Last December (2006) we tried something new. Rather than rehash techniques and tips on recruiting that have been masticated hundreds of times before, we instead provided a handy manual that could be immediately downloaded and redistributed by recruiters to help educate their candidates about interview blunders. By doing so, we created an item of value that could be immediately put to productive and hopefully financially rewarding use.

Our “Top Ten Interview Blunders and How to Avoid Them” became the most popular request for copies and electronic downloads by www.searchwizardry.com, with search firms nationally still requesting it one year later.

Here are two comments representative of numerous accolades we received after it first appeared here for TFL readers:

In catching up on some Fordyce issues over the past week, I ran across your article about the “Top Ten Interview Blunders.” I have gone through many of these issues with candidates in prepping them. I’m struck by the depth of information and how logically it’s provided by you. I thank you very much, my candidates thank you very much, and I honestly believe my clients will be grateful as well. – Bob Bishop

I have been in the recruiting industry since 1970. I have read all the books and listened to all the tapes, but I can unquestionably say there is more meat in your Interview Blunders to share with candidates than in all the books and tapes put together. Thank you. I intend to email this to my current and future candidates! – Roger Linde

As a holiday gift to TFL readers, this month we unveil portions of our latest instructional manual, titled:

“Maximizing Search Firm Success – Why some companies fail to obtain results from search firms . . . while others consistently succeed year after year.”

This manual includes our latest list: The Top Causes of Search Firm Failure.

At the end you will find a link where, should you be interested, you can download the manual, including color graphic and table of contents, as it appears in its complete and unedited form.

*****************************
And now for the excerpted manual.

“Maximizing Search Firm Benefits – Why some companies fail to obtain results from search firms . . . while others consistently succeed©”

Understanding Search Firm Relationships

Contracting with an executive recruiter is not unlike hiring an expert fishing or hunting guide. Such a guide knows which waters hold certain types of trophy bass or trout, what lures and bait should be used depending on the specific type of game sought, the best times of day to make your casts, and precisely the rate of speed at which you should reel your line back.

The process of recruiting is similar in many aspects. It may, on the surface, appear simplistic. After all, one might think, is it really more than making many phone calls, sending emails, and initiating dialogue with prospective candidates? Yes, it is. In the hands of a well-trained, dedicated expert team, the process unfolds much like that of a symphony orchestra under the leadership of an eminent maestro.

While a search firm can assist tremendously in increasing the percentage of trophy fish that will bite your baited hook – just as a fishing guide would be able to do – it inevitably becomes the company hiring authority’s responsibility to correctly reel the fish in and ensure that it does not flop out of the boat before you’ve had a chance to have your photo taken (or bring it home to grill).

Many of the complaints regarding search firms often stem from a breakdown in this “handing off” process. There are other reasons why search firms may fail to produce despite their best efforts. The most common reasons are outlined in this manual.

What you are about to read distills hundreds of millions in recruiting project management expertise to identify the most critical breaking points.

Our list compiles some of the most common factors contributing to breakdown (failure) after a search firm is engaged by a company hiring authority.

Top Ten Most Common Causes Of Search Firm Failure

1. Fee Attitudes: Expense or Investment?
2. Stalling with Feedback
3. Passing the Ball to the Wrong Team Member
4. The Search Party Posse Strategy
5. Excessive Authority in the Wrong Hands
6. Cutting the Recruiter Out of the Loop
7. Too Many Chefs Seasoning the Soup
8. Overselling, Underperforming Search Firms
9. Requesting References
10. Cleaning House

Now for a discussion on each item listed.

1. Fee Attitudes: Expense or Investment?

Many consider search fees as expenditures. It is a line item to be placed under the debit column. Yet no one ever bothers to speak to managers across town or state lines to find out what financial impact may have resulted from the service.

This connection is rarely made. Yet a quick analysis of just one Fortune company our firm services has uncovered that even the lowest-level analyst/trainee can be worth $1 million in added revenue on that person’s first full calendar year. One Million Dollars.

Try investing 15 or 20 thousand dollars (assuming the lowest-level salaries and fees) in the stock market and let me know what your chances are of gaining one million on that 15 thousand dollars during the following year.

While hard-nosed fee negotiations may be appropriate with a new car dealer whose lot is bulging with excess inventory or at the weekend flea market, the circumstances have no correlation with engaging a professional search firm well known in its field.

While you may relish having secured a low fee and enjoy being able to boast about it, having no hire to show for your vacant controller, IT director, network administrator, national sales director, or CFO position while millions of dollars are being sidelined or neglected during the search makes little sense.

Yet this is precisely what happens over and over again with searches around the country.

2. Stalling with Feedback

Providing essential dialogue and reactive feedback at a glacier pace negates all the hard work and effort put forth by your recruiting partners. Once a candidate expresses interest, a certain forward momentum must continue to maintain the interest that was piqued as a result of your recruiter selling your company’s and position’s benefits.

