The employee selection process is about as random and unscientific as anything can be. Resumes and interviews are nothing more than snapshots of the candidate. They can be touched up, enlarged and changed to present a different image.

Successful recruiters know that they are the photographers, and that a placement starts with presenting the right picture to the hiring authority.

This column will explore the four illogical, irrational but inevitable fallacies that affect their hiring decisions:

1. THE “WALKING JOB ORDER” FALLACY

You don’t have to be working a desk long to realize that job orders and profiles of “qualified” candidates bear little resemblance to each other.

Hiring authorities are like people who place “personal” classified ads in tabloids. They conjure up an ideal candidate in their mind that’s mostly fantasy. I did it myself for nine years as a personnel manager. You do it too when you’re hiring. You know what the employee looks, walks and talks like. Ability to do the job itself is inextricably connected to your desire for companionship, trust, whatever.

You can see the difference between this fantasy and reality by comparing the last candidate you placed to the JO. See what we mean? If more than one person is involved in working up the specs, it’s even crazier.

That doesn’t mean you should send out candidates who walk in the office backwards. Walking in the office with one foot in front of the other was recently proven to have a positive impact on hiring authorities. One of our clients inadvertently pressed the “reverse” button while presenting videotaped interviews to a hiring committee. (Fortunately, he had already spent the retainer so they were patient.)

So be careful whom you send out. But also recognize that hiring authorities only think they know what they want. A JO should be called a “WL” — a corporate “wish list.”

In Management by Motivation, Saul Gellerman says:

[F]antasy is too often the chief underpinning for selection. . . Most of the world’s work gets done, and done well enough, by ordinary people. All of it gets done by people who have some flaw or deficiency that is not altogether desirable in their work. . . [There] is the notion that there must be somebody somewhere who fits the specifications of a job and the whims of its managers perfectly.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take JO’s seriously. They have been known to provide insight into job duties.

2. THE APPRAISAL FALLACY

As we mentioned at the beginning, just a snapshot of the candidate is being seen.

Pre-employment interview forms, ratings and comments become the basis for deciding whom to hire. Everything is geared toward typecasting the candidate. The pressures of taking time away from doing the job they’re looking for someone to do makes hiring authorities stereotype. They focus too early on the traits rather than the person. Human Resourcers, with their pressures and desire to make their art a science, often don’t object.

Robert Ringer calls this the “Definition Game” in Looking Out for Number One. Here’s how it’s played:

We are all involuntary participants in the Definition Game. Because each of us is a unique human being with varying desires, tastes, prejudices, experiences and personality traits, we see things differently. . . What further complicates the game is that people have a habit of changing their definitions as they go along.

If you’re working with “clients” like this, I suggest you read The Headhunter and You by Marge Rossman. She tells of a candid conversation with the director of human resources of one:

We talked for about 30 minutes before she confessed that it was difficult to work in the organization’s totally impersonal atmosphere; that they had a very high employee turnover rate, which she attributed to the company’s attitude; and finally, that nothing was expected to change. . .

She suggested I might find it difficult to recruit for the organization unless I expected to see an abundance of candidates who would thrive in such an atmosphere.

I have not yet received an assignment from the company and do not know if I would accept one. . .

You may not have been so fortunate. That 30 minutes was a good investment.

3. THE TESTING FALLACY

Employers who test candidates are usually the same ones who pay retainers to find them. This is no coincidence. They turn the interviewing cycle into such a long, painful obstacle course that no contingency recruiter would want the hassle.

The employee testing industry thrives on a three-part fallacy:

a. That projective psychological tests can determine personality characteristics.

b. That certain jobs require certain personality characteristics.

c. That determining personality characteristics increases the probability of selecting the candidate most likely to succeed in the job.

The probability of success on the job has never been increased by the use of these tests. Training, yes. Testing, no.

If you see an employer that requires them, it’s worth challenging: The best way to choose a winner in the placement race is the same way you choose one in any race — check their track record.

4. THE PREDICTABILITY FALLACY

The appraisal and testing fallacies lead to the predictability fallacy. This is because they fail to consider the effect of the company environment on job performance. It’s so obvious that it’s overlooked.

