Comments on: Candidate – Recruiter Relationships: Overrated?

By: Fundoo recruiter

Fundoo recruiter — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:49:59 +0000

Very relevant post!
I too believe in the “value” concept and share similar thoughts as you.

will follow your blog regularly!

By: Jason DUlin

Jason DUlin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:36:11 +0000

Very interesting take on “relationship recruiting” vs transactional. I think this is where the art and science meet. The numbers don’t lie. Transactional recruiting can and should create more placements. However, this assumes that we have everything we need from the client and are playing on equal ground with the competition. This is where I think relationships can make all the difference. I would be hard pressed to believe that volume submittals on a req that is not clearly defined can be overcome by matching more candidates to the job. If you are shooting for A, but the client wants B, then all the ammo in the world won’t land the kill. Developing relationships with candidates is a critical piece to developing market inteligence and gaining an edge on the competition. It also leads to referals which leads to more candidates and a larger network. Do you need to be friends for life? Nope, but you do need to recognize and offer a mutually beneficial relationship that leverages both the candidate and agency’s wisdom to strategically go after a volume of opportunities in the market.

In today’s extremely competitive market, a relationship can lead to better client inteligence; ie candidates will call you about possible matches and new opportunities they receive from your competitors, often at your client, before you call them. I also believe that if you cultivate the right relationships, the referral network is of more value as great candidates recommend their great colleagues and friends.

The value of client inteligence can often outweigh the value of a high volume of candidates as well. Let’s face it. Our job descriptions don’t always tell us what the client is looking for. A well connected candidate can give us the inside track or manager connection we’ve been looking for to give us a competitive advantage. All things are rarely equal and knowing more about the client may be the difference between the right match and a high submit to start ratio.

By: Boolean Black Belt

Boolean Black Belt — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:18:06 +0000

@Zac, @Will, @Steven, @Chernee, @Jennifer, @Scott – thank you very much for your comments!

There is no doubt that relationships are extremely important in recruiting. However, as a few of you pointed out – a deep and long lasting relationship is not required or necessary to provide value to a candidate, nor do I think most candidates are actually looking to develop “relationships” with recruiters.

I believe it is a worthwhile effort to look at recruiting from the candidate’s perspective. After all, as the customers of recruiting services, only candidates can truly define the value that recruiters provide.

By: Scott Boren

Scott Boren — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:57:16 +0000

I think relationships are important. Talented people in every market should have one or two recruiters they talk to from time to time. A really good recruiter should be able to offer some level of advice on the market for which they recruit. Another “value” to the candidate.

That being said, the bottom line is if any recruiter gets a candidate involved with a job change that is aligned with the candidate’s goals, a long term relationship would not matter to them.

By: Twitted by jaccov

Twitted by jaccov — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:56:57 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by jaccov [...]

By: Jennifer McClure

Jennifer McClure — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:49:09 +0000

As always, you make some very valid points Glen. For me, the difference between being a relationship oriented Recruiter versus transaction oriented is in the long term goal. For me, my goal is to develop business opportunities by getting client companies to engage me to fill key leadership roles. So the “relationships” that I develop with talented candidates along the way may either result in an opportunity to place them with one of my clients – or if not, when they do land I want to be the Recruiter that they call to help them fill needs at their new company. While I may not be the Recruiter who was part of the successful “transaction” that resulted in their new role, I may well be the one that they turn to for the ongoing business relationship. If one of my “relationships” lands a new role – through their own efforts or through another Recruiter, I’m happy for them and stay in touch. Because I’m interested in the ongoing transactions that are the product of our relationship versus only one to place them.

I do agree that the term “relationship” is over-used and it’s impossible to have in-depth relationships with multiple candidates, but I do think it’s important to realize that the relationship oriented approach does provide benefits (for both parties potentially) – especially in retained search.

By: Chernee Vitello

Chernee Vitello — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:05:09 +0000

The value that I provide a candidate is a trusted advisor. I help a candidate go through a very stressful and life changing process and have to help them look and way the positive and negative aspects about a job opportunity. As a recruiter you need to know how to build and establish trust very quickly and that in turns builds the rrlationship. Some candidates do not wait the relationsip to be long term where others do.

By: Steven Gilbert

Steven Gilbert — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:17:31 +0000

Excellent post Glen.

It’s great when you already know the passive candidate you’re calling but a long-term relationship is not required in my experience. What’s required is the ability to engage these candidates professionally, establish credibility, and begin a dialogue about opportunities.

Many passive candidates we engage on new searches are evaluating the “fit” of the role…not whether or not they’ve known us for the last 10 years.

By: Will at Virtualjobcoach

Will at Virtualjobcoach — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:44:15 +0000

Very interesting post. In the past, I have interacted (as a client) with more than a few recruiters and find the term ‘relationship’ to be somewhat laughable. IMHO, recruiters connect candidates with jobs, jobs are now transactions and recruiters facilitate those transactions. Having a relationship, to me, is more than “let’s look at this oppo I have” or “I am looking for X, do you know anyone”. These seem to be the two times that recruiters contact me, they have something and want to consider me in placement, or they don’t have someone and want to tap my network. Given these main two contact points, I don’t know where the ‘relationship’ comes in. Factor in the fact that, in the last few years, companies (and, hence, recruiters) have been looking for ‘exact fit’ candidates and you have a sector that, while it has potential for relationships, practically, I haven’t see them.

By: Zac Rizzo

Zac Rizzo — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:21:41 +0000

I don’t think relationships are understated until maintaining them puts a recruiter at their bandwidth and as a result their pipeline starts to suffer. Recruiting is a juggling act sometimes, and anyone who can juggle knows; that it’s important to keep all the balls in the air an equal amount of time.