Put your search firm through more than one or two lost candidates, and they will most likely render your search unserviceable.

Meanwhile, you may be left wondering why your position remains vacant many months later.

3. Passing the Ball to the Wrong Team Member

I have experienced many cases where the search was sufficiently mission-critical for the chairperson or CEO of a multibillion-dollar company to conference directly with our search team, only to close the conversation by instructing us to “deal with Jennifer from here on.”

To our chagrin, “Jennifer” (name used as a placeholder for any low-level recruiting coordinator) often turned out to have been with the company for barely one year, with little to no previous experience.

Jennifer was rarely available, didn’t quite care, and did not view the project with the same urgency the chairperson did. She was often overworked, underpaid, never available during lunch, and never available one minute after 5 p.m. local time.

Besides these minor short-comings, human resources coordinators such as Jennifer are usually very nice people.

While weeks elapse as hard-working candidates struggle to fit a telephone interview into human resources’ schedule of availability, which is narrower than the eye of a needle, candidate talent is squandered as they lose interest.

*NOTE: We elaborate on this critical issue much more in the complete version available on www.searchwizardry.com.

4. The Search Party Posse Strategy

This is a classic scenario that has unfolded thousands of times in searches nationally:

1. Search firm A is hired under a contingency arrangement.

2. Search firm A is perceived to not be delivering results quickly enough (pick any of the reasons outlined in this list as the underlying cause), so therefore . . .

3. Company signs another contingency contract with search firm B. After all, it does not have to compensate anyone to enter into a second contingency agreement (in most cases – however, many search firms are changing their procedures because of this practice and requiring engagement commitments).

4. When search firm B realizes that A has already contacted many of the same candidates and the problem exists not with candidate availability but with company protocol, search firm B places the order on the back burner.

5. Company now has two firms it views as “unproductive,” so it invites search firm C and possibly D to join the ever-expanding search party posse! Sometimes a retained or other renegotiated approach with the original firm would have been far smarter than starting all over again. With each new search firm that gives up, the company incurs an increasingly negative public relations dilemma as word spreads that “there must be something wrong with that position.” If any search project position presents a realistic probability of concluding in a successful hire, then one and only one search firm should suffice.

5. Excessive Authority in the Wrong Hands

In contrast with item number 3 above, extending too much authority to one centralized corporate recruiting representative can also backfire.

National hiring or candidate selection control for a specific product line or business segment relegated to one individual can result in “absolute authority, corrupting absolutely.”

This can result in premature candidate rejection. Or rejection for the wrong reasons (such as favoring one search firm over the other) as well as other egregious abuses.

6. Cutting the Recruiter Out of the Loop

Whenever a hiring executive tells me, “It’s okay, Frank, we have it all under control,” this is precisely when I brace for disaster to strike. Overconfidence almost always backfires with a candidate rejection or other problem in the late stages.

By cutting the recruiter out in midstream, you are only preventing yourself from learning invaluable “inside knowledge” the candidate is inclined to share with the neutral recruiter that he or she is not revealing to you, the hiring manager.

A paramount attribute of a skilled recruiter is to get candidates to feel completely at ease in opening up and sharing their thoughts during an interview process. By shutting the recruiter out, you are preventing yourself from obtaining the very consulting portion of the service that comes along with the recruiting aspect.

This might be why some designations such as my own refer to “Personnel Consultant.”

Sometimes such information could save you from spending thousands on unnecessary perks you mistakenly assumed were needed.

Other times a serious misunderstanding can lead a candidate to resign without obtaining all the facts, leaving the search firm potentially liable even though you have prevented them from performing their due diligence by acting on your own.

Would you ever retain a Realtorâ„¢ to sell your house, have them invest for months in a marketing program, and then start calling potential buyers that came to your open house directly?

Would you hire an expensive attorney and in the middle of courtroom litigation tell her, “Sit down. I can take it from here” and proceed with arguments and case law recitation on your own?

There are accepted industry-practice standards that seem to go by the wayside when it comes to personnel recruiting and executive search relationships.

7. Too Many Chefs Seasoning the Soup

Just as too many search firms invoke the law of diminishing returns as happens with the Search Party Posse Strategy, the same diminishing returns apply to hiring managers involved in the hiring decision.

Limit group interviews to only the most critical and necessary team leaders or members. The more company hiring representatives that must participate and agree in unison on a particular hire, the more likely the chances are of a “hung jury” syndrome.

One or two is fine. Three individuals – maybe. Once the hiring decision rests on the shoulders of four or more individuals, you will have a better chance of winning the lottery at a local deli than obtaining a mutual group consensus.

8. Overselling, Underperforming Search Firms

Quite simply, you may have picked the wrong search firm.