The longer an interviewer has been with the company, the less likely they are to think about its uniqueness. You see this in your recruits all the time. The place is burning down, and they’re sitting at their desks suffocating from asphyxiation.

In The Winning Streak by Walter Goldsmith and David Clutterbuck, it is observed:

All the very successful companies in our survey appear to generate a remarkable level of commitment in their management. . . Although the people they employ may not be exceptional, they extract from them extraordinary levels of performance.

When you’re presenting candidates, preparing them for interviews and discussing the outcome with hiring authorities, you must stress how they will succeed with the client.

Lois Wyse tells the moral to the fallacy fable in Company Manners:

[The hiring authority] looked around to see what had happened to the second candidate, but he didn’t have to look very far. He was the sales manager of a competing company, the one that had just passed them. Someone had been willing to bet on a person, not a resume.

. . . One of the greatest talents of the headhunter is the ability to approach the unapproachable.

One of the most vital skills that you can learn as a recruiter is how to zero in on those searches that give you the best chance of making a placement – and to only focus on them. Is this a skill that takes time to master?? No, you can learn it the first time you hear about it. Is this difficult to do? Not at all, it’s simply a matter of having a workable rating system and acting on it. Is it time consuming? Of course not. Matter of fact it takes only about five minutes a day. But these five minutes can exponentially increase your billings.

A simple 5 minute system: You have probably heard of the idea of classifying your searches as A, B or C. The purpose of this article is outline a simple set of steps that will make this classification system into more of a practical, day-to-day compass for you.

“A” searches have all three of the following components:

1. Cooperation: The client returns calls within 48 hours and is open about all details of the search.
2. Urgency: They need to get the search filled ASAP.
3. Marketability: The position is attractive to candidates.

The search assignment white board: You need a system that makes it easy to prioritize your searches. The search assignment white board is simply a large dry erase board where you will write your current searches. The key is that you will visually represent them as either A, B or C.

Doing this will help you to remember that an A today could become a C tomorrow and vice versa. This board is a fluid, erasable, reminder for you and your team. Each morning, you should start your day by making any changes to the board based on new information.

The top left side of the board: This is for your “A” level searches. Put a big “A” in the top left hand side of the board. These searches get the best level of service from you which includes:

1. Original research, sourcing and name generation.
2. A full database search

The top middle of the board: This is for your “B” level searches. Put a big “B” in the top middle section of the board. These searches are missing one of the three components of an “A” level search. These searches warrant a database search but you will not do any original research on them.

The top right side of the board: This is for your “C” level searches. Put a big “C” in the top right section of the board. These searches are missing two or more of the three components of an “A” level search. These searches warrant neither a database search nor any original research.

Tell your clients about your board! This is a key step that many firms leave out. Now that you have your system for prioritizing your searches, you need to tell your clients about it. They need to know that you don’t treat all searches the same way. They need to know how they can get the best level of service from you.

Leaving out this step is one of the biggest reasons that many otherwise talented recruiters produce mediocre results. You don’t need to literally describe your board if you don’t want to, but communicate with your clients at the very front end of the process what you need from them in order to give them your best level of service.

The best five minutes of your day are those in which you will decide which searches will get your full attention. You now you have the system for prioritizing. Why not spend the next five minutes looking at your current searches and giving them a letter grade? Then call your “B’s” and “C’s” and see if they would like to move into your “A team.”

After every recession, the power pendulum swings away from the employer and toward the candidate.

Employees who have endured less than ideal working conditions during these economic downturns expect their employers to reward them when things turn around. When they don’t, they polish up their resumes and usually find a more than willing target audience.

Those who seek new employment during the down times are very cooperative. Find them a better job than they already have – or any job at all if they’re unemployed – and they are overjoyed to accept it and actually show up. When options are few, acceptances are many. Move from Philadelphia to Keokuk? No problem!

