The panel by Peter Gold
It has been a few days since #MBuzz, hosted by Monster. I like the format of this event. It is half conference (the Q & A part anyway), and half unconference, in that anyone can talk and give an opinion. The plus side of this is that the discussion will take a few twists and turns, with points coming up that wouldn’t have in a conference format. The downside to having a panel facing an audience is that the panel are the focus of attention is always on the panel, and if much of the audience holds an opposing viewpoint it can get a bit hostile. A bit them versus us. The benefit of the unconference format is that the conversation can move from one person to the other, and no one person is on the receiving end of all the attention. The audience on Thursday evening was mostly agency recruiters, where as the panel was made up of some senior talent acquisition professionals. I thought the event raised some very important questions that highlight some of the challenges businesses face right now around the area of turfism.
Turfism is destructive in business, but it is easy to see how the current economic climate has created a situation where everyone wants to protect their position and their worth, and to fight off what they see as insurgency from other departments.
Agency recruiters have always had a tenuous relationship with HR departments with mutual distrust on both sides. The reasoning behind this is that HR departments have been set up to be the bastion of hiring activity, and to “protect” the line from making deals outside of the agreements the organisation has asked them to set up by way of PSL’s. As a trainer, I taught recruiters to try to avoid HR and always talk direct to the hiring manager wherever possible. The HR department was seen as the “enemies” to recruiters doing business. At the same time as spreading this gospel through training, I also wore an HR hat in the business, and my job was to manage the agreements (at a fixed fee) with the Rec to Rec agencies, and to make sure that the branches did not fix their own deals.
The majority of in-house recruiters start life as agency recruiters. In the UK, internal sourcing is a new function set up over the last year or so. The switch
One of the panel, Rob Jones, made an excellent point in his summing up, which I think gets to the heart of the conflict. The function of HR in an organisation is greatly misunderstood. The perception of HR as an admin dept whose purpose is to stop rather than enable is a very dated one. My view is that every aspect of human involvement in a business falls under the HR remit. I don’t see recruiting being any different to learning and development, performance management or any of the “people” aspects of the business. Recruiters are responsible for introducing people, and that has to be central to human resources, not separate. There is no reason why someone from the recruiting team can’t lead the whole human resource effort, or from any other arm of human resources, learning and development, payroll or legal. Business needs the best leaders in the business to lead, rather than dividing functions. One business, one vision, one purpose. I know plenty of people who work in HR functions. None of them could ever be described as cardigan wearing administrators, and a lot more specialists, expert in one discipline of HR.
My take away from #MBuzz is that there is too much turfism in organisations, rather than shared vision. The view was raised that perhaps recruiting should be a part of the marketing team, because recruiting has more or less become marketing, and recruiters should be working to similar metrics for talent attraction and conversion to hires as marketing work to for customer attraction and conversion. There is also the argument that candidates should be treated like customers, and marketing know best how to deal with customers.
The counter argument is that recruiting is all about sales, particularly when the recruiting team is taking a direct sourcing approach. There is plenty of prospecting, qualifying, closing and converting. The sales funnel is similar to the hiring funnel, could it be that recruiting should sit within the sales team, with the added benefit that the sales statistics could be easier to catalogue?
And so it goes on. Recruiting seems to be a homeless department at the moment, not wanting to be seen as a function of HR, but not being placed anywhere else in the organisation either. My view is that recruiting is an HR function, much the same as learning and development and other HR functions, because recruiting is ultimately about people, and the people in the organisation are the realm of the HR department.
The question that seemed to ruffle the most feathers was if HR and Recruiting required a whole different DNA. My answer to this is that all the different parts that make up the HR team have a different DNA. The payroll people need different skills and qualities to learning and development, to compensation and benefits, to an HR generalist, and yes, to recruiting. They all share one common thread though, the support of the people in the business from entry to exit, and it is this that gives them shared purpose in the organisation.
The last thoughts I had before leaving #MBuzz was that in fighting between departments and teams over who lives together is counter productive and destructive to the organisation. Better to get a bit of unity and focus on beating the competition to the best talent, taking the best from HR, Sales, Marketing and all of the business. One company, one direction and one objective. People are the essential ingredient, and from hire to exit they come under the remit of the HR dept in all its guises, including recruiting.