This breakdown occurs when the recruiting organization cannot deliver on the promises made. In such instances, the recruiting bench strength did not live up to the account acquisition strength. Too bad.

This problem surfaces in all types of businesses, including hiring contractors, lawyers, landscapers, investment advisers – you name it.

You may think for a moment that, on this one point, blame is finally pinned on the search firm, where it should lie. True, in this example, the search firm may have over-promised and is now under-delivering.

Yet the same responsibility rests on the shoulders of the company. Just as you would ask for references when hiring a candidate, you should conduct due diligence and ask for references of the search firm. This is not as easy as it seems, however, when big egos interfere. This leads us to failure number nine.

9. Requesting References

Here lies the rub: Very few executives would actually call a reference even if a stack of them were left on the table. That’s okay. At least ask for some information, which is better than not asking for any reference material at all.

Also, keep in mind that many searches have “non-compete” or “confidentiality” clauses, which prohibit advertising who was placed where. As a result, it’s not as easy to get references in the search industry as it is getting client information from a public relations or advertising firm that regularly boasts about their clients and shares their logos in print.

One comparable analogy is that of the driver who would prefer to drive around a city for hours rather than stop at a gas station to ask for directions.

At the very least, you should ask for whatever reference material is available or a track record of searches filled even if hiring managers must be omitted.

10. Cleaning House

Savvy real estate sales professionals know that proper house staging can lead to important advantages in selling the house – even while neighboring homes remain unsold.

If the adage “location, location, location” holds true when it comes to real estate investing, then “presentation, presentation, presentation” are the next three most important factors.

When it comes to vocation, presentation becomes a highly important deciding factor. You are not just offering a job but providing a home away from home where that employee is expected to spend most of his or her daytime (and in many cases, nighttime) working life.

When a candidate is greeted by a frumpy, unkempt, cluttered, or outgrown office environment, it will create a negative first impression. This will become ingrained in the candidate’s mind and be difficult to erase, regardless of what the job has to offer.

I’ve been asked to visit clients and help them understand “why we can’t fill this position despite trying for more than one full year . . .”

Often these companies have used one, two, or three search firms over one or even two years, off and on. They have reached the point of desperation.

My suspicions are often confirmed when I visit the actual office building.

In one case, I walked in through a lobby, had to go up a staircase that had not been painted in perhaps 10 years, containing scuff marks, holes, and what appeared to be a hole from a boot kick. I would not want to work anywhere where people kick holes in the wall.

Upstairs, the carpets were loosened from the wall, bubbling, and snaking (they had long outlived their purpose). The lack of attention to aesthetics continued when I walked into the controller’s office and noticed an herb garden that was overgrown and spilling over shelving like something out of Little Shop of Horrors.

The place was one step away from being classified as a boardwalk fun house, let alone presenting an acceptable office environment.

Written by Frank G. Risalvato, CPC, author of the “Top Ten Interview Blunders and How to Avoid Them.” Frank G. Risalvato has been a staffing and recruiting consultant in the search profession since 1987. He has contributed hundreds of articles to various publications, has appeared on TV and radio, and has been called on by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books, and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. Call (973) 300-1010 for an exclusive one-on-one experience with his training style. His new Charlotte, N.C., direct telephone is (704) 243-2110.

While this may be to the shock and horror of recruiters everywhere, we’ve been using national and local Web boards, including annual contracts with Monster and HotJobs, for many years.

Some in our industry would have me believe this is “below the realm of real recruiting” or that “real recruiters don’t use job boards.”

This is all nonsense promulgated by those who are clueless how to use such technology effectively.

If I can succeed in getting qualified respondents to inquire on my ad, while the client’s ad languishes with no such traffic, then I have accomplished what we’re paid to do – attract qualified talent.

This does not mean we use such tools to the exclusion of “real recruiting.” No, we use them in conjunction with direct, cold recruiting.

Generally speaking, the entire annual fee for such services is paid by the job board within three to four weeks each time we renew. From there on, which usually results in 10 to 11 months more of activity and usage, the rest as they say is “all gravy” and profit above and beyond the annual contract.

Show me where on the stock market you can invest $10,000 and get back $20,000 or $40,000 before that same year is over?

This isn’t rocket science, folks. If a national account with a job board costs $10,000 and your average fee is $15,000, it goes without saying that just one placement ought to pay for the website for the full year. Make two placements and you’ve earned your cost back plus another placement you squeezed out that you may not otherwise have had that year. Quadruple those results, and you’re doing even better.

If you can’t get Monster or HotJobs to produce one candidate, you need help. Serious help. Preferably my help, of course. You know how to reach me.

What shocks me is how many recruiters claim “they cannot obtain dividends from Monster” or some other job board. To this my response usually is “Let’s take a look at your writing samples.”

For those with average to sub-average writing skills – and I know of numerous recruiters that fall into this category – the job board will return dividends in direct correlation to your ability to write compelling ads (as far as the job posting is concerned).

