of the business.

At the other end, the development of talent pools will need a proactive, marketing-led approach.  If the height of your ambition is to create a careers page and hope that candidates apply, be prepared to be disappointed.  The internet will not do it for you on its own.  The internet offers many platforms to support whatever efforts you make to develop a pool of pre-qualified candidates, but, as with the headhunt, recruiters will need to go out to attract candidates into the talent pool with professionalism, a good story to tell, active informed discussion and regular engagement.

The objective of all this is to provide top quality hires.  Surprisingly enough, this means adopting top quality processes. I think the WSJ is on to something....

The X Factor: The Critical Quality You NEVER Find In The CV

The X Factor is a term that I have seen cropping up regularly in recruitment blog posts at the moment. Understandable, I guess, given the popularity of the TV show. But the X Factor, that extra quality which separates the top candidates from the rest, is a really important element in successful recruitment. 

I was talking recently to some old colleagues, and we all agreed that what hiring managers are looking for is primarily the right person, and more often than not the right combination of personal qualities could be at least as important, if not more so, than the experience the candidate had gained. We were all able to give examples of situations where the requirements of a very tight job spec had melted away when the hiring manager was presented with the X Factor candidate.  X Factor candidates do NOT need to tick all the boxes of the job spec to get hired.

So what are these qualities  X Factor candidates possess, and how do they present themselves in the recruitment process? Here are some thoughts:

• Professional: They turn up on time, properly attired.  Never underestimate the importance!
• Personable: An open, friendly manner, easy to converse with.  Able to understand the motivations of others. X Factor candidates are always great communicators.
• Intelligent: Properly prepared, asks searching questions about the brief and the hiring company.
• Insightful: Has an analytical approach and is able to get to the nub of issues quickly - understands the critical issues to manage.
• Honest: Provides a realistic assessment of strengths and weaknesses and career high points and low points; no BS!
• Articulate: Able to communicate complex ideas simply and clearly.
• Commercial: Never loses sight of how his/her efforts fit in to the overall corporate plan.  Understands how their personal contribution can benefit the overall business.
• Able to Challenge the Status Quo: Personally strong enough to challenge existing practices and open to new ways of doing things; possesses an enquiring mind.
• Development Potential: Possesses all the above qualities; shows an appetite for new projects and challenges.

Every management will acknowledge the competitive edge that having top class employees can give their company, but can poor recruitment processes sabotage this plan?  The problem with the X Factor is that it can NEVER be assessed from a CV.

Recruitment which is reactive and two-dimensional, filtering by ticking boxes and done at arm's length, will always run the risk of missing the X Factor candidate.  I am not trying to say that a candidate's experience is completely unimportant, but that it is rarely everything.  For many years hiring managers and agencies have worked to try to make recruitment 'safe' or 'risk free'.  I have seen so much 'safe' recruitment which is essentially about trying to bring in new employees who have effectively already done the same size of job in a similar company. But is this really a strategy to stand out from the crowd? Do you want your employees to be such an unambitious lot? Isn't the real risk that you end up looking exactly like the companies you are trying to differentiate yourself from?

Ironically, for some recruiters the internet, with all the power it can offer, only serves to promote lazy recruiting practices. To get the X Factor candidates, recruiters need to actively go out and look for them.  Of which, more next time!

You Get The Service You Deserve: What Your Recruitment Process Says About You

Recruitment consultants make a pretty easy target for criticism. Poorly briefed, lacking insight, superficial assessment of candidates, poor feedback, difficult to get hold of, won't return calls etc.  These are oft-repeated criticisms of the industry and this list is neither new nor exhaustive. But is it always fair to land all the blame at the feet of the consultant?

I don't want to defend the recruitment industry in general because there is genuinely much to criticize out there. But I remember a former colleague from the publishing industry telling me that customers get the service they deserve. This seems like a pretty valid insight.  Perhaps recruiting clients get the service from their agencies that they, too, deserve?  And what are the consequences in the market?

Consider the following. On a number of occasions I have seen the same job advertised by up to 5 different agencies on the same job board.  I am sure that this has the Procurement people purring with delight but what does the market think? How about this:

• Clients are invariably described as fit, lean, reputable, blue-chip, well-managed or whatever phrase is used to project positive employer brand values.  Where does spray and pray fit into this self-image? 
• The candidate is likely to think that there is a problem with the role if that number of agencies are called on to help fill it.
• If the candidate applies for the role through a number of agencies, they are always told the client name so that the recruiter can 'bag' the candidate.  This is confusing for the candidate and can create problems for the client if one candidate's details are put forward by several agencies. The candidate is also beginning to form an opinion of the ultimate client by this stage.
• These processes are almost invariably carried out on a contingency basis.  The emphasis for the recruiter is to get a CV in front of the client, rather than taking some time to understand the candidate and making sure the right candidate is being put forward.  Candidates are unlikely to feel that they are being effectively represented to the client. 
• The client takes responsibility for assessing CVs, so there is no requirement for the recruiter to exercise any judgement, so there is no real value-add.  The recruiter is still likely to charge a hefty fee for a successful placement, even though the real contribution made might have been no more than to filter CVs. Why spend a lot of money for so little service?
• The process creates confusion, as it always seems difficult to track precisely where a CV is in this process.  The recruiter may have difficulty in getting feedback from the client, particularly when the client has rejected candidates.  Understandably, the recruiter will avoid contact with candidates until advised by the client and that creates frustration all round.