#MBuzz was a great event for posing plenty of questions that needed a bit of thinking time, which is why I enjoy them. The panels are the catalyst for the conversation that lights the touch-paper. My personal thanks and respect go to Rob Jones from Mastersorbust blog, Donna Miller from Enterprise, Charu Malhorta from Unilever, and Simon Boulcott from AIB, who formed the panel and sat in the firing line. I thought you all did a great job. Thanks also to David Henry of Monster and Keith Robinson of E-com for hosting. I look forward to next months question.
Bill
Bill, thank you for an excellent review of the #mbuzz, as the chair I must confess I was slightly taken aback by the level as you would say “turfism” and the aggressive nature that some showed towards the panel…. particularly on/via Twitter.
I also agree that the balance in the room was more 3rd party recruiter and RPO and a few more HR professionals would have created a better balance.
Regarding your conclusions, despite for many years believing that the recruiting function should sit either in a stand alone unit or report to marketing, I have come to realize that it is a key part of the HR “offer” to the organisation and that increasingly it’s importance to the organisation is being recognized at board level.
The more you silo functions the more you get a turf war, in my view today “Recruiting” should be working with HR, IT, Marketing and The PR teams + often the best recruiter in an organisation, if briefed right, is the CEO i.e Richard Branson or Stuart Rose ex CEO of M&S’s.
Bill, I also agree re the DNA of people in every function will be different and that even within HR and Recruitment you will see differences BUT i suppose my own “stereotype is that recruiters are “hunter” and HR “farmers” BUT in a world where the “candidate experience”, onboarding are incredibly important function that HR should own.
Anyway great blog and thanks for your support and contributions.
Keith
Interesting subject, interesting input and comments from people like you Bill and Keith having been around for a long time (this said as a compliment as it enables a more holistic and balanced view) why reflected in what and how you have written this biog post Bill.
In particular I think the notion of one company, one direction and all that this entails is really all that matters.
Few in-house people display any ‘turfism’ and/or favouring either particular external agents or sources, – it is what is best for the business that matters, any person involved in recruitment on the inside is measured on the quality of hire, – where that solution come from is of no real consequence. In short ‘what is good for the business is good for me’ and so it should be.
Not wanting to knock or fuel the debate on agency or in-house best solution, – best agents I have ever worked with are those that ‘get the business proposal’, understand and acknowledge the business issues that a person/candidate can help resolve/fill. Unfortunately that in depth understanding and engagement is rare, why there is this ‘them and us’ If approach and dialogue more on the basis of true solution finding business partnership then agents have shown their true worth and deserve a place. If focus is on sales and commission then that entire dimension becomes lost. I currently have an agent that has called me about a candidate that has a tried and tested and proven background in making a significant business impact relevant to my business. This all on the basis of some of the shared challenges and issues part of the business faces. Agent is subsequently displaying a genuine business understanding and pro-actively coming up with a possible solution. As for the entire model and reward system in agency recruitment that is actually making things worse, why here the fundamental flaw in the whole set up and why it cannot evolve.
Rather than discuss and focus on whether recruitment/talent acquisition being strategic or not and where it should sit, allow me to ask: What is it that makes a company/product/service? Where do ideas, initiatives and solutions come from? – Apart from the planet earth the kingdom of plants, minerals and animals, e v e r y t h i n g is man made, – why the simple answer is people.
As such forget about about the strategic discussion and where recruitment sit, – the answer is; no people, – no products/solutions/companies/organisations, – nothing.
For that reason and apologies if I sound biased, the single most important function is to get the right, he best, the most innovative, enthusiastic people in through the front door and then enable them to thrive and make a company/a product a solution a success. The whole ‘turfism’ debate is redundant when that becomes the perspective, – it is about ensuring that and nothing else.
As said by Keith and the level we have reached in terms of HR and talent atrraction/engagement; it all hangs together and is inter-dependent and only by ensuring that every possible opportunity explored, enhanced, enabled will there be a chance of success. The role of HR is to ‘bind all this together’ make it happen and constantly have a focus on how to improve. Those that ‘get it’ and who understand the value and the opportunity in this will thrive, – those that don’t will not.