Of course these tools provide more than the ability to advertise. They generate continuous name/brand recognition as well as the ability to network. As one savvy recruiter who underwent coaching with me recently remarked, “I now get so much out of this job board I never previously thought of. Rather than focus on résumés, I’m now paying close attention to the valuable references on those résumés as well.”

She was making placements not using one single résumé. Instead she was placing the “references” listed on the dud résumés she deemed unworthy.

There’s a mother lode of gems in those mines, but you must know how to operate the mining equipment to produce consistent results. Operate the mine incorrectly and unsafely, and you can cause an unwanted avalanche of worthless dust.

I’ve studied how just ONE WORD re-arranged in a title can make the difference between such “gems” and dust over the years. One Word! But if you can “read” the mineralogy and study the rock formations, you can decipher where the gold lies. It’s not the job board that’s lousy – it’s the user.

To be fair, there are many industries that by culture simply don’t spend time on websites. Certain niches of the aerospace, nuclear, and power utility sectors come to mind (some of these industries expect recruiters to call!). Niches within the insurance industry are another example, or governmental/public service.

But for most corporate departmental searches, you ought to be able to get something from your job site investment if, and only if, you use it in clever ways that your client companies and competitors do not!

Frank G. Risalvato has been a staffing and recruiting consultant in the search profession since 1987. He has contributed hundreds of articles to various publications, has appeared on TV and radio, and has been called on by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books, and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. Call (973) 300-1010 for an exclusive one-on-one experience with his training style. His new Charlotte, N.C., direct telephone is (704) 243-2110. Email: fris@iresinc.com.

Ever feel somewhat embarrassed by the fact that a candidate brought a cloud over the interview by revealing that all they did is answer your ad on Monster?

This article should help you, the recruiting industry readers, leaders, and TFL subscribers who use job boards as part of your overall recruiting menu, save tons of lost fee revenue. It will help protect, preserve, and maintain client relationships as well.

In fact, it is required reading for IRES candidates and ought to be “required reading” for any candidate you have sourced from an Internet job site.

Feel free to obtain reprint permission from TFL or www.searchwizardry.com for the portion that follows below. The following is that which you may want to copy and share with candidates sourced through websites prior to their first face-to-face or telephone interview with a hiring client.

Attention, Candidates (you may personalize this section with their specific name):

Here’s why you must never reveal using an Internet website to the hiring manager during a search being handled by a contracted executive recruiter or staffing consultant.

Might you be a job seeker who posted your résumé on Monster, HotJobs, or any of the hundreds of specialty or local sites on the Internet?

Are you one of the fortunate ones who got a call from a recruiter and experienced a positive first telephone interview?

Congratulations! You got noticed.

Here’s a tip that will enhance your salary/offer negotiations.

This is guaranteed to work.

It’s important that you know you should never reveal having posted your résumé on the job board or reading ads on that job board during the interview process.

Why?

Because most hiring managers will possibly interpret your résumé posting or reading HotJobs or similar ads by labeling you as an “aggressive job seeker.” This is bad for several reasons, which follow:

1. Hiring manager can think: “Gee, if we have a tough week in my department, what’s to keep this employee from hopping on the Internet during lunch and searching for yet another job when the going gets tough?”

2. “If he’s using that website, he probably is getting anxious, so I can take my time and use that as leverage in my negotiating.”

3. “Is this what I’m paying a search firm for? Finding ads posted on Monster? I’m going to sit this out and find a real candidate instead and let that search firm earn its fee.”

These are just a few of the thoughts a manager’s mind may begin to ponder. All of them are negative. All of them are not good for you the candidate and potentially detrimental to your goal of securing the job.

It is to your advantage to come out of an interview leaving the impression that you are a “Semi-passive” job seeker.

In other words, you want to create the illusion or perception that you are someone who will interview if and only if the job is just right and the package presented is right as well (which is most likely the truth anyway).

It’s similar to the college dating process. Play “hard to get” just a little bit, and chances are whoever is courting you may have their interest piqued more so. Come across as “too easy,” and the message sent could imply that you would definitely accept an offer so early in the process that it curtails the fun of the chase, to the point that you might not get to see the offer at all.

You are in the best possible negotiating position when you come across as picky, selective, and only responsive to certain, specific offer conditions.

So how do you respond when a manager asks:

“How did Joe, the recruiter we’re using, find you, Shirley?”

Your response should be:

“He somehow tracked me down and contacted me. He’s a persistent guy, you know.”
PERIOD.

NEVER REVEAL ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT.

NEVER SAY:

“He found me on Monster.”

This exposes your poker hand too early in the process and cheapens the perception of your value in addition to the other problems listed above.

The latter also can imply that your recruiter took the “easy route,” when in fact he/she may be undertaking hundreds of avenues or approaches well beyond an Internet ad/or résumé search to locate you.

