Recruitment is changing, there is no doubt about that, but there is a particular trend that seems to be gaining momentum that recruiters should be very conscious of because it could have a major impact on the role of the in-house recruiter. This could be the beginning of the end of in-house recruiters as we know them, or could be an evolution in to something completely different. Over the next 4 weeks I’m going to be exploring this in a bit more depth by talking to lots of recruiters and asking lots of questions about what is really going on. We will be hosting #DiceTru in partnership with EmployersOnDice in Mountain View, USA
on the 15th August, and in San Francisco on 16th August,
and then again as part of the #Kellylive hangout at #trulondon on 6th September.
I first started really thinking about this at the beginning of the year when I did a bit of a San Fran tour and caught up with the sourcing technology companies Gild, Entello, DiceOpenWeb and others. What surprised me at the time was that I was consistently getting told that it was hiring managers who were buying this technology directly, rather than sourcers or recruiters. Through the work I have been doing with social referral company RolePoint, I was becoming aware that more and more hiring managers were looking to run their own referral campaigns outside of the normal company process. RolePoint have had to go as far as creating a whole new work and data flow to accomodate this.
The data from the candidate experience awards in both North America and the UK was showing us that an increasing number of hiring managers were being set KPI’s for things like time to hire, cost of hire, candidate experience etc, the kind of metrics we had previously always associated with recruiters. We have also witnessed a growing reliance on the business to generate employer and culture brand content for talent attraction, and for employees to engage directly with potential candidates. My friend Rob Van’Elburg had also just started a new project with ING Bank to co-ordinate the training of all the hiring managers in technology across the world to run there own hiring campaigns through Taleo, from creating job specs to offer management. All of the technology recruiting for a global business being co-ordinated by one person. All the signs were pointing in one direction.
Probing a bit deeper in to why this was happening, with a number of hiring managers at global corporations, some of the reasoning behind this became clear. For a start, a lot of the tech jobs had never really existed before, and hiring managers wanted more access to who was out there in order to shape what they were actually looking for. We were also looking at data for a number of hiring managers where they were getting to see 5 in 1000 applicants by the time the ATS had sifted out 70%, usually on random criteria, the recruiter had eliminated CV’s, then done video or phone screens, then interviews, then other tests like assesments for team fit, skills etc before the last few standing got in frount of the hiring manager. It is no small wonder that hiring managers have started to want to look a lot closer at that pipeline for themselves.
I have also been aware of a new recruitment model evolving at Oracle in the EMEA region, which has since been adopted globally. Recruiting is a profit center that charges the business for their time. Recruiters are responsible for sourcing, (along with a sourcing and social media team), new potential hires. They don’t do any admin or logistics, that is all they do. Find people, qualify them, send them on to the hiring manager. The only time they ever get involved again is in helping to close candidates.They deffinitely don’t do any interviewing or anything like that. Very different, but very effective against aggressive hiring targets, with 30% of hires coming from social media, 30% from referral and 40% from direct sourcing. I’m begining to see this model being mirrored in other organisation looking to achieve the same thing, making recruiting being about sourcing, on a just in time basis.
That leaves us then with the question: If hiring managers are going to drive their own recruiting, what is going to happen to the recruiters? I asked this question at the #tru sessions at lRecruit earlier year. I was running a track that had about 18 heads of talent acquisition in the session. Industry analyst Josh Bersin was quick to pick up on this and ask if this really a trend in the organisations, given that most of the participants were senior and represented global brands. 18 of the 19 companies all confirmed that this is the direction they are going in, with more and more hiring managers taking on more and more of the day to day responsibility for hiring in their teams, assisted by some clever recruiting and assesment technology. It is becoming clear that this is much more than a trend, and not isolated to one region or one sector. That would be too simple.
My thinking is that in-house recruiters, and recruiting functions are going to go in one of four distinct directions:
1: The super recruiters. The last few years have seen the rise of the super recruiter. People like Matthew Jeffery at SAP, Chris Hoyt at Pepsico, Paul Maxin at Unilever, Jeff Moore at Google, Arie Ball at Sodexo, Donna Quintal at Sears, Anne-Marie O’Donnell at Oracle, Lars Schmidt at NPR, Ted Meulenkamp at Roche, and a number of others. Individuals who are much more strategic than tactical, who have high level influence. This is a great opportunity, but they are in the minority.
2: The sourcers – As with the Oracle model. 100% focussed on generating candidates by effective sourcing, and leaving the decision making, selection and recruiting to the line. A very lean, focussed role, with niche or location specialists. More opportunity for direct sourcing functions within larger organisations. Numbers driven, lean operations working on a just in time, on demand basis. Many of these roles could be filled by the new breed of contract recruiters, who come in as needed, and drop off when things are slack, or through RPO operations, importing expertise at the sourcing end. Potentially this will mean less opportunities for in-house recruiters.
3: Talent Networkers. I couldn’t think of a better term, although I’m sure there is one. This changes the recruiters role from filling jobs to populating the pipeline and the talent network. Sourcing people who are a cultural fit, with longer term potential as hires, and organising the data in the talent network for the hiring managers to recruit from. Whilst this role is proving valuable for those companies who go down this route, few companies will prove as forward thinking. We will also see a rise in companies like Norman Broadbent company Social Media Search providing this as an outsourced function.
4: Administrators – Managing the admin and logistics around recruiting such as interview scheduling, assessments etc on behalf of line manager, back to the days of the personnel manager. Whilst this has to be the least appealing option, cost considerations may well see this as the most likely route.
You might think I’m mad in thinking this, but it is too big a trend to ignore. You can come and disagree/discuss/debate this point with me at #DiceTru in Mountain View on the 15th Aug, SanFran on the 16th or #trulondon on the 6th Sept. I look forward to the debate!
Bill
Interesting Vision Bill and Yes there is a change coming
Thanks Karim. Some people wont like it, but it is here now.
As the findings of this http://bit.ly/135CkIC show there is a need and a change required, however whether in the form and formats as described by you Bill I am not so sure.
As it is with talent acquisition/in-house recruitment overall it takes a vast number of shapes all according to what industry we are talking, what needs are, level of maturity and a large range of other factors. To try and place talent acquisition into boxes to try to formulate trends and future is in my view near impossible. I take onboard what you are seeing and hearing and picking up Bill, but that is only a tiny proportion of the market and reality out there. Truth is that talent acquisition irrespective of industry, size, market etc take whatever form is required and will continue doing so. Get a group of diverse in-house folks together to discuss (as happening at places like Tru) and you will hear very varied perspectives all in respect to the organisation served. You have as you say small pockets of representatives that carry if not a trend then at least similarities, but you will for the majority of the market have anything in between. To say that the way in which Oracle and others carry out their sourcing/talent acquisition will spread and be taken on by many more is a prediction that I think is wrong. With the state of many companies around the world as it is, with the prioritization there is if the wider talent acquisition/recruitment agenda and the solutions applied by many that at best is just about adequate, I think there is a very long way to go before you will see any significant changes or emerging trends. It will be interesting to see what you pick up of findings along the way Bill, but please if you are to be credible in what you say and predict let what apply to the wider masses and what is truly happening in the market be the ones that tell us what is going on, not what less than 10% of the overall market is doing and behaving.
