Why should an Employer use a Recruiter to find Talent?

Why should an Employer use a Recruiter to find Talent?

So today a colleague from another niche agency called me up for advice. A potential client had called her up, told her that she’s put out an advert and has had 200 responses. And she would like to use her services too. She was stumped and asked me how I would handle that?

Well for the next 20 minutes I engaged vigorously and passionately on the phone with all the reasons I could think of… so much so that I told her I’m going to blog about it, so here goes!

Why is this potential client even calling her if she has 200 ad responses? Has the employer gone through the responses? Out of the responses, how many fit the spec and are worth engaging further with?  5?…. 2?…. 1 or are they all completely a miss-match? What worth is there, in having 200 advert responses? (hell, it could be 2000 for all I care) Anyone who has ever placed a job advert should know that out of the heaps of applicants the percentage of people that are right is so low, it can be very disheartening.

This is one of the MAJOR reasons employers use the services of a recruiter.

Who has got the time/energy/patience and perseverance to go through each and every ad response to ensure they don’t miss “THE CV”?

A recruiter does; a recruiter gets paid to do that.

A smart recruiter though, will not necessarily advertise at all, because of some of the best talent/candidates  out there are people who aren’t actively looking for a job, they’re already working and delivering. These proven achievers are in the top 5 or 10 percent of their profession. They don’t scour the job boards or “help wanted” ads. They don’t keep their cv’s fresh and circulating on all the job boards and they don’t visit recruitment agencies just to meet them;  just so that a recruiter can tick the activity box for the day that they’ve interviewed 10 people!

If you’re looking for talent/candidates you have to go find it (that’s why it’s called LOOKING) because they aren’t looking for you.

Top recruiters are trained to find these types of people every day. They’re trained to help guide and assist both client and candidate, thereby mitigating mistakes made in the recruiting process.

They act as the “middle man” so that clients and candidates can be open and frank with “the middle man.” Messages can be conveyed without causing offense, and no conclusion jumping can be made as they aren’t dealing directly with each other.

What if this hire is particularly sensitive and discretion is needed? How do you call a potential new employee, without telling them the name of your company until you’ve decided that you’re proceeding with an interview? How do you build up a rapport with talent/candidates and win their trust so that they can open up to you the way they would to a good recruiter?

Back to this morning’s discussion…

This potential new client needed to be told that a recruiter minimizes the amount of cv’s  to go through when finding suitable talent/candidate (as a recruiter is doing all that tedious work) and maximizes results (a good recruiter will send you your next employee)

Most recruiters work on contingency (you only pay for a positive result – ie a new employee)

What other professional group do you work with, that will work on a contingency basis? What other professional group guarantees their work even though they have little control over what you do to ensure the success of their placement? Most candidates leave because they don’t like the company or the direct supervisor. The recruiter has little to no control over those two contributing factors, yet they guarantee their work.

You as a client doing the full recruiting search function are paying from the get go (your salary or hiring manager’s salary) and what if after days and weeks the hiring manager hasn’t got anywhere, and you end up using a recruiter anyway? The money and man-hours lost and wasted affect production.

At the end of the day, a HUGE advantage of using a recruiter is that they act as a buffer and also adviser. What talent/candidate will tell a potential employer directly “listen I think you’re being unreasonable, the value add I bring is worth at least 5% more than the offer you’re thinking about making?” whereas a recruiter can do that and get away with it… there’s no personal vested interest. A recruiter can tell talent/candidates that they need to be realistic. They need to understand that if they insist on wanting X amount in salary increase they won’t be offered the job. Again, what employer has the relationship with the talent/candidate to be able to tell them that directly?  There’s a high risk of the talent/candidate getting offended and the whole process potentially imploding?

I’ll leave you with this case in point that is playing out currently.

I received a call on Thursday afternoon from a very frustrated HR manager. The HR Manager has been looking since July for a specialized sales person. They too cover specific engineering sectors in Africa. Portuguese and French are non-negotiables.  She’s had it with the irrelevant ad responses she’s had to trawl through. She’s fed up with agencies that have flooded her with the wrong type of profiles. (make sure you use a reputable/capable recruiter too – someone that specialized in your sector/industry)

She received two suitable candidates in her inbox this morning (Monday). One French and the other Portuguese. They have interviews scheduled for Wednesday.

So, it is up to you to decide.   Is finding the right staff going to be painful or a pleasure?