Not to mention – There is some level of skill required for writing ads that recruiters rarely get credit for, and they are viewed by some as having “cut corners” for using such Internet sites with success.

At the end of every interview process, the candidate has to be sourced from somewhere.

It becomes too easy using Monday morning quarterbacking for a hiring manager to think, “Gee, I could have posted on Monster.” Or “Gee, why didn’t I think of posting the job with that alumni association?” Or “Why didn’t I think of posting with that financial network group?”

The truth is that most search firms are employing all these techniques combined with direct recruiting simultaneously, never knowing the final source until the hire is made.

In the end of every search is the simple truth – one source resulted in the successful hire. Trouble is, no one knows which source will work at the outset.

I have found that many hiring managers will begin believing “how easy” the search could have been once the source, technique, etc., is revealed. Much as you might feel that you were duped when a clever magician finally reveals how he made the playing card appear to float in midair. The point is, the magician did what he was supposed to do – and it required great skill.

Even if the technique that the magician reveals initially looks easy, it may in fact require six months of intense practice and perfection for you to be able to execute it with the same level of flawlessness.

Leave the specific source out of the entire dialogue and you completely avoid all the issues, troubles, prejudices, and mis-conceptions likely to occur as a direct result of being too specific.

In the end you have a goal: getting an acceptable offer.

Leave the specific source out and you can more quickly return the interview dialogue back to its focus: why you should be hired.

Written by Frank G. Risalvato, CPC, author of “Top Ten Candidate Interview Blunders and How to Avoid Them.” Frank G. Risalvato is a staffing and recruiting consultant who has been in the search profession since 1987. He has contributed hundreds of articles to publications, has appeared on TV and radio, and has been called upon by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books, and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. Call (973) 300-1010 for an exclusive one-on-one experience with his training style. His new Charlotte, N.C., direct telephone is (704) 243-2110.

In the August issue of TFL you read about the “Little Search Firm That Could.” While you may have found the fairy-tale approach endearing, the story itself was all true. It described how one small search firm (my own) took one client and turned that one little account into multiples of millions of dollars in fees over more than a decade. It also described how the client itself profited from the relationship.

But all good things must end. And we knew that someday, somewhere, somehow, someone would figure out that an end must be brought about to these ridiculous fees being paid to “The Little Search Firm.”

We were prepared. With some external oversight and help from Bob Marshall of Atlanta, I had begun working on a “pre-emptive” strike to reposition our company without needing one of our major accounts any longer.

This was just as our best year ever came to a close, with a record-breaking level of fees well into the mid-six figures from this one account alone. I knew the party could not last forever.

Bob and I worked a strategy to gradually wean ourselves from needing or wanting to work with this company. It took about two full years (one year on my own and a few quarters working with Bob) to develop several new accounts that not only replaced the original, but were better, paid faster, and used us for higher-level hires.

The company itself outlined in the story proceeded with the type of plan I had anticipated they would for years:

- They fired all of their regional, experienced personnel specialists that had decades of experience locally in the areas where they worked around the United States.
- They replaced each of the senior recruiters (internal recruiters) with 20-something types that had failed in the search industry and were now highly qualified to work for a corporation (I got to see the résumés of a few and am not making this up).
- One such new recruiting individual had a bachelor’s degree in – get this – zoology! Not that I have anything against zoology, but to fire tenured internal recruiters with 20 years’ experience for THAT?
- For approximately 40 thousand dollars each, the corporation replaced all the knowledgeable recruiters it once had out in the field with a staff of 30 Generation Y types who knew nothing about the employer, its history, political dynamics, managers, managers’ histories, etc.
- Result: The new 30-person “replacement recruiting force” was clueless.

Did they save money? Probably. To clarify, they saved recruiting fees. When I asked regional managers and vice presidents, here’s what they replied:

“Frank, I’m worried. What used to take three to four weeks to find a low-level trainee is now taking us six months. In 12 years with this company I never needed to wait six months to find a decent recent grad we could hire for our trainee program.”

Of course, part of the problem is the overall tight labor market. But having spent $1.2 million on a state-of-the-art “centralized” résumé submission and applicant tracking system, the company is not now experiencing results that align with the exorbitant IT expenditures they made.

The IT company that sold the new consolidated system won the battle for the heart and mind of this company. The recruiting industry did not.

But it was a very short honeymoon. After one year of tolerating the new system, executives got desperate and went over HR management’s head demanding to get my firm back into the picture. Retribution can be so sweet.

Sometimes the best remedy for evaluating our worth is simply letting business take its course and allowing a company to com-pare the difference with the alternatives. I’m somewhat glad we stepped away from the process for a year, as it made the managers value our services even more in comparison to the new alternative.

If your client is re-organizing, re-engineering, or re-inventing its recruiting systems, be patient. Maintain diplomatic relations and stay in touch.