Jacob,
When you talk to hundreds of companies (as i do), and most are giving you the same message, it looks like a trend. I’m not saying it is the right way to go, but I am saying it is happening. It is also why I’m seeing talent acquisition roles on the decline, when logic says they should be booming, given all the skills shortages. If it was one company like Oracle, Id take your point on board, but it is lots of companies in lots of sectors, and technology companies being asked to sell direct to line managers. Line managers are being made accountable for hiring, and this is driving the change. Lots of in house recruiters are sticking there head in the sand and saying this wont happen because……but its not what I see. The post you have referred to is saying the same thing, that recruiters are finding it hard to get credibility in the business and prove value, much like the old HR argument. I think this will create opportunity for some to become much more strategic, and this is a great thing, but they are in the minority, the majority are being pushed the other way.
There’s no such thing as “super recruiters”. All recruiters are sometimes great and sometimes not so great, depending on circumstances.
What all of those recruiters you’ve cited as being “super recruiters” have in common is they work for super companies. The real test of a recruiter’s ability is probably how effective they are at filling jobs for an employer most people have never heard of.
There seems to be an increasing fetishisation of the inhouse recruitment sector, which if I’m honest, I find a little creepy.
Your missing the point Mitch in your huff and puff. What i see as makes them “super”, and the common trait is not the companies they work for, but the strategic responsibility they are charged with. By nature, it tends to be larger companies who have the capacity and need for someone to be strategic. When you look at the work they do, you can see this is the case. Being “super” has nothing to do with day to day recruiting ability.
Bill, I love the irony in you calling my post “huff and puff”. Very good.
I also love the way you contradict yourself in the space of 2 short sentences.
On the one hand you say that what makes them super is the fact they can be strategic and then immediately go on to say that the ability to be strategic is provided by these companies size and stature.
Which one is it that makes them super, Bill? It can’t be both. And are you saying that smaller, less well-known companies don’t work strategically? It sounds like it.
You argument is akin to saying that the best motorists are people who drive a Rolls Royce or an Aston Martin.
Mitch,
In a smaller company it is harder for the recruiters to get strategic responsibility. I dont think thats any different to comparing a senior director in a national agency against the Director of a smaller one.
The guy in the bigger company has less selling to do, because of all the smoke and mirrors he has at his disposal.
Bill
I respect and acknowledge your opinion, but please; ‘when you talk to hundreds of companies’
What percentage of the market does that constitute and within which sectors and geographies and how many companies are we talking in total in the market? 10.000 – 50.000 or more likely 100.000 globally. Without coming across as criticizing you Bill that is simply not representative and we all know what the sphere is of Tru and how much that cover or represent the entirety of market, – its miniscule.
If at the same time we look at who these companies are and their size then I think it fair to say it simply from a statistical perspective cannot be representative.
Why TA roles on the decline is the 1 million dollar question and are they? Surely contraction in market at squeezing blood out those employed in the industry but decline as such where do you have that from? That the picture over the last 12 months has changed is true and reduction yes true, but is that perhaps as a result of re-calibration of TA efforts where social media for some companies now being the channel of candidates rather than old fashioned pinpricking them Is it not also a question of making organizations leaner and more efficient rather than a decline?
As for skills shortage, sorry but that I simply do not buy. Look at this article http://bit.ly/17HOSKE by Kevin Wheeler and not least the superb comments from many at the coalface.
We have more pink squirrels, mauve elephants, sexism ageism, and convergence of skills, 3 roles in one and what else than ever before, be it in the tech sector or for that matter many other industries (unless you are talking a seriously challenged market like some sectors and some locations of Germany)
There are tons of good people out there, but hiring managers and their bosses only want the ueber super stars that can make the world a better place overnight.
As for recruiter credibility, see my comments on the DRTT post, too many young people that haven’t got a clue, don’t know about business and what good looks like and are working off rigid scripts, that is the problem, paired with a lot of TA managers that really are not up to the job and who cannot figure out anything (just take a look at what questions supposedly knowledgeable and people in senior TA roles ask on places like the FIRM and you will see what I mean, some of them beggars belief)
It is a small percentage of the market Jacob, but are they all in a bubble and completely different to everybody else? It is my opinion, and time will tell. I’ve been wrong plenty of times before, I could be wrong again. I can only base it on what I see rather than what I want, but ask around, see what comes back. Could be that all the reasons your giving for the wrong people being hired in talent acquisition could be a part of that change.
Great article although I was a bit surprised to see no mention of Talent Branding which is a direction I am taking in my own recruiting career. Other functions at large organizations are recruiting marketers which have a much more defined marketing alignment within the talent function.
Magdalena, I see talent branding fitting in with the talent pipeline folk. Not directly hiring, but filling the pipeline
@Magdalena
Kevin Wheeler quote from recent webinar ‘If I as a talent acquisition manager had the budget for an extra recruiter in my team, I would probably convert that to hire someone in with strong social media and branding experience’
‘The web is your brand/branding’
Don’t waste your time, Magdalena. Talent Branding is one of those emperor’s new clothes things that crops up every few years..
Mitch – I see where your greatest comes from. You’ve clearly been reading my journal….
not sure you are right there. Contract market could be next to get hit
poor girls just starting out. Think before you comment Mitch. You could be right, you could be wrong
just dont dash all her hopes for a cheap line
So Bill, my views on the industry are a “cheap line” and yours are “seeing a trend”? Have I got that right?
One more question before I go. Could you be any more of a dick?
‘Could be that all the reasons your giving for the wrong people being hired in talent acquisition could be a part of that change’
Ahh see that would be nothing short of a revolution, however so many mind-sets that will require changing and seeing and understanding the new dawn.
Here is to hope and fantasy
As the owner of an IT staffing firm, early on I wondered, why do we exist? That is to say, all of the tools and methods we use are also available to the client. Why doesn’t the client do this work directly? The short answer is because we add value. I arrived at this conclusion through simple deduction. If we didn’t add value, we wouldn’t exist. The next question is, what value do we add? Here are three things that quickly come to mind.
1) The first thing we add is an extension of the corporate resources. It takes TIME to find, review, filter, organize, phone screen, background check, reference check, etc., etc. Line managers are notorious for not having time to do things like this. They sure as heck aren’t going to care about details as fine as EEOC compliance regulations.
2) The second thing we add is consistency in compensation. Who knows better what the market rates are these days, a manger working at a firm, or someone who talks with active candidates every day? A hiring manager may over pay or under pay based on their recollection or assumption of what is the norm.
3) A third value added a networking multiplier. Every good recruiting firm grows tentacles and learns to stay connected with many people. Typically the people recruiters connect to are themselves the types of people who are highly connected. Thus while an in house manager can leverage a new social networking or open web tool, many times a recruiter can simply pick up the phone or pop an email because they already know where to find that talent, or they know who does.
Things are changing for sure. It seems like the days of simply posting on a job board and sorting through the applicants are gone. I still think there could come a day when “the” tool comes along and obviates the need for talent firms like ours – some way where there is a rating system like on ebay perhaps. …but we aren’t there yet.