Unfortunately, once a person has placed themselves on the open market – whether you recruited them or whether they made the decision on their own – they become a lot more picky. For the “A” player (and even some of the “B” players), multiple offers are the rule rather than the exception. Things like big raises, sign on bonuses, relocation, more authority, company size, potential boss compatibility and a whole host of other factors enter in.

You may have recruited and convinced a superstar to consider your client’s opening, but once that momentum is established in the superstar’s mind, it is quite likely that they’ll explore many other opportunities – most of which will not be through you.

This results in last minute turndowns of offers you were sure would be accepted. In even worse cases, your candidate shows up at your client’s door only to finally confirm an offer from another firm they really wanted to work for – and they leave your client with an empty chair – and you with egg on your face. The dreaded falloff.

Of course, you can appeal to their sense of honor and integrity, but candidates today recognize that most jobs only last for a few years.

They don’t have any loyalty for the corporate world because the corporate world has proven they’ll drop them like a hot rock for no other reason than to maximize short-term profits. Employees no longer view themselves as an essential member of a job team. They view their jobs as a stepping-stone to a better job with their next company. Very few are susceptible to any attempts to lay guilt at their feet.

Steve Kohn, President of Affinity Search, expanded upon this phenomenon as follows:

“The reason for this trend is that over the course of the last 2 decades, the client companies have made it abundantly clear, especially to recently unemployed candidates, they will be discarded the moment they are no longer being fully utilized. There are noteworthy exceptions, of course, but in the end no candidate considers any job change to be permanent. Neither does any employee. Want proof?? When is the last time you recruited someone who did not have an up to date resume? So, we now have a national talent-force of intellectual mercenaries. There is no such thing as commitment any more. Therefore, when a jobseeker gets his first offer, he does what any mercenary would do: shop it for higher bidders. Naturally, he’ll accept the one he has in hand, because he needs a job, and it strengthens him for those with whom he’s still negotiating. Human nature is that we want that which we can’t have. So, once the jobseeker has a job, the others that he is still speaking with will want him more, and will now pay more.

Additionally, the professional gender gap has narrowed to the extent that the female wage earner no longer “follows” the male wage earner to wherever the income and opportunity is greatest. Location matters a lot. Many candidates accept jobs in other cities and take weekday apartments while still actively looking for something closer to home or in a location that is more agreeable to the career needs of both parties. Also, a driving philosophy of this generation is that parents serve the children, not the reverse. Therefore, social issues and schools, etc. become much greater issues than before. This is yet another factor that contributes to the trend of “taking the job you can get” while still searching for “the job you want.”

During the heyday of the 1960s, defense/aerospace splurges, mid-level engineers were viewed as “itinerant fruit pickers” by employers. They’d follow the contracts. Some companies even made them sign 18-month contracts with monetary sanctions if they left before then. The building of the DEW and BMEWS systems are a great example. The work was close to the Arctic Circle at double the pay rate of a comparable job in the USA and tax-free to boot. The joke of the day was that if someone could even pronounce the word “electronics” and was willing to live in a company-provided Quonset hut for 18 months, they were hired. After 18 months, they were expected to leave their employers and only those who were single, weird or social misfits were allowed to sign on for a second 18-month tour of duty. A lot of recruiters became very wealthy placing these short-termers but, basically, ours is a business where our claim to fame is in locating and providing “A” players. “B” and “C” players populate the job boards and are not our usual targets, even though there are exceptions. “A” players almost always know that they are “A” players. Peter Weddle, in his newsletter (www.weddles.com) wrote:

“Stripped of its embellishments, recruitment is an exercise in persuasion. Its purpose is to sell an employer to an extraordinary candidate. Not any candidate, not an average candidate, but a person who is among the best in their profession, craft or trade. Why? Because these A-level performers are much more productive than their mediocre peers. According to the McKinsey & Company report called The War for Talent, they provide a 50-100% performance premium to their employers, adding significantly to sales booked, customer satisfaction, quality of output and internal morale. In other words, selling A-level performers on the value proposition of your organization as an employer is the key to winning … not only the War for Talent, but the War for a Big Bottom Line in today’s hyper-competitive markets.”