Just as you think the end of a long relationship is about to happen, you could be in for a surprise if you just give it enough time.

Frank G. Risalvato is a staffing and recruiting consultant who has been in the search profession since 1987. He has contributed hundreds of articles to publications, has appeared on TV and radio, and has been called upon by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books, and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. Call (973) 300-1010 for an exclusive one-on-one experience with his training style. His new Charlotte, N.C., direct telephone is (704) 243-2110.

Unless you work exclusively on mid-six-figure executive searches and are always paid a retainer and travel expenses, you’re probably one of thousands of recruiters who often refer candidates without actually meeting the candidate in a face-to-face situation. In that case you’ve probably heard a statement similar to the above from a surprised client at some point once it was discovered you’d never met the candidate they just hired.

I recall the first time in my recruiting career that I was confronted with this shocked reaction from a large company client I had just signed on. The tone used in discussing this matter with me seemed to indicate that I should have felt as if I had “cheated” or done some-thing naughty.

Yet I knew it took a well-trained three-person recruiting team (two recruiters and one administrative coordinator) to pull off that feat. Here I was, being hailed as a hero one minute and assailed as a con artist the next when it was discovered that I had never met the woman I placed.

I was on-site visiting the company and surrounded by executives who all wanted to know who this wizard of search was that found the individual they had failed to identify or hire on their own for nearly one year. In this particular case, the position I had filled was titled Western Hemisphere Director of Financial Analysis. Big title. So-so salary. Nevertheless, I was attempting to enhance the relationship by making an on-site visit.

When the candidate appeared, one of the observant managers immediately noticed that she and I did not recognize one another instantly. “Of course, Frank, you know Gloria – or should I intro-duce you two?” he sarcastically asked.

Another manager hopped in with “You mean you never met her? What personnel service doesn’t actually meet the candidate they’re referring?” And so it went as each manager present repeated the comment like well-trained parrots.

“Oy vey!” I thought to myself. My meeting was rapidly spiraling out of control.

This happened in the early 1990s, and by the end of that decade the advent of the Internet, email, and rapid expectations of instantly transmitted résumés would greatly diminish the expectations of face-to-face meetings – especially for rank-and-file contingency searches scattered across state lines in industries where it is well known that hot competition is breathing down the company’s neck.

Having a script has bailed me out of that situation a number of times since then.

I decided to write a rebuttal I could use again and again whenever this particular objection was raised. Interestingly enough, this topic was never covered by Anthony Byrne, who used to train our recruiters back then.

Here’s what I came up with -simple, straightforward, and honest. I hope it helps if you ever encounter this challenge:

Employer: “You mean you never actually met the candidate?”

Recruiter: “Mr. Employer, with all due respect, the most difficult and time-consuming aspect of any search is the searching process itself.

Ninety percent of our time is dedicated to contacting, networking, and communicating and establishing dialogue with hundreds of individuals in order to find the one elusive candidate worthy of referring to you.

Finding the candidate [emphasize this statement] is the most time-consuming part of our efforts. This is where many of our competitors give up and fall short because they are not interested in dedicating the time necessary for achieving success.

Meeting the candidate, once he or she has been discovered and identified, is very easy in comparison to the searching aspect.

There would be no candidate for us to ever meet unless we invested hours each day over many weeks executing the search aspect properly to begin with.

Anyone can conduct a face-to-face meeting once a candidate is identified. It’s the searching process that leads to identifying a candidate that presents the greatest need for skill and dedication.”

Stated with confidence, this usually takes care of this particular objection 90% of the time. In those few instances when the client continues to be dumb-founded as to how you can be dealing with people in a people business and not meeting those people, there may be other questions asked, such as:

Employer: “But how do you know if the person has the right image for us?”

The reply I usually provide is:

“I’ve conducted thousands of face-to-face and tens of thousands of telephone interviews over my 20 years of search. In 95% of cases, my telephone interview assessments have confirmed what the face-to-face assessment would have concluded. Only in rare instances – around 2.5% of the time – does someone thoroughly fool us in an in-depth telephone interview who would not have been able to do so in person.

Issues such as:

- split-second pauses before a reply to an interview question
- split-second hesitations in reaction to questions such as “Are you comfortable in a face-to-face sales environment?”
- and other factors . . .

are all assessed as part of the “face-to-face” process that can be handled telephonically.”

Beyond these two counter-objection steps, if the client continues balk I use this opportunity to upgrade the compensation or fee structure. After all, I’ll do anything for the right dollar figure. Including flying to Syracuse, New York, in the middle of winter if my expenses are covered and the engagement fee or retainer justifies such.

If they wish for us to physically meet their candidates, that’s fine, provided we are compensated accordingly and the contract is redrawn to specify such.