From my point of view there will always be the special candidate, the one off or the dIfficult to fill job, but the real challenge is to keep adding value. i know no company who has spent more on agencies this year, the opposite is true. You will always be needed for something extra special, but there are no more mainstream ckienfs
Extra special is what we’re all about.
While I respect you Bill, you lose a few points by quoting Kevin Wheeler’s article. Again I’ll say it…let Kevin get down in the trenches, then I’ll listen. If you really read that article, and his bio, there are some serious questions to be asked.
Bill, let’s cut the bs here too.
1. there is a talent shortage, and it will be getting worse. I can show you #’s that approx 23% of the U.S. population will need to be back-filled over the next 20 yrs at least.
2. companies have been talking this talk, of having hiring managers recruit, for decades. Why hasn’t it worked??? Because it takes time. If a top company really understands recruiting and that it is a profit center, then they are on their way down the right path. But they have a long way to go, to get there. With the economy recovering, many companies are taking recruiting in-house, it’s happened before.A very few, will do it well. Most, will hire paper pushers, fail, and wonder what went wrong. Then they will need to re-examine what they did, be willing to do it right, or go outside again. Good-Fast-Cheap….pick 2, because you can’t have all 3 as most companies want.
While I do think 3rd party recruiting will grow as shortages get more pronounced, it will happen slower and start in specific industries.
3. Branding. Mitch, while a can agree with you comment, I think this could be debated a lot. Do a good job, treat candidates and managers respectfully, get results, and your branding will grow. If you promote from brand first, and are not getting results, well, then it’s doomed to fail. Doing both at the same time? hmmmm, potentially a good conversation topic.
Recruiting has come around, once again, to needing hunter-killers. With no formal career paths for the profession, it is up to all of us to work, learn listen and share with the gods of recruiting, I include the folks on this thread that I have had the pleasure of interacting with.
I didnt quote Kevin Wheeler, that was Jacob in comments. I think there is a big skills gap, and a talent shortage, not a war, but a shortage. I think you are alluding to recruiting going back to a more third party model. I think it is more likely to be RPO, but doesn’t that again echo the point that in-house is changing? No reason why the hiring manager couldnt work through third party suppliers if they choose.If you don’t think the current methodology is working, then I think we are in agreement. Hunter killers? A recipe for hiring, but not for keeping.
@Russell, I like your comments, well said
With my wife just having returned from a job interview with a global tier 1 bank, meeting two global heads and having been subjected to a complete farce of an interview and interview process, as well as myself having been exposed to and seen interview skills displayed by hiring managers I feel it necessary to pick on another of the subjects in your piece Bill.
Although no statistics to back this up I will put my head on the block and say that at least 75% of hiring managers have absolutely no clue about how to interview, how to extract information and/or how to make a candidate feel that this is not a 3rd degree interrogation but an mutual exchange and exploration if a fit.
This not least essential in high demand roles and where candidates not short of choice.
I know of on two hands countable companies globally that see to that their hiring managers are only let loose on candidates provided they have undergone interview and candidate handling training, but I have not seen this widely adopted.
If as you say Bill more of the recruitment activity is put to the hiring managers, then that require a pretty strong and very well managed structure in making sure that hiring managers know what they are doing, how it is done and what good looks like.
With most hiring managers applying a ‘we wish to see the field of candidates attitude’ prior to making decisions it will not take long before good candidates are lost (due to length of process) and a whole heap of errors and other creeping in.
In-house recruiters that know their stuff understand how to ensure that all parties are kept to it, candidates are not lost, fully informed and feel that this is a mutual process. Leaving it and passing on the responsibilities to hiring managers has the potential of more disaster than benefits.
Show me the in-house recruiter who does not recognize all of this and see and hear alarm bells the minute you leave control to hiring managers.
Anyone disagree with that?
@Jacob – Another good point on the value add, knowing how to interview. I’ve lived on both sides of the desk. I’ve been the hiring manager and I’ve been interviewed by hiring managers. Now I have my own company and I HAVE to be a good interviewer. If I weren’t I’d have a lousy product. It’s not a dig at hiring managers. How would they know how to conduct a solid interview? That’s a skill that isn’t taught. It’s also more than a skill. It’s part art. Seriously. Who of you on this thread has ignored your “gut” and had to pay the price for it? You can’t teach gut. Now it is simply a part of my toolkit.
Didnt you say a few comments back that the business is full of in-house recruiters who are under skilled? I’m not convinced interviewing is the best route to hiring, but that is a blog for another day. Everything you are talking shouts out for the need of a senior person to be a super recruiter and manage the strategy. Training for hiring managers in interviewing is significantly up this yeat. It is being held back by in-house recruiters saying they could not possibly know how to do it
@Alan
Sorry to say but as much as you may take the attitude about Kevin Wheeler and others that are not in the trenches not knowing what they are talking about, I totally disagree. The gents (counting K. Wheeler, Dr J. Sullivan and Lou Adler have done more than anyone else, written more about the subjects of bringing talent acquisition to a higher level, enabling better, deeper and more efficient execution than anyone else, why I think they deserve credit for their substantial and continuos contribution)
If you dig down into the comments of the ERE article you will see that people (in the trenches) are saying that the prevailing mind-set, the ageism, the sexism the 2 or 3 roles in one, pink squirrel etc. is the real problem.
So 23% of the US population need to be backfilled, great but how does that translate to a skill shortage? If that being the case perhaps about time to look at some serious training, some less rigid acceptance of skill levels and some more broad mindedness.
Do interviews work? Are we not just doing what we have always done? A bit of a “faster horses” comment
@Russell, again bullseye. Knowing how to find not just a fit, but a short as well as long term asset is something you can only learn by doing it day in, day out and if you have it as your passion and engagement. A hiring manager that spend 10-15% of his entire time (if even that) interviewing and assessing, – enough said.
Unless Im wrong Jacob, you are spending most of your time being interviewed by in-house recruiters and heads of talent acquisition, and you are not having a great time of it. Experience is no evidence of skill
Bill
My point about interviewing if you re-read my comment is not about myself but more the fact that hiring managers as a whole are totally unsuited and ill equipped to be part of a selection process from an interview perspective. They see everything from their point of view and very rarely take a more holistic approach towards the entire process with a for all mutual valuable experience. They make little to no effort to enable understanding of role but purely see it from perspective of what they want out of it leaving a very poor and very disengaging candidate experience, to the detriment of company brand and perception. That there are seriously poor and badly trained and rigid recruiters out there has nothing to do with the hiring manager community, but totalling it all up it adds up to a picture of a badly understood and badly executed handling of the single most important aspect of any company, their people.
Purely as a result of CEO attitude and insistence of a particular culture prevailing all elements of a business have I in two companies seen how beautiful and how utterly perfect and smooth things can be when all parties know their stuff, are professional and skilled to their fingertips and understand what it takes to holistically obtain best results, leading to superior hires, superior results and less than 10% attrition rates.
Anyone who do not take a serious look at e v e r y single element of their overall talent acquisition strategy and execution and understand how they all fit together and have dependency and inter-dependency of each other are missing a huge trick.
