Recruiter Databases

[Steve Delaney]

Recruiters usually start their talent searches relying heavily on huge job boards (resume repositories containing hundreds of thousands of documents) using rudimentary tools based on simple SQL based queries to target keywords on your resume that may reflect on a desired skill set.

This approach is an advantage over days gone by for two reasons:

· The computer can spot your skill set quicker and more accurately than a person can, thus you're name gets added to short lists more often, guarantying you get at least cursory consideration for potential opportunities.

· Your resume can be as long as you can make it - no more two page limit in fact the longer the better, the more detail and keywords you can add to your resume, the stronger the chance of it getting noticed.

However, many recruiters rely solely on mega job boards and do not seriously maintain an application tracking system; there is no record that anyone had contact with you… Thus:

· The effect is like they have Alzheimer's, they may call you several times for the same irrelevant jobs, not realizing that you've already talked to them.

· They respond to skills on your resume that you used seven years ago and no longer have an interest in, thus you receive too many emails and phones calls that are not relevant to your career goals - THIS WASTES YOUR TIME.

· They can identify what you've done in the past, but not what you want to do now or in the future. In this global market, there's a unethical trend to share board services among many, many people - thousands of people gain access to your resume, and sometimes they are not recruiters. While it's good to get your name out, especially when you're new to the job market, savvy job seekers eventually pull away from the big boards and use select recruiters and networking to get their next engagement.

Things you can do with a trusted recruiter to help them target your search:

· Ask questions about your recruiters internal application tracking system - if they don't have one - Don't waste your time.

· Ask them how their database works, who has access to it, how is it populated, is it secure and confidential?

· Once you feel confident about the way they use your information, ask how you can support their recruiting effort. What are considered good pieces of information e.g. desired position, visa status, are you technical or functional, a modeler or a DBA, etc...

· Make sure you get added to your trusted recruiter's internal tracking system, and that they have all the information they need to target your next engagement.

· Make sure they record what you're looking for and exactly what you have to offer.

· Don't rely on human memory. Make sure your data is current and accurate.

Use your recruiters database to your best advantage and you will profit in time, money, and quality engagements.

[Andrew Buck]

Steve, this is a good comment, but I'll share the discontent that most seekers have with the recruiting community. Sadly, most current recruiters have this low-hanging-fruit mentality that spends no time other than a current role -- in other words, if they cannot place you in the role thay have in front of them now, they have no future interest in you. Even more sadly, most cannot tell you enough information about the role to either adequately qualify or exclude you appropriately. My view is that most are too reliant on these SQL-Query data warehouses to time-and-again mass-mail you.

Then there's the India angle, which you don't want to get me started on.

I believe there is a different approach that can be used, you've scratched the surface of it, but I'm not sure you've fully penetrated: The direct relationship. A recruiter is a broker for 2 parties, and most don't take one of them seriously at all by failing to recognize that strong candidates will have multiple options and the luxury of either taking or deferring action -- in other words, they can move if they want, they don't need to. Most recruiters have lost sight of the personal angle that requires they do more than the "peg-in-hole" approach that the SQL databases have lulled them into. And that trend is not only dangerous, as more organizations get wise to the "value" provided by recruiting firms, they quickly begin to realize that they can reduce talent acquisition costs by doing the exact same thing, which ultimately drives down commissions and reduces the overall costs to the employer. Unless the recruiter is adding value by finding talent that the employer cannot through the major job databanks, the days of the easy recruiter paycheck will either come to a quick end, or simply be outsourced to India where the competency almost meets this level now.

So in response...I'll ask what value that the recruiting community is providing to candidates, and how they're doing that? What are they doing to cultivate the relationships with organizations (and please don't say "preferred vendor lists")?

[Steve Delaney]

These are all great comments...
1. Seekers discontent with recruiters in general
2. The India Angle - AKA "Visa H1B use and abuse"
3. The lost practice of building direct relationships
4. Recruiters - Where is the value added?

Would you like to post as seperate topic threads?

[Andrew Buck]

I think we might just keep it to the thread here if we can, but would be more interested in your thoughts on the following:

- How does the recruiting community add value? Also, in addition to Web 2.0 networking, how are your colleagues networking? How many of you are prone to pick up the phone to dial versus typing a mail, or worse, sending the same generic email to hundreds or more keyword matches?

- Where do you see the future of your industry -- meaning retained and/or contingent search? Will it still be in the independent recruiter, or will it continue as a trend toward captive recruiting for hire by internal HR (in other words, outsourcing the recruiting function from HR to a captive recruiter)?

The comment on the India angle is simply this: Candidates are receiving more and more calls that are coming from Indian recruiters. Most know how to read a script and not much else, few can answer any direct question, nearly all have so little facility with the English language that any question that veers from the script is basically ignored. I openly question whether any of them can be any more than marginally successful, or if they're simply "cheap" and we've set the bar lower than we should.