Remember:

If a client finds out after the fact that you never physically met the individual candidate, NEVER EVER allow that person to walk away believing you did not earn your fee or that you cut a corner. Truth is, YOU DID EARN YOUR FEE. Every dime of it. Don’t let them walk away believing otherwise.

Make certain you explain that the “finding” aspect of search is precisely what they agreed to pay you for. Meeting someone is easy – but meetings can be scheduled only by those select recruiters that actually find their candidates!

Frank G. Risalvato has been a staffing and recruiting consultant in the search profession since 1987. He has contributed hundreds of articles to various media, has appeared on TV and radio, and has been called upon by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books, and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. Call (973) 300-1010 for an exclusive one-on-one experience with his training style. His new Charlotte, N.C., direct telephone is (704) 243-2110.
Email: fris@iresinc.com

Once upon a time there was this little search firm. It received a call one day from a local office of a national financial services company.

The manager from the company said they were “having difficulty” finding a trainee for one of their underwriting openings. All they wanted was someone with a degree in finance, good understanding of financial statements, a high GPA demonstrating ability to work hard and school smarts, and good communication skills to articulate the person’s financial findings to others. It did not even matter what type of industry or company the person had obtained their previous experience from, pro-vided they had the criteria listed.

The recruiter listened attentively, took notes, and asked lots of questions.

The company hiring manager added, “We’ve been using Gigantor Recruiting and they laughed at us when we told them we wanted a finance guy with good communication skills. Do you think you can help?”

The recruiter replied (without laughing), “Yes, we should be able to help. Give us a few weeks and I will get back to you.”

That small search firm filled that position within a few short months. The person they pro-vided did so well that he was rapidly promoted, and the company hiring manager returned to fill the newly vacated slot again.

That office hired some 12 individuals from that search firm during the next five years. News of their success in finally finding a reliable and trustworthy recruiting service spread to other offices.

The Philadelphia office also wanted to know who the “Little Search Firm” was that had filled a competing region’s positions so consistently. Next, the Boston manager wanted to be included in the game. Then Syracuse, New York.

Cincinnati, St. Louis, Atlanta, Dallas – all wanted to work with the Little Search Firm when they found out that positions that had previously taken a year or so to fill were now being filled in four weeks.

Within 10 years The Little Search Firm That Could, which provided recruiting services for ho-hum, run-of-the-mill, mid-five-figure salary searches that Gigantor Search felt was “below their stature,” wound up filling more than 100 such positions at a dozen offices all over the country for Financial Services Corp.

During this period the company had also grown. It had gone from being a small player in the field to a Fortune 1000 company.

Fast-forward another 10 years and today, that company is a Fortune 500, doubled in size within 10 years and quintupled the revenue it generated when it first sought out the services of The Little Search Firm That Could.

The results of this 20-year relationship are summarized as follows:

1. $250 million = Estimated amount of additional annual revenue generated and managed by all the employees placed during 20 years by The Little Search Firm.

2. 145 = Approximate number of total individuals placed throughout the country for “The Company.”

3. 100% Growth = The amount of revenue growth The Company posted during its relationship with The Little Search Firm.

4. Fortune 500 – The ranking this company received in the last few years was due in great part to a long relationship with “Little Search Firms.” It was previously a Fortune 1000 and, before that, an obscure and unrecognizable entity no one had ever heard of.

Along the way The Little Search Firm That Could invented, tweaked, perfected, and refined a process for consistently finding the individuals this company needed within a four-week timespan every single time, regardless of level.

The Little Search Firm had developed the Secret Recipe for consistently finding the people The Company needed.

The company eventually began to use The Little Search Firm for retained executive hires for corporate executive positions.

Great story, right? A happy ending? Not quite!

There was never a banquet in honor of The Little Search Firm.
No plaque recognizing its decades of loyalty.
No trophy. No award. Not even a letter saying thanks. (Granted, they did pay all their bills on time.)

You see, somewhere along the line a human resources executive discovered The Company’s little secret for quickly finding hirable employees.

The new human resources manager was not about to let one Little Search Firm be so instrumental or critical in The Company’s operation.

No sir.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of “The Little Search Firm That Could” and read about how the new human resources director was going to turn it into the “Little Search Firm That Will Die Trying.”

Frank Risalvato is a staffing and recruiting consultant and has been in the search profession since 1987. He provides one-on-one custom coaching. He has appeared on TV and radio, and has been called on by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books, and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. For more infor-mation on his custom one-on-one recruiter coaching and training support services, please email: fris@iresinc.com.

The nice part about being a recruiter is we can often have fun while earning a great living. Who needs television soap operas or sitcoms when the quirky and unpredictable behavior of our candidates and clients can supply us with all the entertainment we could possibly desire?

Every recruiter has encountered a situation where your prime candidate suddenly vanishes into thin air. This always happens just after your client hiring manager reveals interest in either making an offer or setting up an immediate second interview.