Now clearly, the client will argue that the aim is to recruit a successful candidate, and if a few eggs get broken on the way to making a great omelette, so what? But employer brand values start with the recruitment process. The brand is devalued if 20 people come away with a negative impression of the company, even if a successful recruitment is made. Ask your marketing team. Clearly this isn't the intention, but it is often the result. Unsuccessful candidates may be disappointed, but they don't have to be hostile.

So what can client companies do?

• For many people, their first contact with your company could be through a recruitment process. Make sure that whether you run a psl or an in-house team, initial contact with candidates is professional, courteous, informed and efficient. First impressions count.
• If you manage an agency psl, make sure that you are clear in your mind what value you expect the agency to provide for the fees you are paying them, and communicate this clearly. Reward them accordingly. Hold them accountable for the service they provide against clearly stated performance indicators that encompass qualitative as well as quantitative measures.
• Be aware that the best recruiters do not always work for the biggest firms.
• If you are going to pay recruiters a lot of money, let them do their job properly. Encourage behaviours which will provide you with the best service, not the least worst. Provide them with the tools to do the job.  Take them in to your confidence, keep them in the loop with regard to corporate performance and developments; in short contribute something to the relationship. You will find that good recruiters (yes, there really are some good operators out there) will respond effectively to this.
• Take time to understand the process your chosen agency/agencies will undertake for a campaign.  Your input can avoid duplication and confusion leading to a more streamlined process.
• Give regular feedback through the process.  Explain the reason for any delays.
• Audit your process from the candidate's perspective.  Ask candidates (not just the successful ones) how they found the process.  Apply for a job on your career page and gauge the candidate experience.
• Beware of the law of unintended consequences - see above!

The strength of the recruitment process is dictated by the client.  If the process is poor, it isn't always the recruiter's fault, and the reputation of both client and recruiter suffers.

Don't forget we're human....

I describe myself as an experienced recruitment industry professional, but 'experienced' can be open to a number of interpretations.  If I say that I started life as a researcher in a headhunting company before the internet came along, it probably tells you all you need to know. Not surprisingly, much seems to have changed in that time, but no more so than in the last 5 years.  The development of internet platforms, job boards and the rise of social media have given recruiters access to powerful tools and the sort of depth of information which I would have killed for when I was a researcher. 

Using social networking sites really is a game changer for the recruitment industry and I am far from the first to say so.  But the truth is that there is still much that is familiar about the recruitment landscape in the UK: many of the same names, same practices, same complaints.  What is the difference that social networking has made, and what does it mean for the market?

The biggest change is that the internet has turned candidates into consumers.  Just as the best marketing teams look to understand consumer habits and engage with their target audience, so the best recruiting teams will need to be brand champions, knowing where the best candidates are to be found and undertaking initiatives to engage with them and develop a dialogue with them.

So how will this affect the market?

Press: It should be dead but won't quite lie down.  The public sector cuts should read the last rites.

Job Boards: A mature market now with many of the worst having been weeded out by more discerning users.  They should continue to form a significant part of the recruiting landscape because the concept is simple and easily delivered and clients and candidates know that.  SEO is generally good and can reach out to candidates for specific roles. For all that, useability is still an issue and user experience is still poor on some.  Ongoing profitability must be a concern for all but the biggest as the boards juggle site and customer service improvements with traditionally cheap posting rates.

Those who predict that social media will kill job boards might ask themselves why LinkedIn has its own job board.

Agencies/Consultancies: A huge subject. I can't believe that the market will continue to support the numbers of agencies which it still seems to do, as more recruitment will be taken in-house. Although there will be a smaller number, agencies are not going to disappear from the scene, but they will have to up their game or fall by the wayside.  Many are short-sighted, transactionally-based, and add little value; and disgruntled clients/candidates (they are often the same people over time!) can now make their concerns known in a very public forum.  I don't care how many candidates apply for a job, sending out an 'if you don't hear from us you haven't made it to the shortlist' note is unacceptable.

HR Depts: Clearly the biggest potential winners.  With around 16 million people in the UK using social networks (Source: ONS), and LinkedIn announcing its 4 millionth UK user earlier this year, why wouldn't you be using them?  But puzzlingly there are some who are still reticent. This is a huge opportunity to manage the talent pool and develop an effective employer brand.

The recruitment market is far more dynamic now than the one I joined, but there is one enduring core truth that the flood of available information has tended to hide.  Recruitment is a human transaction. Personality, presence and work style are critical factors in a successful recruitment and these qualities cannot be judged remotely.  2-dimensional, reactive recruitment, sieving electronic responses to adverts place etc, is no substitute for getting out in the market, pressing the flesh, getting some old-fashioned humint on potential candidates.

The internet has provided the tools for a fresh approach to recruitment, but is not the end in itself.  The ability to connect and communicate easily with a large audience is immensely powerful, but it is really only the start. Treat your audience as humans, engage in dialogue with them, try to understand them, provide them with information that is helpful to them, meet some of them - this is where the successful recruiters of the future will reap the benefits of investing in social media now.