@ jacob,
1. nothing against these folks in general, but the specific article I do not agree w/. Adler, does some good stuff too.
2..If you dig down into the comments of the ERE article you will see that people (in the trenches) are saying that the prevailing mind-set, the ageism, the sexism the 2 or 3 roles in one, pink squirrel etc. is the real problem………@jacob, this has been, and will always be, an issue, nothing new. Just new issues pop up as the economy recovers
3. So 23% of the US population need to be back-filled, great but how does that translate to a skill shortage? If that being the case perhaps about time to look at some serious training, some less rigid acceptance of skill levels and some more broad mindedness…….when I say back-filled, I mean these are folks that will retire and leave a gap in the workforce. Also, this shortage is global to every westernized country that was in WWII.
@Alan
Glad to see that we are after all not that close to collision on issues.
As for point 2.
I dare say that the purple squirrel population, the sexism, the ageism and the discrimination stronger than ever before.
As for point 3.
Point taken, a couple of hundred million Chinese and Indians that by that time (if not earlier) of a skill level and abilities that can easily cover that. If impending demographic shortfall, companies and respective country politicians better get their structures for education and work force alignment sorted out.
Thats assuming the Chinese and Indians will want to work in weak economies like the UK and the US
@Jacob
I dare say that the purple squirrel population, the sexism, the ageism and the discrimination stronger than ever before…………………….Jacob, while I agree with you on this, I think this is somewhat of a natural outgrowth of this economy, as other issues have been in years past. These are reasons to disqualify people, legal or not. As the economies keep recovering, talent shortages grow, things will again change, we’re already seeing it. I propose that smaller and mid-size companies will do it first. Small/mid-size companies go go out to ‘win’…Large companies go out to ‘not lose’, (to use a sports analogy). Big companies can’t help it: they’re big, silo’d up, and bureaucratic, and more risk averse. Where do you think I get great candidates these days sick and tired….from bigger companies.
As demand rises, more open minded, forward thinking people, will start hiring and caring less about age, sex, etc…. Think of the Dot.Com era….when a 3 month VB programmer could make 100k, keep getting raises/promotions. Heck I got regular calls to be a VB developer and peoplesoft designer because it was on my resume.. During the last boom, if you could spell mortgage , you got hired. I would like to see this change more-better faster, and I hope it does.
As for point 3.
Point taken, a couple of hundred million Chinese and Indians that by that time (if not earlier) of a skill level and abilities that can easily cover that. If impending demographic shortfall, companies and respective country politicians better get their structures for education and work force alignment sorted out……………..Jacob….on this point I must turn to Obe-Wan Kenobi, talking with Luke about the death of Luke’s father who was darth vadar. When Obe wan says, when he was more machine-than-man, and under the emperor’s control, he ceased being a person, so he was dead…..from a certain point of view..
yes there will be the #’s of Indian and Chinese, but depending on your point of view, will they be able to do the work? I could make my argument against this for many reasons. Including economic, infrastructure, import laws making it more profitable to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., India reaching the tipping point of being the world outsourcer so many countries are taking it back inside their borders and India is sub-outsourcing because they can’t supply the demand…….China’s wages rising, making it no longer a default country to do business and more…… and other larger issues beyond ‘employable’.
May I suggest you look @ the book “the west and the rest”. A good read/listen.
Great answers Alan, and leaves some hope, although will we ever see anything near or similar to dot.com era and its folly, – I doubt it. Change yes perhaps but how much and how wide spreading?
Re the Chinese and Indians. I am referring to their educational background and abilities. They are moving from 3rd world status into super power faster that you and I can imagne and although evolutionally things take time they are catching up really really fast. Tata and HCL Technologies and all the others are shipping tens of thousands IT folks around the world that hold PhD’s and are not any longer your ‘can-only-work-if-under-strong-structure-and-according-to-rigid-set-up people. Their work ethics is one like never seen before, why I can guarantee you that they will be up to working with near everything and in any capacity. Whether their economies slow down or not, they will still come out of the educational institutions in their hundreds of thousands.
I shall check out suggested book.
@jacob
1 misc thing to hang your hat on re; chinese education….remember a year or so ago, china blew the doors off the world in education standardized testing..? Well, want to know a secret…many of the principals and higher-ups in those areas were actually ashamed of those scores. Why you may ask. because they were told to ‘teach to the test’ and kick a$$ on the tests. OK, so they got good scores. But they produced countless automatons that can only memorize and follow instructions. Well I guess that will be more factory assemblers they can have. Also with birth rates heavy to makes there and other things, the coming society may be in for a shock
I gotta go, have a good one, good exchange
it is the work thats moving, rather than the people. That comes with mobility and contingent working.
Sorry to say this Bill but I’m afraid this reads as a series of sweeping generalisations disguised as insight. I don’t doubt that you are seeing these things but there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the world and to suggest that some fairly random findings represent a global trend is a bit bizarre.
I’m working directly with 5 different in house recruitment functions at the moment (including some of companies you mention) and what is clear that while their share some challenges each company is structured differently, each industry has a different recruitment landscape and each geography is very different.
I don’t buy the super recruiter theory either I’m afraid, there are a lot of global heads of resourcing with strategic responsibility out there who I have respect for. Some of them are on your list but there are lots of others who aren’t. Just because you haven’t met them doesn’t mean they don’t exist
Matt,
I agree there are 1000′s of other people that could be termed “super recruiters”. I dont think the world exists only in my bubble, or in yours. If you are working with ING or Oracle or both and they are doing something different (the only 2 companies I listed), then it would be good to hear what that is.the consistent thing I’m seeing is more sourcing being done by line managers, and more of the sourcing technology being bought by the line rather than the talent acquisition function. Not sure if you have any reason to dispute or disagree with this. I know Josh Bersin was surprised by what he heard first hand in the iRecruit track I’m talking about, and he blogged the same thing after the event. I’m not sure there is anything bizare in sharing what i’m thinking via my blog, and continuing to discuss this with others. I’m happy to share my views and see what people think, i know you prefer a more secretive approach. Will be interesting watching what pans out.
My comment is going to be based on intuition and experience and not hard stats.
I have a strong feeling that in-house recruiting teams will actually roll-out of the organisations they have been setup to serve, to become a new breed of independent recruitment agencies.
Initially these recruitment business are (as you point out) given commercial targets for “revenue generation” (as nominal internal billing for services are billed to departments or divisions), then aligned not only with sales practices of the employer, but also procurement standards (the Just-in-Time and KanBan you refer to). It then makes sense to break away from the host employer, in order to service other companies in a group or global organisation.
From there it is but a small step to delivering that level of service to completely other firms, including competitors of the original host employer.
I could be well wide of the mark, but as these functions continually evolve and assert themselves, business requirements can make anything possible.
@bill
I hear what you’re saying. My issue with ….it is the work that’s moving, rather than the people….While in part I agree, I also think this is a double edged sword. In many companies, the people ARE much of the value….Start moving the work around, globally, to lower costs, you could risk losing 1> key people that help make the Co, what it is and how it got there.
