Friday, April 01, 2005

Sorry, We Already Have Him on File...

Jason Davis posted a blog on yesterday that hits a sensitive nerve between TPR's and in-house recruiters. I thought it was worth repeating here because it's a relevant issue that impacts the relationship between these two parties.

Jason's blog is below and my comments follow.

See you down the road,

I know this has happened to all you third party recruiters before as well as internal recruiters. Here is the scenario.

Third party recruiter goes out and does a search for a client. The recruiter comes up with a candidate who seems like a perfect fit based on their most current resume. The Recruiter storyboards the opportunity (A Bill Radin Suggestion and a very good one) and the candidate is very interested and feels the position is a good fit. After a number of phone conversations, the client name is released and the recruiter is assured that their resume is not on file with the company and the candidate has never spoken to anyone about possible employment with that company. The recruiter sends the resume in for review and guess what? The internal recruiter calls back and says the candidate is already on file.
I have not made my point yet so bear with with me.

Let’s say the candidate really is "on file" with that company because the company bought some research and the name was on the list of possible recruits. My opinion on this is that the recruiter should get the fee for the placement if it happens but this is still not the point of this Blog post.
My point is this. What kind of job is the internal recruiter doing. He/she has great candidates on a sheet of paper. Why have these candidates not been called already? I constantly hear about companies not happy about paying recruiting fees and stuff like that. Now I know that some people want change (from Jeff Bloch's blog) but In my opinion, there is a severe shortage of people inside of companies who know how to recruit.(Don't get me wrong, I am a recruiter so I see the benefits of this)
Let’s say I am the director of HR at a company and the owner of a recruiting firm calls me and says that the last 6 candidates we have sent you have all been on file when in fact they have never sent their resume to you nor have they talked to anyone at your company about employment. I would say, let me get back to you.

I would then go and speak to the recruiter who handles the relationship with the recruiter. I would say, if in fact we have these candidates on a list of research we have bought, why is it that they have not been called yet?
Probably there are many good reasons for this and until this gets fixed, recruiters will continue sending nice sized invoices for candidates who are already "on file"
Dennis Smith – Comments…….
Speaking from the corporate perspective, I value the relationships I have with TPR's. The best policy is to be straightforward, no question. However, if a recruiter on our team has a name/resume and they've failed to call the candidate until the TPR brings it to their attention, well, I pay the TPR.


1) It protects the relationship with the TPR - I value the relationship too much to be stubborn over a placement fee.

2) It teaches everybody a good lesson - just because the recruiter couldn't make it work 6 months ago, or the job was closed, doesn't mean they file them away forever.

We had this happen recently. An employee referred a candidate for a particular position. After a few interviews, the manager cancels the requisition. Several months later, a TPR forwards the same resume for a specific position in our company. Up to that point, the recruiter had failed to engage the candidate for the new position. Dilemma? Nope - I paid the TPR.

The good recruiter will be acutely aware of who he/she has in their database - there should have been some kind of connection between the current open position and the "hot" candidate from six months prior.
Sometimes lessons are expensive. However, if it's a good lesson, it will stick.

In the words of that famous hotel frontiersman, Tom Bodett,

"The difference between school and life? In school, you're
taught a lesson and then given a test. In life, you're given a test that teaches you a lesson."