The key word in the above quote is persuasion. And that seems to be where the ball is dropped when turndowns occur. Jim McNeal, Managing Partner of International Search Partners (ISP) told us, “Without sounding like too much of a hard case, it sounds like bad recruiting to me. I don’t think the uptick in the recruiting business causes fall-offs. I think poor recruiting causes fall-offs. Specifically, if a recruiter develops a proper and respectful relationship with the candidates they work with, fall-offs of the kind you describe simply do not happen.”

Peter Weddle says: “First, we have to recognize that the best and brightest have choices. They are highly valued by their current employer and sought out by other employers all of the time. To be successful, therefore, we have to “out-sell’ both. We have to develop and communicate a value proposition that is so persuasive it compels top talent to buy into our employer, even in the face of all of that other competition.

Second, we have to recognize that consumers, but especially fickle consumers (and that’s precisely what top talent is), want a lot of detailed information about the product they are being asked to buy. And increasingly, they are turning to the Internet to find it. According to David Leonhardt of The New York Times, as people get closer to a buying decision, they switch from looking at ads on television and in magazines to conducting research online. Said another way, they move from general, emotional appeals to specific, objective information about a product’s features and benefits.”

You may do a magnificent job of influencing your candidate. Unfortunately, you have very little control over what’s said and done by your client and many a deal has gone awry because of something stupid being said by someone in the interview loop. Nor can you control the “Lookie Lou” inclinations of motivated candidates

Practitioner Tim Rosswell said, “Once my candidate moves into the inner circle of contention, I communicate with them on an almost daily basis, probing for possible problems and, from the first indication of interest from them, I include conversations with their spouse since they can be either instrumental in a successful outcome – or detrimental to the deal. Family obligations and responsibilities are especially decisive when the job requires relocation. My checklist has two columns – one for the candidate and one for the spouse. I once lost a $50,000 fee for a V.P. deal that would have been perfect for everybody because the candidate’s wife refused to believe that she could find another suitable ballet teacher for their little five-year old princess in the new city.”

Trainer Joseph Zawacki put it this way, “Like a good doctor, you will continue to take the temperature of both the hiring authority and the candidate at every stage of the placement process. Remember: Closing is a continuous process.”

The major reasons for taking a job are the same as those for turndowns if there is perceived to be a deficit in one of the following:

• Salary
• Challenge
• Permanence
• Advancement potential
• Benefit package
• Quality of supervision
• Potential growth or prestige of the company

The two toughest problems to over come are counteroffers and relocation.

Counteroffers: This ago-old nemesis is becoming harder to counteract without some hard-core preventive measures. You can reliably expect a counteroffer for most “A” players. (See the latest version of the written countermeasure at: http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/perspective/20040809-fmp.html).

It should be one of the first things discussed with recruits and should be reiterated often as the deal comes closer to fruition. Rosswell approaches it this way with candidates: “If my client makes an offer to you which is in line with your career expectations, what kind of a counteroffer would you expect to receive from your current employer? How receptive would you be to accepting a counteroffer that meets or exceeds my client’s offer?”

Depending upon the answer to this question, some variable of the following is communicated: “Survey after survey has demonstrated that accepting a counteroffer can be very harmful to your career no matter how tempting it might be. My role in this relationship is twofold. First, I want to be sure that my client’s opportunity is really a step forward in your career progression. Secondly, I have an obligation to my client to only introduce candidates who are truly interested in making a mutual long-term contribution. In essence, my reputation is on the line as well, so if there are any doubts in your mind at this or any subsequent stage of the process, now is the time to voice them, get answers to them and bow out before more serious conversations take place.”

But even the most skilled consultant may fail with this argument. Deborah Millhouse of CEO Inc. weighed in as follows: “With top talent, it is cheaper for the companies they are losing to ante up the compensation (BIG $$’s) with a counteroffer than to lose the talent.? The candidates are able to stay without retribution of any type, because they need them.? [The old techniques] don’t work with this generation.? That being said, the company that makes the counteroffer may regret the message that they sent to their other employees – hostage situations rarely end well – and it’s a set up. We qualify and re-qualify, prep and re-prep. It helps to also get a firm commitment in writing for their acceptance.? I heard of one firm getting the commitment from the candidate that they would re-pay the fee if they took the counter – we don’t do that, but an interesting position.”