@Matt – I also agree with your comments. Many times it is forgotten that recruitment, unlike many other functions, is one of the most, if not THE most place where: It’s all about people. The product is people, the processes, much of them, need people, the decisions are made by people, (although through testing, ATS screeners etc.. Companies are trying to eliminate/reduce this, sometimes to their detriment).
@Matt – Along these the lines of super recruiters comment…While I admire Bill trying to identify segments of recruiting expertise, I would rather think of it as professional golfers: some are hackers, some are pretty good, some are country club pros, and some are on the PGA. As recruiters are people too, well some at least, their skill levels, training, ability to learn, ability to be allowed to grow, are all different. There’s been discussions around formal , certificate/school training for recruiting. Perhaps were getting close to this, we’ll see.
stephenod72
I will tell you from experience, this is a good idea, although, again, there are a great many, “it depends” . I have seen this model several times. Either it was not implement/thought out right, or it was in the wrong industry.
The biggest issue with this model that I have seen is conflicts of interest, on 2 sides. I have seen it done once, correctly, and it works, just OK, not super. But there are still internal conflicts with the company that did it.
As much as I see many examples of incompetency in inhouse hiring functions (not necessarily always the people, but the structure into which they are hired themselves) it’s nowhere near the end of the inhouse recruiter.
Sure enough, I indeed am suffering from one such issue at the moment, where the Hiring Manager wants 5 digital people; I have the best 15 people for them to select from, because I’m the best specialist recruiter for those people; but the inhouse recruiters dig their heels in and Hiring Manager doesn’t get his people. Self-defeating.
But it’s a case by case basis. For every bad function, there are 4 good ones.
The world is moving fast, and around every corner there are more examples of evolution and innovation, but still they are outweighed by people doing exactly what they have always done – because it works for them (in their opinion).
It’s not the end, but I hope people who ARE inhouse recruiters – rather than biting back – see the feedback and recognise how their own roles and agenda maybe needs re-working.
Steve, and of course the converse is true with incompetent third party recruiters. I sense your frustration in being blocked by, I assume, the “your name’s not on the list, you’re not coming in” argument, but as much as you are”the best specialist recruiter for those people”, I guarantee 5 other agencies have given the same line that week, admittedly with less evidence to back it up. While recruitment functions are driven by the “super recruiters” to reduce cost/time of hire (pick your metric), then it is often the case that recruitment is commoditised.
Ken,I use the term “super recruiter” to refer to a type of person and role, rather than someone who is “super” at recruiting. Cost, branding and efficency are major drivers these days. one client I worked with found 86% of their agency hires were already in the ATS. not the agency fault, but reason enough to say we need to think again about this.
Hey Ken – I get that point for generalist recruitment, and I get that point as a `sales pitch`. I don’t `do` sales pitches. My recommendation is from the Digital Director, who wants MY CVs, and made a specific request. But the inhouse recruiters digs their heels in, and fails to deliver for the Digital Director.
Is internal recruitment a service provision or what…?
Anyway, that’s a 1 in 5 scenario like I say. I just think the observation that Bill is making around the hiring patterns reverting to the Hiring Manager taking control, is something that inhouse recruiters need to listen to, understand and consider in their role – rather than biting back.
That’s not me talking as a third party recruiter, that’s me taking an observation on the industry.
Steve,
I dont even think it is a case of bad functions, more process, and the fact that the hiring managers need to be able to see the people in the market in order to decide what it is they actually want, given that jobs are changing rapidly, and many have never existed.
I think it’s both Bill – but I do get your point, wholly – as I’ve just commented to Ken.
Recruiting great specialist talent – is surprisingly MORE difficult than it’s ever been for inhouse teams – and the point is because of recommendation and trust is more important than ever.
The Digital Director (for example) will know the best Content Producer for his team, or will know the most trusted & connected route of finding the best one.
The inhouse recruiter, who is recruiting a Warehouse-person one minute, an IT Director the next, and an Accountand the hour after – is not best equipped to find the best – and mean the best – Content Producer available. It’s simple logic of time and focus versus efficiency of sourcing and selection.
So, your observations are sport on – but, this won’t kill the in-house recruiter.
I already commented about Bill’s interesting and thought provoking article on his Facebook page and said the following:
“The other problem with the In-House recruiter model is that candidates are ‘wooed’ and perhaps don’t get to see all available opportunities at a given time. By going to a specialist recruiter who knows their market. The candidate will (hopefully) get an overview of opportunities, and unbiased advice as to what is the best move for them at this stage of their career.”
Having thought further about Bill’s article and the comments that follow, everyone seems to miss out on one fundamental aspect that will determine whether the ‘In-House model’ will thrive or die. The candidate!!!
Everyone talks about talent acquisition like the candidates are sheep, completely malleable in the hands of ‘expert’ TA and recruiters like me! Except they are not! They will only be wooed if the deal is right, at the right time, that it satiates their particular needs at that time. All those great companies can spend millions on talent acquisition, this system, that system, go on Linkedin seminars in Las Vegas etc., none of these things are going to negate the fact you are dealing with human beings who will do things based on emotion, intuition and ‘gut feel’ rather than science.
Those companies who have created an algorithm to identify people who might be looking to move may as well invent one to predict the numbers on the lottery as it will probably work just as well.
Anyway what will kill in the in-house recruiter will be their over reliance on Linkedin.
I think if you asked the candidates they would chose a relationship direct with a hiring company every time for many reasons
Surely a desire for hiring managers to have more direct control over the hiring process is not a new phenomenon? Isn’t this why there are so many large companies with 90% agency hire rates, a collective use of huge numbers of different agencies by the company, from a process largely built on carefully managed and often pre-existing relationships between the agency recruiter and the hiring managers?
Agency recruiters see the in-house team as an annoying blocker, but in many cases the reverse is true where the hiring manager feels they have more control through using a personal relationship with an agency, rather than using the in-house team. This may probably be an example of an ineffective in-house team that needs a shake up, but is pretty common.
So a move to use of technology recruitment solutions directly by a hiring manager is just the next step in this process for those managers that feel that way.
However I would see a very effective in-house team being one that is actually finding these tools and bringing them in to the hiring managers only and and where it serves the organisation as a whole. Also where it can be set up and managed such that it can achieve a consistent candidate experience and representation/management of employer brand. A consistent company wide referral scheme, provided by the HR/Recruit team for use and promotion by an individual hiring manager for example would seem a good approach.
With the growth in niche sourcing tools such as Gild and DiceOpenWeb that you mention, I can see that many hiring managers who have the indepth knowledge of exactly who is a “star candidate” would want that control. Many inhouse teams are not going to be big enough to have specialist recruiter roles for every niche area, and the choice therefore for the hiring manager comes down to use of niche agency, or try it yourself using the newer sourcing tools. Frustration with inhouse teams not delivering to niche / hard-to-fill requirements is pretty common I would guess.