For seekers like me, it's a combination of those that hadn't engendered me to working with recruiters. Hope that helps make sense of the comments.

[Steve Delaney]

Let me attack the "Indian" issue first. And let me add this is only my opinion...

The fact that a recruiter is scripted and knows nothing about the industry is not an Indian issue - in fact India has proven over the past 20 years that they know quite a bit about the IT industry and they generally have the respect of the world for thier efforts.

The problem is that young recruiters do not know the industry and must be scripted. In my 20 years experience I'm met many "Americans" who could barely speak english and had no clue about IT what-so-ever.

Actually I have never met a rectrutier with prior direct hands-on IT experience. After a while some of them learn to talk the talk, and become quite good at it, but those who have walked the walk are quite rare.

Perhaps the future holds a place for retired IT folks to start filling this role.

[Steve Delaney]

The first question you ask is hugely important to me as I think every day, where does this proposition add value.
I recognized early on that racing to fish in the same pond (e.g. Monster, Dice, HotJobs...) and fighting for a top rating on a preferred vendors list is NOT a career path I'm not interested in.
The value add question/response is a make or break tipping point. Unfortunately, too often when asking this question of IT recruiters, the response is mushy answers and sometimes out-right lies.
I believe there is a real lack of consultant/recruiter relationship for several reasons, some which we touched upon, but another is the acceptance that a consultant is a commodity (e.g. plug and play programmers); an idea that has been incredibly damaging to IT.
It’s ironic since we claim to work so hard at embracing diversity; we think it’s wise to objectify programmers, SAP developers, PMP’s, H1B’s, IT people in general, and yes even recruiters.
It’s so bad we talk about business and IT as if IT is not as much a part of business as HR, Finance, Legal, Operations, Sales and Marketing, Merchandising, etc… It’s an “us vs. them” mentality to the extreme. No wonder the employment process is ineffective and sometimes demeaning to IT professionals.
Of course, one can’t forget that the “value add” usually goes to the one with the money – and that would be the employer. All focus goes into appeasing their needs and their whims. Quite honestly, it’s the only way to compete in today’s market. Once there is a stated interest in a candidate, both candidate and recruiter should do all they can to team up and make the hire happen as quickly as possible.
There’s little time for negotiation as there once was, competition is too stiff. Everything is on the table before the client says “maybe” at which point both candidate and recruiter should be focusing on getting to “yes.”
That’s one reason submitting for every job that you can handle works against you; you may actually get an offer you don’t want. It needs to be a right fit for you before you submit the resume. Your recruiter network should present you with opportunities and discussions about whether they are worth pursuing.
If so what’s the game plan? How do you rework the resume to appeal to the right employer for the right job? How is the recruiter going to present you for consideration? What are some questions and answers?
In my opinion the teamwork needed often can’t happen without some prior effort in relationship building.
That’s why, regardless of your technical skills, I want to know up front – Can I work with you? Are you professional? What are your needs and wants? What can you bring to the table? Can I trust you to deliver on your promises?
I think from the onset, both parties must be regarded as professionals worth respect.

[Steve Delaney]

I need to correct a statement. It's not just recruiters who present themselves with mushy answers and down-right lies. Too often the candidates and the clients are guilty of inadequatley presenting a value add proposition. Everyone is potentially guilty of lying about skills, opportunities, and any number of promises required to get the job done.

[Andrew Buck]

Ok, Steve -- fair comments. Couple of responses though.

1. I completely disagree with the stance on India for a couple of reasons. First, companies are actually becoming much more astute about the issues that India-sourcing brings, including alarming turnover rates, lack of talent retention, and the spiraling costs that are starting to price India out of the business of outsourcing and making other Pacific Rim countries much more attractive. Second, my point was also aimed at the recruiting community -- today, for instance, of the recruiters to whom I've spoken, only 1 was not from India. They know how to read the exact same script when contacting a candidate so that the whole experience sounds like a customer service call for a major appliance. What they don't do at all well is the detailed understanding of any role they represent, instead opting for the peg-in-hole mentality.

And I fear that much of the US recruiting community has gone the same way.

2. I'm heartened by your initial comments, but think that at certain levels the competition actually does tip back in favor of the candidate, especially if they can be clear about what they do bring to the table. The good candidate, however, is probably not going to be quite so ready to say "yes" to the "maybe", but rather say "tell me why you're different" to the "yes". That's a situation on which most in the recruiting industry seem to be plagued with short-attention-span, or might tend toward ditching a candidate who might be less inclined to make a jump to their role if all of the factors aren't right.

I think your approach here is a good one even though we're not in 100% agreement. When I've thrown down this gauntlet before, the vast majority in the industry haven't picked it up and I think are missing some important feedback. You're among the few who picked up and at least challenged it back -- good!

As much as recruiters like to tell candidates how to best do their job, some of us ex-recruiters who have made their way into IT somehow (from long, long ago) might have some guidance that works in reverse as well.

Be well!