The document mentioned by Ms. Millhouse is known as a Position Acceptance Agreement which we addressed several years ago as follows:

If you’re still concerned about a counteroffer or other problem with your candidate, a Position Acceptance Agreement (PAA) can be used. It should look official, be on plain paper (not letterhead – remember the rules of construction), and state the following:

I, _______________________________ hereby acknowledge and affirm that I have accepted the position of ____________________ with___________, at an annual starting salary of $_______, through _____________________.

I further covenant and agree to report for employment on __________, 20___.

It doesn’t really bind the candidate, but this secret’s safe with us. What it does is place a moral obligation upon the candidate to do what they promised to do. A great deal of money (your fee) is riding on the veracity of your candidate. They can back out of the deal on a mere whim. If that’s their plan, they won’t sign the PAA and, at least, you’ll know in advance.

Others have gone a step further by calling this agreement a Client Invoice Authorization and adding,

“I understand that (new employer) has agreed to pay the service fee of $_________to (Recruiting firm) and that my agreement authorizes (Recruiting firm) to submit invoice to (new employer).”

While some feel that this revelation of the actual fee is a bit tasteless, others think that by placing a price tag on the transaction makes the candidate aware of what is really at stake. However, in more than one case, the candidate asked for a percentage of the fee as a kickback or bribe to sign the agreement . . . not the desired result.

Relocation: What you want to hear is, “I’ll go anywhere for the right job.” In fact, reality is far different. Except for very senior executives, relocation policies are notoriously stingy and the gap between what’s offered to cover moving costs and the real costs are widening. Red flags, no matter what you are told, abound. Dual breadwinner families are the toughest to move, but other reasons for not wanting to move are legion. It is a rare family that comes through a move whole so some thoughtful probing must take place. Will an avid skier be happy in Iowa? Or a surfer is Kansas?

Have they ever made a move for their career before? Quiz them on the details. If they’ve ever done it before, it becomes easier for them to do it again. If they haven’t, it’s an uphill climb. They’ll say yes but the odds are against you. Having voluminous information about the target city can be helpful, even if only marginally so. Relocation is a BIG speed bump. Tough, but not impossible. Start with a phone call to the local chamber of commerce. Ask for everything about the community (housing, schools, industries, businesses, historical landmarks, churches, recreational activities, etc.). The directory of members will give you more leads to specific items. Ask for it along with maps, brochures, lists of real estate agents, etc. A call to the local phone company for the Yellow Pages will help too.

Remember, you are paid a fee for only one thing: Finding a suitable candidate who will say “Yes” to a reasonable offer from your client. Unfortunately, too many cross their fingers thinking that a “maybe” will automatically become a “Yes.” Then when the deal falls apart at the last minute, they wonder why. The real pros will cover all of these checklist items (and more):

• Salary
• Profit Sharing
• Bonus
• Salary Review Periods
• Sign-On Bonus
• Relocation Package
• Potential for Advancement
• Available Career Paths
• Position Title
• Benefits
• Insurance
• Vacation
• Educational/Tuition/Certification Reimbursement
• Expense Account
• Company Car
• Professional Dues
• Retirement Options
• Club Membership
• Office Space
• Secretarial Assistance
• Company Culture
• Office Politics
• Compatibility/Congeniality of Bosses/Peers/Subordinates
• Work Environment
• Full Utilization of Skills
• Necessary Resources for Work and
• Anything else you can think of.

Then refer to your original notes as to what the candidate told you they really wanted from a new job.

Go down the list with the candidate. If your powers of persuasion are keen enough, and if there are just minor disparities between the offers, you should prevail.

If your candidate is considering other offers, you can interject things about the “other” companies you might know because of your dealings with them (or candidates from them). We don’t recommend fabrication or falsehood, but you may be able to sway the candidate your way by introduction of some timely anecdotes about the rival companies’ offers.