Largely then this comes down to an ongoing debate.. can technology based solutions match the skills of a good niche recruiter? In the hands of the right person, some of them may well just about be getting there, but as a general rule? I’d say not…
Worth also adding though.. use of these tools can’t sit in isolation from other recruiting initiatives. For example a common one is use of LinkedIn inmails to directly source people, who then go on to do some of their own digging about the contacting company, find a terrible career site, no social engagement channels, and are potentially invited in to submit their details into an awful ATS workflow. Use of LinkedIn alone in that scenario won’t solve all problems…
gareth,
My own feeling is that there will be a mix of people at the top of the tree who deliver the whole strategy, and sourcers who source people to companies rather than jobs.
THIS, could be the answer.
But SOURCING must equal COMMUNITY, or at least deliver to community – to make it happen.
Sourcing is a primary stage level of communication – but recruiting requires way, way more trust.
@Russell White
Your comment:
Everyone talks about talent acquisition like the candidates are sheep, completely malleable in the hands of ‘expert’ TA and recruiters like me! Except they are not! They will only be wooed if the deal is right, at the right time, that it satiates their particular needs at that time. All those great companies can spend millions on talent acquisition, this system, that system, go on Linkedin seminars in Las Vegas etc., none of these things are going to negate the fact you are dealing with human beings who will do things based on emotion, intuition and ‘gut feel’ rather than science.
Those companies who have created an algorithm to identify people who might be looking to move may as well invent one to predict the numbers on the lottery as it will probably work just as well.
I simply love this, and shows someone who truly understand what the whole TA circus is about and how it works.
When looking at what works and why in communicating with people/candidates there is one word that stand above anything else a u t h e n t i c i t y and with that being personable.
It is the good old ‘people buy from people’ and that is what matters and actually little else.
I wrote earlier on in response to Bill about the subject about hiring manager involvement and skills and that is exactly what is the greatest pitfall and where all that any highly structured and dandy TA activities may come unstuck and loose it all.
Anyone (Bill ?) care to let me know where and how this subject addressed as both in the original piece by Bill and overall this a pretty important aspect of the entire discussion?.
jacob,
hate to break it to you, but if you havent spent any time with the predictive analytics tools they are frighteningly accurate. Other assesment tools are coming down in price and getting more and more effective. I dont believe for one minute this is the end of TA functions for one minute, but I see it as a clear stage of evolution.
Bill
As much as I appreciate you giving me an answer, I see very little relevance with subject that I am attempting to have addressed and which I see as very significant. Analysis tools and assessing skills pre-interview has nothing to do with the actual face to face and candidate experience that takes places when someone sitting in front of a hiring manager or company representative. As said before ‘people buy from people’ and it is that subject I am referring to. It is like the ‘parallels between recruitment and a symphony orchestra’ too wide a subject too wide to cover here, and a possible TruLondon track.
Do people buy from people, or is that fast becoming an old concept? Is a face to face” interview really effective or are there better ways of hiring? I dont think it is going to be too long before this question needs addressing. We talk of “gut” feel, personality and all the rest, but there is no evidence that this actually works. We do things the way they have always been done, not because we do. As a separate point, the candidate experience awards showed that the more involved the hiring manager is in the process, the better the candidate experience.
People buy from people. When the product is people, this is evenmore important
While I agree w/ some testing…please..corp america….please eliminate. More good ppl thbrough online testing….just making it easier for me to get them/
People have always bought from people and will continue doing so.
And as for culture fit, hmmm first get an algorithm for what it looks like and then tests or analysis finding who may fit the set algorithm parameters……. hardly.
Your prediction of eliminating the people element, perhaps in 2030 or 2050
Do they Jacob? arent we seeing the biggest retail activity moving frpm in person to on-line? Think Amazon etc. How much banking, insurance and other services are becoming automated and going the same way. More and more buying is done away from people. The people buy from people is an old fashioned concept that doesnt match up Jacob. Once you apply sentiment analysis to culture brand, you get a good fit based on on-line activity and indicators, as good a fit as the legendary “gut feel.” Assessments like Jobfig, skills tests like Smarterer, simulations from the likes of ConnectCubed. You should be taking a close look at what is happening here to know that we already have the tech, we just dont always have the mindset.
So Bill, taking this to its extreme, consider this scenario. A person turns up for their first day of work – having been identified on Linkedin and tracked. Approached by email – assessed by tests and NEVER met anyone in the company to see if they will ‘fit’? Particularly for management roles where you’d expect the TA people to get involved. That will never happen and if a company became so reliant on tech to hire then I reckon it wouldn’t be an interesting place to work.
I think you will find that people are already getting connected with companies and the people in them. The relationship is established over time, not in a one or two hour interview. Because we have always recruited that way doesnt mean its best. Longer relationships means better fit, not worse
Bill, you astound me, so much insight and ability, yet as in this case and in fact contradicting yourself (CandidateES/awards hiring mngr involvement) you seem to disregard this hugely important and daily occurring element of human involvement when hiring
Yes we have an increasing trend in many respects to not having human interaction, but n o t in respect to hiring for roles.
Just one single example; Candidate come for an interview, is treated in what can best described as merely just about OK or worse such as a 3rd degree interrogation interview (and believe me at least 60% of all interviews are pretty awful)
Show me the candidate that (if having a choice) will not run a mile and never consider working for that company!.
That is basing the relationship on one interview, and there is the potential to go much deeper than that over a longer period of time. As jobs disappear replaced by contingency, this is going to become even more common place
I certainly dont think that Hiring Managers will end up doing this as they dont normally have the time in my experience within the Oil and Gas sector. All they want is bums on seats, Professionals ready to do the job. Granted there is already a shift already but towards RPO’s being used with a Senior TA coordinating it all. Prior to “2009, Hiring Managers did accpet CV’s and if they showed interest passed it through to HR/TA to setup interviews but I cant see it going back to that.
Thanks Andy,
I dont see this as being a route back to mostly agency hiring as the norm. I think it will look quite different very quickly.
@BillBoorman @Jacob Sten Madsen @CloudNineRec @mitchsullivan posted this to LinkedIN. lets see what comments and carnage we can get now from this conversation
I’m done, zip closed and out.
I agree, Prior to 2009 Agencies had a freehand with Hiring Managers, signing local agreements with them etc. Now this is centralised from Talent Acquisition on both Agencies (PSL) and also CV’s. I do however think that Hiring Managers dont want or need the hassle. They want some well screened candidates on their desks who they can interview and if they are good enough hire. There is too much (as has previously been said in this blog on other posts) the recuriment process is quite long from sourciing to screening to interview to hire. It wont wash with the Hiring Managers. As I said they just want Bums on seats.
@ Jacob. Thank you for cross-posting this discussion on ERE.net.
I look forward to an increasing numbers of hiring managers taking back various aspects of the hiring process, because most of those that do are likely to make “a pig’s breakfast” of it. Why do they think they’d be able to more effectively do recruiting themselves then they would finance legal, sales, engineering, marketing, operations, or anything outside of what their main functions are? Furthermore, I think that most of these decisions will have been made rashly and impulsively, rather than after careful thought and analysis, Consequently: I believe that a few of the managers will do quite well by themselves, some will have indifferent results, and most will need our help again- perhaps more desperately than before. This is good for recruiters, because a rather desperate client with money is often a very good client to have….