There is nothing more frustrating than the experience of not having your calls returned by what was just recently your star candidate.

Here are a few script techniques that I have used which almost always result in an immediate call back. Usually within 10 minutes! In fact it works so well it’s funny.

These will pry your stubbornly resistant candidate loose like a giant high-torque crow-bar. While you may still wind up learning that your candidate has lost interest in the job, and that you really no longer have a candidate . . . it is, at least, somewhat consoling to hear this confirmation first-hand from the candidate than having to resort to second guessing.

For this to work you must first know/understand your candidate’s “weak spot” and “sore points.” If your candidate is paranoid about you calling at the office number . . . then you will want to close with closing script #1 as it will apply pressure directly into your candidate’s “weakest spot.”

If your candidate’s sensitive area might be his/her home or personal life (recent divorce, recent marriage, recent engagement, recent child, etc.) . . . close #2 might work best for obvious reasons.

You get the idea. Now have fun with this as they call you back within minutes next time your candidate decides to ignore you.

THE VOICE MESSAGE:

“Hi, Bob, this is Frank from IRES, Inc. Being as voice mails are sometimes inaudible or get accidentally deleted, I’m leaving what is today the (second, third, etc) message for you with regard to ABC Company’s interest in moving forward. My guess is you did not receive the first message I left last week or I would have heard from you.

Being that time is of the essence and we have a narrow window of opportunity to work with . . . should I not hear from you today I will . . .

{continue with the appropriate closing script
for your situation}

1) USE THIS CLOSE IF YOU WERE PRE-VIOUSLY TOLD TO NOT CALL AT WORK OR DETECT SENSITIVITY ABOUT CALLING THEIR OFFICE:

” . . . call you at your desk at work sometime tomorrow morning and try to reach you there. I’ll get the direct line from someone else in your department.”

The prospect of you calling co-workers and snooping around for a direct line, then actually leaving a detailed message can be enough to get them off their fanny and call you in ten minutes flat.

2) USE THIS IF YOU KNOW THEIR HOME ADDRESS FROM THEIR RESUME:

” . . . stop by the house tomorrow evening and ring your doorbell. I’m getting worried something might have happened to you and would never forgive myself if I read about it in the papers without having checked up.”

You can modify this with an alternate ending such as:

“Oh, and in case your spouse might not know of your job search I will be discreet if he answers. Mum’s the word.”

Assuming getting a visit from another gender at home might not be convenient at this point in their life (“Honey, who’s that well-dressed guy that came ringing the doorbell for you?”), this should spark a reaction to call you back. This will work regardless of gender, however.

3) USE THIS CLOSE IF YOU KNOW THE SPECIFIC WORK ADDRESS AND/OR BUILD-ING:

” . . . swing by your office and stop up at your desk (or office). I will be visiting nearby anyway. If you’re not in, I’ll make sure to leave a visible 8 1/2 x 11-inch note taped to your door or cubicle with my business card in case you’ve lost my contact info.”

4) USE THIS IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICE OR INDIVIDUAL FAX NUMBER:

” . . . I’ll fax my complete contact info to (555) 555-1212 [repeat the fax number you possess]. And since faxes can be quite blurry, I’ll make sure to use very large, bold font as well as a magnified copy of my business card in the event you’ve lost my contact info. Be sure to look for it as it will be there in the output holder of your fax machine.”

The mental image of an 8 1/2 x 11-inch white or yellow, letter-sized note with your recruiting business card attached to it should be enough to cause them to head for the hills and call you immediately before the entire office finds out they’ve been talking to a recruiter.

Not to mention the thought of having an expanded copy of your business card sitting at the department’s fax for everyone to see.

Your tone of voice is key. If you sound threatening, this technique will backfire.

You must come across smooth, low key, soft spoken, genuine and sincere. I use a softer and more subdued tone of voice as the message itself should be sufficient to light a spark.

I also am sincere as I really would think little of getting in the car and driving across the state to knock on someone’s door especially if there’s an $18,000 fee involved . . . though I’ve never had to follow through because this technique has always resulted in a call back.

Keep in mind if your candidate hasn’t called back within 24-36 hours, chances are you’ve lost that candidate anyway. At the very least you can have the last chuckle and enjoy some entertainment as you sit back and watch them rearrange their schedule and scurry like jackrabbits in an attempt to stop you in your tracks from following through on any of the above promises.

Frank is a staffing and recruiting consultant and has been in the search profession since 1987. He provides one-on-one custom coaching. He has appeared on TV and Radio, and has been called upon by state and federal agencies for expert testimony. His recruiter training services, books and kits are found on www.searchwizardry.com. Call (973) 300-1010 for more information on his custom one-on-one recruiter coaching and training support services. Email: fris@iresinc.com Copyright 2007 © by Frank G. Risalvato.