Just hope that they aren’t from another recruiter who will probably do the same thing with the candidate on their home turf.

With growing frequency, companies are telling recruiters that they will not honor our referrals because “they already exist in our Monster.com account (or some similar job board).” With millions of often worthless resumes residing on Monster, HotJobs and CareerBuilder, it’s a bit like saying, “We found that candidate’s name in the phone book after you made us aware of them and, even though we haven’t communicated with them, we might have found them anyway and are denying your referral.”

From an HR point of view, this makes perfect sense. Why pay a fee for someone who is in their database (or wherever else they warehouse this stuff) even though they were totally neglected or abandoned by HR until a recruiter tapped them on the shoulder with a valid referral reminder? Brian Walker of The Wise Group said it succinctly when he wrote, “ I am not the client’s tickler file.” Even if they aren’t in their database, almost anyone’s background can be found somewhere. Weighing the alternatives between paying a fee or telling a recruiter to get lost once they know about a dormant candidate’s renewed interest, which alternative do you think they’ll choose?

I seem to regularly beat up on the HR community. That’s probably because I was there once upon a time. Been there, done that! And, fully half the calls I receive revolve around some problem or ethical lapse on the part of some HR person. All this talk about being a strategic partner with top management may be true in some very large companies but, by and large, it is a load of hooey, promulgated by HR folks during their conventions to mutually convince one another how important they think they are to their respective employers. Dr. John Sullivan, HR guru extraordinaire recently wrote: “As a result of their efforts, most HR professionals are no longer confined to the personnel office; many organizations now reserve a seat at the boardroom table for the senior-most practitioner. But in reality, has the modern-day practitioner truly evolved? Study after study points to the conclusion that, while HR professionals can now talk a decent game, they make no attempt to actually play it.”

While some of them are quite essential in areas such as insurance, pension administration, government regulation oversight and other benefit programs, there are just as many whose bureaucratic duties include such minutia as selecting the color of the guard force uniforms, assigning parking spaces or deciding how many peas should be put on a tray in the company cafeteria.

But, alas, the most vital function on which they should be focusing is talent acquisition . . . and that’s an area where they fail miserably. There are so few outstanding ‘internal recruiters’ they could hold their conventions in a phone booth. Too often, the job is given to HR rookies or to ‘good old Ralph’ as somewhere to spend his last few years before retiring. Some companies have even thought about moving the recruiting function into the sales/marketing departments instead of maintaining it in the stultifying officialdom of HR’s domain. Propinquity to a bureaucratic HR department is frequently deleterious to the goal.

Or, as so many have done, hire someone from our industry … usually people who couldn’t make it in private search or recruiting. They talk a great game but rarely walk the walk. Their greatest skill seems to be putting up roadblocks or speed bumps to deter (or outright block) their former colleagues from dealing with their firms’ ability to attract the ‘A’ players that cause a company to grow.

I have nothing inherently against the job boards. Every company has grunt jobs where all that is needed is a steady chair warmer. The job boards are fine for these interchangeable clones. These are not the people we are paid to find. We are paid to nominate candidates who are prepped and persuaded to say yes under the right conditions. If they happen to also reside in a company’s database from some long past communication or mass Internet harvesting effort, but had not been identified by a neglectful, under-skilled or overworked HR recruiter, a fee should be paid. Unfortunately, that would just confirm the fact that an HR recruiter dropped the ball so they’ll find any way they can to come out on top and save face (and a fee).

Oh sure, there are some ethical recruiters out there. I never realized how few there were until I asked our readers about some of their experiences. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that hiring managers evaluate potential candidates far differently than some HR functionary. The hiring manager should be the very first contact. Unfortunately, for most firms, it is the last. HR has deemed their appraisal skills to trump those of the person with the pain-producing open job. I could fill a book with some of the stupid reasons HR has passed on a ‘perfect’ candidate without sending them on to the hiring manager.