Cheers,
Keith
@Keith, love the comments. Yes, hiring managers that are good at networking, and finding people, will continue to do so. Expecting a large # of them to all of a sudden get really good at it, is a mis-step. Some, small number, will get better just because they’ll have to. Most wont.
Buying an RPO, Screening tests, LinkedIn account, and expecting hiring to get better has been tried before. Remember the Dot-Com days…..everyone thought recruiters, car sales, real estate, even the gap would disappear…didn’t happen. Same thing with LinkedIn apply button. Also, most RPO’s are a joke, they offer good-fast and cheap. You can’t do it, this sub-sector will probably shake out in the coming months to a yr or so.
Expecting computers to screen, present, evaluate and hire people…..like I said, people hire people.
@bill, I agree there has been and will continue to be changes in recruiting and hiring, but I think you’re argument is a bit too far on one side, at the moment. For companies that are doing all this stuff, I propose they’ll also start losing their best/brightest
have a good one
@Alan Had I been able to look you up or know you I would have made following comment outside this forum, true to my promise of quitting this conversation.As not the case I have to do it here. I have been enough on the inside as well as seen what the RPO’s are doing to say that your comments are so well put and hit it exactly on the head. Yet that said they appear to have a lot of wind in their sails!
Thanks, Alan. I’m afraid that as long as the GAFI Principles (Greed, Arrogance, Fear, and Ignorance/Incompetence) dominate hiring, then I think there’ll be need for all kinds (and large numbers) of recruiters. The “Big Recruiting Misunderstanding” is that we think it’s better for recruiters when hiring managers, candidates, etc. are thoughtful and reasonable in their actions. The truth is: It takes a lot fewer recruiters to hire people when everyone is acting calmly, clearly, and essentially logically than when they act normally. Thus as long is they have money to pay us and don’t self-destruct, it’s better for us when they’re stupid than when they’re smart….
Cheers,
Keith “The Happy Plunderer” Halperin
@ keith and @ Jacob. Couldn’t agree more.
Back to work for me. Being a hunter-killer takes much time to “scope” in on the right candidates and sniper contact them, rather than toss out a net and hope.
All the best to all
Thanks, Alan. You seem like you provide high-touch, high-value add services which can’t be no-sources (eliminated, through-sourced (automated), or out-sourced (sent away). Your service is important and valuable, and I say this as a contract recruiter.
-kh
@Keith,
Thanks, high praise from the Keith-inator
@ Keith,
Dude…..it’s all about relationships and connecting the dots.
@ Alan, you’re very welcome…. On my side of things we say:
“If you have time to build relationships, you don’t have enough reqs.”
That’s why we need you guys from time to time, and when we do you should be well paid.
I believe that if you need a contingency recruiter, it should be for services that can’t be effectively done internally, and for which you should pay 30% fees (at least here in the States) If you’re not prepared to pay that, it’s not worth taking outside- you shouldn’t expect quality on the cheap. On the other hand, there are a large number of agencies who make their money off the ignorance of clients knowing much more cost-effective alternatives. For example: firms that hire “newbie” recruiters to dial for dollars (or punch for pounds) to get clients to spend 20% fees on candidates off job boards that the clients could reach directly for about GBP 100/week from a sourcing service or get LI Profiles with contact information from the same people for about GBP 65 for 100 profiles with contact information. This goes back to what I said before: if clients knew about services like these, the recruiting bar would be raised- firms like yours wouldn’t suffer, but firms such as I mentioned above would largely go out of business….
Cheers,
Keith “We Move the Meat” Halperin
@Keith – Agree. There are many firms that are ignorant. At this point in time, there are also too many espousing the “But We’re XXXXXXXXX” or Those that think the recession isn’t over. They are the ignorant ones that will beg for outside help, then try to negotiate fees down. When they do that, they’ve already lost.
Great dirty little secret for any company exec reading this that wants to get the best from their contingent vendors. And don’t laugh, it works. Offer to pay them more than their contracted %. If you pay 20%, well you’re already in trouble, but offer them 24/25%, if you pay them 25% offer 27.5%. Pay them 30%, offer 32%. In the long run, you really wont be paying that much more in $$. But the good will and increased dedication will pay for itself, dozens f times over. I have done this….oh….AND IT WORKS
It’s very sensible Alan, and you’ll get excellent service and value. It’s similar to when you close a candidate on 60k, knowing you can pay him/her 62k. When you tell them they’ll be paid more than they asked for, they’ll enter your company turning handsprings of joy!
kh
@ Keith – yeah baby. Oh my god, don’t tell me that common sense works. Oh gosh. Keith, don’t let it out, just keep it between us
No worries there, Alan. The best way to keep it a secret is to proclaim it for all to hear- from the mountains to the sea, over hill and dale. Some folks will deny it, most will continue to snooze, and a few will learn.
Jacob Madsen- return to “The Alan and Keith Show” with special guest “BIg Bad Bill” Boorman!
DHBKH+A – discussion ‘hijacked’ by Keith Halperin and Alan
GTBWTBNPBTMT Great to be witness to but now please back to main topic
Thanks Jacob. “Hijacked”? That’s the virtue of “The Alan and Keith Show”: its free format, ranging from the mountains to the sea, over hill and dale. You should particularly appreciate that, being a Dane: a proud and noble people, who roved far and wide and crossed the waves to England in search of better beer…Anyway: I thought we’d decided that if any hiring managers want to rush off and do their own recruiting, they should go with our blessing, since they’ll probably muck it up and need us more than ever…
The ‘Keith and Alan show’ has been very entertaining and I could write and comment tons, but think I have had enough airtime here why I shall refrain.
J. Madsen (the sen in surname refer to being the son of Mads) why indeed I am of Viking decent
@ to all—the Alan & Keith Show? I didn’t get a call from my agent.
Back to the topic, although I do think this group has covered it well
Mr Bill thinks we may be headed towards more of a, “The Matrix” process of recruitment. I , and others, don’t completely agree. While I do think tools come out that change things, some for the good, E.G. LinkedIn for a number of yrs….some bad, E.G. Glass door. Don’t get me started.
The only way to watch is what tools are being used and are providing value. I believe the bigger the company, the more they buy tools to CYA, and avert risk. While smaller companies tend to keep trying things until they find something that works. Until it stops working.
As an example, I tried SocialBro a while back and it seemed potentially interesting. But preferring to use free tools I have scaled back social bro.
Regarding candidate screening, assessment etc… I believe that it could be a good thing to see if a person can
1. put 5-10 words together well and can communicate just as well
2. That they do not have any background issues that could be criminal in nature. Or, that could be a very bad thing for the company. Say a candidate having a BK and lawsuits following them who is going to work in a financial job.
Beyond that, I have seem many smart people figure out how to ‘game’ tests and pass them, more times than I thought possible.
Is Bill B right? I don’t know…Is the Alan & Keith Show right? I don’t know. What I do know is that intelligent conversations, with intelligent people, willing to listen and learn, can help things get better. For the 80% that don’t, their loss. For the 20% that do, let them eat the other 80%
” I didn’t get a call from my agent.” He’s in the back doing shots with Bill.
