A couple weeks about I wrote about technology being a more powerful source of job loss as compared to outsourcing. This was picked up by the Recruiting Animal with a question: “Will Automation Kill Recruiting?” My thought is that automation won’t kick recruiting, but perhaps there’s some other form of change in the works. I don’t remember what session this was in, but it was probably in “Creating Meaningful Connections” (which I actually didn’t attend). Some of the discussion however was about recruiters, their contacts and networks, and who those contacts belong to. ((From the Talent UnConference, January 25, 2007. Ideas expressed in this post may be directly attributed to the TalUnCon or might have been triggered by a discussion there.))
Unfortunately, the role of the recruiter is in part to create a relationship with the job seeker. Good recruiters have large networks of a specific type of talent pool, and that makes them attractive to you as an employer. Hiring a recruiter can increase the talent pool you have available. Losing the recruiter can cause the reverse effect. So while the role of the recruiter may be to create a relationship with the job seeker, I’d suggest that this role of the recruiter is mis-directed. Instead of creating a meaningful relationship between the recruiter and the job seeker, the goal should instead be to create a meaningful relationship between the employer’s value proposition and the job seeker. In this case, the recruiter is only a conduit.
But the recruiter as conduit is problematic as well. If only a conduit, then does the theory that recruiters with large networks of meaningful connections dissipates? I’m not sure that these relationships I talked about, between the EVP or the recruiter, are mutually exclusive. The recruiter must be able to form a relationship with the job seeker in order to be valuable. On the other hand, if the recruiter is not tying job seekers to the current employer’s EVP, they simply are not effective at their job.
While I’ve written often about the EVP, or what I call the employer brand, it is basically what attracts an employee to the employer. So I’d twist the question from “who is the relationship with, EVP or recruiter?” to “is the recruiter a tool of the EVP, or vice versa?” Clearly, I think that the recruiter’s network should be levered ((“Leveraged” is not a word. The proper verb is to “lever”. Just a pet peeve.)) to bring job seekers to the employer’s EVP. However, this also suggests that the EVP is the highest power, reinforcing the role of recruiter as conduit – although necessary conduit.
At any rate, I like controversy – bring it on…
7 responses to “The Role of the Recruiter”
systematicHR.com
if not of greater importance than the external career brand. The efforts must be synchronized to insure what was sold, continues to be reinforced throughout the employment lifecycle. Here is a link to the post Another infusion of knowledge.. Link to systematicHR – Human Resources Strategy and Human Resources Technology » The Role of the Recruiter
[…] Systematic HR: The Role of the Recruiter “Unfortunately, the role of the recruiter is in part to create a relationship with the job seeker. Good recruiters have large networks of a specific type of talent pool, and that makes them attractive to you as an employer. Hiring a recruiter can increase the talent pool you have available. Losing the recruiter can cause the reverse effect. So while the role of the recruiter may be to create a relationship with the job seeker, I’d suggest that this role of the recruiter is mis-directed. Instead of creating a meaningful relationship between the recruiter and the job seeker, the goal should instead be to create a meaningful relationship between the employer’s value proposition and the job seeker. In this case, the recruiter is only a conduit.” […]
I’ll be delighted to “bring on the controversy.” Several years ago I was facilitating a “recruiting best practices” workshop with a jumbo financial services firm. Approximately 30 of their top recruiters from around the country flew in for this 3 day session. In spite of the fact that this employer had several hundred top recruiters, the new hire turnover exceeded 40%. So, one of the things we pointed out was the concept of using tools (like predictive modeling) to identify not only solid performers, but people that would stick around. Not only would this be more profitable, but it would reduce the need to hire so many new people. While this made sense on paper, the attendees didn’t like the idea. Why? It’s quite simple… Job security. The same logic applies here. Unfortunately, people, including recruiters, don’t always do what’s right for their employers. They do what’s right for them. It’s plain ole human nature. So, you asked for controversy, hope this met your expectation.
Howard – I’ve often thought the same thing, and often we provide incentive plans that tell recruiters to recruit bad employees. When we give volume or time to fill incentives, that’s about getting the masses in the door – not keeping them around.
[…] The Role of the Recruiter Unfortunately, the role of the recruiter is in part to create a relationship … Hiring a recruiter can increase the talent pool you have available. … Instead of creating a meaningful relationship between the recruiter and the job … Related: • The • Role • of • the • Recruiter […]
[…] lifecycle. Here is a link to the post Another infusion of knowledge.. Link to systematicHR – Human Resources Strategy and Human Resources Technology ?? The Role of th… 1013 Views 0 Comments 0 References Permalink Tags: […]