They have attempted to codify their dominance in the process through increasingly restrictive contracts and, unfortunately, some practitioners even sign them. That, of course, has been mainly a result of a slow economy. Things have changed. HR hasn’t yet caught up with the fact that they are once again headed towards the bottom of the corporate pecking order.

We surveyed several hundred of our readers recently. Here’s what we asked them

One of the growing problems reported by readers is that of dormant candidates. These are jobseekers whose resumes reside in a client’s (or potential client’s) database because they have previously answered ads, responded to a job board posting, been referred by another recruiter, etc. Sometimes, they have already been interviewed and rejected. In most cases, they have been long forgotten as candidates for current openings, normally because of neglect on the part of the HR department, until you refer them for a current position. Then, often after they decide to make an offer to your candidate, they ‘discover’ that they already had the candidate in their files and refuse to pay your fee. Some companies even go so far as to disallow your referrals (and your fees) if they happen to find them afterwards on Monster, HotJobs or other similar cyberspace sources, saying. “We would have found them anyway.”

Our questions for you are:

Has this ever happened to you? (Details please)

How did you resolve it?

Does your contract or agreement cover this possibility?

I was astounded at the response levels. We are publishing as many of the responses as we can because they should act as a large blinking ‘Caution’ sign in your dealings with clients and potentials. Although less than 5% of the respondents said it had never happened to them, the majority of the comments are instructive as a prophesy of things to come.

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad, the glad with the sad and the happy with the crappy. The remarks of our readers (at the end of this issue) demonstrate this far better than I could.

The topic of dormant candidates was covered in A. Bernard Frechtman’s (Abflaw@att.net) new book “Staffing Industry Law” as follows:

“There is also the problem where, after the referral and the interview, the company discovers the candidate’s resume in its own files and thereby claims it does not owe the recruiter a fee. There the ‘But For’ rule can clearly decide the question. ‘But For’ the recruiter having sent the candidate to the employer, the employer would not have interviewed the applicant. The question of whether the employer eventually would have interviewed the candidate on its own is pure conjecture which the law disregards. The fact is that the employer interviewed the candidate as a result of the recruiter’s referral and not because the candidate’s resume was in its file. The fact that the resume was lost or discovered on the employer’s desk after the appointment was made is of no effect.”

Nevertheless, the legalities of enforcing payment in these situations depends upon a very few necessary components. In a nutshell, they are:

– A signed agreement While some practitioners still operate under a verbal ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ in their dealings with clients, this can be very dangerous to your financial well being. In Massachusetts, for example, if you don’t spell your agreement out in writing, you can forget collecting a fee – righteous or not. While it may feel heartwarming to have some clients where your relationship does not seem to require a signed agreement, it is impractical to assume that a situation may not change (your buddy leaves the company, policies change, etc.)

– A time certain on referral protection Although many practitioners do not specify any time limit on candidate ownership, it is unrealistic to assume a judge will protect your referral forever. As attorney Jeff Allen pointed out in our 11/02 issue and revisits in this issue, a distinct and confirmed time limit is really the only bulletproof way to win.

– Causation If you can directly connect the dots between your referral and the hire, a fee will be due. But this roadmap from Point A (the referral) to Point Z (the hire) can be littered with detours, roadblocks and an unlimited number of intervening events which can send your voyage into the ravine.

While these are the simple components to successfully collecting a fee, the key proposition with all of them is ‘proof.’ Truth and proof can lie at opposite ends of the dispute spectrum. Documentation is the key. Remember, in most cases, this is a David and Goliath scenario you against a large company with a legal staff just itching to fight you every step of the way.

I invented the Authorization to Refer form which I recommend having every candidate sign or acknowledge. Many practitioners have used it to their advantage and a version of it appears in the reader remarks in the back of this issue. If the candidate, in writing, gives you the ownership rights for a particular referral transaction, it’s tough for a hirer to dispute. But the disputes are between you and the reluctant company. The candidate is merely the peripheral subject of the deal. They can be used as a witness on your behalf to the fact that they thought (at the time they signed it) that their resume had never been placed in a company database with their permission, but it is not a deciding factor in any legal action. Persuasive, yes! Decisive, no!