Anyway, I think there will continue to be recruiters who are are non-strategic (not the “Super Recruiter), not the Sourcer (should be outsourced), not the Talent Networker (good job if you can get paid to work on people who months from now MAY be interested in working for your company) and not an Admin (should be outsourced). This recruiter works to make sure that things go smoothly and that people actually get hired.. I also think there will be a need for some skills in the “Super Recruiter” category for acting as a Project Manager Liaison between remote outsourced resources and the client.- again, to make sure things run smoothly.
Bill,
I wrote an ERE article (link below) on this very topic back in 2011. I completely agree and I think it is inevitable that the number of corporate/internal recruiters will shrink significantly. If for no other reason than that it follows the trend in every other support function from manufacturing to finance.These are increasingly outsourced to third parties, even within the U.S., as it is more economical to do so. The same is true for recruiting. For a firm to find it economical to maintain an internal recruiting staff would require that there is a huge ROI – a larger ROI than any RPO or agency can provide. I think that is a very hard argument to win.,
I agree that a handful of internal recruiters may coordinate vendor/agency/RPO activities and another few may recruit for those very hard to fill and “secret” openings every large firm has. But for the most part, good recruiters will work for agencies or RPOs that will do the bulk of sourcing and, in some cases, do it all.
Hiring managers will not want all disintermediation to disappear, but will not need help for all positions at all times. I always suggest to excellent internal recruiters that they should look for work at an RPO or start a small one themselves.
One position that’s s necessary for RPOs or similar types of organizations to success is an onsite Project Manger-type to act as a liaison between the client and the remote resources. If you don’t have someone rifing herd on both sides, the RPOs will probably fail, and here’s the Catch 22 situation: I don’t know where a recruiter would get training in this except at an RPO, and I don’t see RPOs jumping up and down to hire people like this with or without this training.
Forgot the link to the ERE article. Here it is: http://www.ere.net/2011/01/26/do-we-need-internal-recruiting-at-all/
Kevin,
I must disagree with a great deal of your statement, and I think you need to parse it out.
I do agree with the 80% of companies that don’t understand recruiting IS a profit center. The 80% that do not, will try a least-cost alternative RPO, get the same poor results, and wonder what happened. The other 20% that get this, will invest, see the value and do great with it. Basically they hire outsourced paper-pushers, to replace internal paper-pushers.
Also from where we are in the economy right now, it makes sense that RPO’s are growing, especially in larger companies that see throwing money at a potentially wrong solution, is still throwing money somewhere that they can point to their higher-up’s and say, “Look we’ve brought in this RPO, now our problems will go away” By the way, show me 95% of the companies using a big RPO company, and I bet that’s a great company to recruit out of.
Yes there are some outside recruiters that get it, and do add value to a company, but again, I believe the 80/20 rule applies. Actually I think it’s more the 95/5 rule these days
1. Recruiting IS a profit center, and yes, I can prove this.
2. Companies that really understand this, have good recruiting, AND understand that a huge value add, is the network they create, maintain, and go back to, time & time again. It amazes me that so many companies are willing to RPO things out and don’t get the value that they are giving away. Let me see, I can be an RPO, do the peper pushing thing, have the client pay me to push paper, make the same lame excuses for lack of results, and build my RPO company’s database then market it to other companies in the same space. HMMMM, sounds good, but the companies lose.
Also, I have seen way too many RPO proposals. When looking at the team that is being proposed, I have asked myself, “How can that RPO firm pay these people a scale that will keep them there doing the caliber of work being proposed” …..They can’t Either the RPO Co is going to do a bait-and-switch, or, those recruiters will leave for a better situation.
Kevin, I have posted recently and I challenge you……get down here in the trenches with those you talk about, for a good period of time.
I am not saying your views will change drastically, but they may get a bit more balanced.
Kevin, your comments have forced me out of my commentary hibernation as I have to disagree. I hold you in high esteem, believe your analysis and abilities to foresee much of the future to be true, but on this issue I simply cannot agree. Alan has already covered the subject well, why I can only supplement. It may be that your perspective is predominantly US based but I can tell you that overall I believe the RPO solution really only have applicability to a portion of the market. It may be 25, 30 or at maximum 35% of market and then only within the large players and for some MNC’s.Companies are only as good as the people they employ. As an ex RPO employee and having recently interviewed with two large global RPO’s I have to say that what seen has not been impressive. I only need to point out the RPO presence and contributions on places like ERE, or other places where thought leadership in talent acquisition is discussed. I have looked long and hard, and I very rarely see them, as contributors or commentators. Essence of having a RPO solution is the lead of a RPO engagement, their team and their combined abilities. Take them away and the whole thing fall apart. For that reason I will postulate that a good senior in-house TA manager and a competent team can compete with the best RPO’s out there any day and at less cost (no overheads to be paid to the layers above delivery team that are involved, often involving 3 to 5 extra heads) There may be some advantage of scale and pulling on central resources, but in today’s age where much is free and the battle is fought on places like social media (you said yourself in a recent webinar that given the choice you would rather employ as social media person than a recruiter)
Finally why is it that a lot of RPO deals get won, only to be either abandoned after 2 or three years or passed on to another RPO provider, and why is that RPO engagements of more than 5 years duration are a rarity? I have seen and heard about many a RPO arrangement being lost on basis of inability to provide ground breaking and innovative solutions on a continuous basis, something to do with the skills and abilities of their people!
Hello again Jacob, I think RPO is one of those terms that if you ask 10 experts its meaning you’ll get 10 different answers, and if you ask one expert 10 different times, you’ll get 10 different answers. My idea (if not definition) of a good RPo is one which uses offshore (not just local or same country but cheaper) remote resources to handle sourcing, candidate development, scheduling, coordinating, job posting, candidate care, and anything else that’s not worth paying someone GBP 30//hr or more to do onsite. These remote resources report to the onsite recruiter/project manager who is liaison to the client. I think that RPOs fail is when clients feel that all they have to do is to give money and they will get superior hires without doing anything else, or where excellent salespeople over-sell huge programs to organizations without careful, controlled pilot projects to first work out the bugs….Beyond that, I think there will remain many companies who would rather spend GBP 25 for onsite scheduler/coordinators instead of 1/10 that amount for virtual ones. Finally, I don’t think grafting on a tight, efficient, and cost-effective RPO operation onto an otherwise dysfunctional recruiting “bloatocracy” will produce good results, either.
Well said and analysed Keith. So we are kinda back to full circle in so far that good recruitment (client beneficial) effective recruitment (bang for your bucks) is a question of seeing the whole thing in a more holistic perspective. Clients that either outsource or automate or do not ensure that their hiring managers know what they can and should do in the process (candidate experience) run significant risks that either assignments are not fully understood, mistakes made, time wasted (of which I can testify happening more than words can describe through lack of structures and bad management not to mention rigidness) why any company that do not have a very close reign and integration with their talent acquisition function equals less chance of not only getting people, but those that can bring the company/organisation to the next level.
Thanks again, Jacob. I think that the more carefully a company plans and carries out whatever it tries to do, the greater the likelihood that anything (over a broad range) will work, and that the contrary is also true, Thus, it may be more important how a company does something than what it does (within reason).
Cheers,
Keith