Insider - For the latest job hunting and recruitment news and views

From good, to great…

I’ve recently been asking myself ‘What makes the difference between an average recruiter and a great one?’

As I watch the way the recruitment world is evolving, one thing is becoming ever clearer to me – that the really great recruiters don’t just think about filling a vacancy with a person who can do the job, they’re also thinking about how the person will fit into the culture of the company.But despite all kinds of evidence that this is the right approach, most recruiters still don’t think this way. They’re thinking about what’s good for them, not what’s good for both parties – and that can have disastrous consequences for all concerned.

Great recruiters recognise that all the qualifications in the world mean nothing if there’s no chemistry between the candidate and the company. They know that it’s usually better to hire someone who’s going to fit right into the corporate culture, rather than someone who looks good on paper but doesn’t fit well into the team. Finding well-qualified and well-educated people is easy enough. But finding people who you know are going to fit well into your organisation is harder, and it needs an approach that few recruiters really get right yet.

We all know about the profound recent changes in the employment market. As the work-life balance shifts, jobseekers are re-focusing on what they really want out of a job. With low unemployment rates and a wealth of new opportunities, candidates have more choice than ever; so from an employer’s perspective, it’s vital to really understand the differing needs of the workforce. But recruitment processes haven’t kept pace with the ways those need are changing. It’s still common for organisations to rely on the same techniques and processes that they have used for decades to hire the ‘right’ people. Few managers receive formal training in basic interviewing techniques, and according to our most recent research, 59% of hiring managers still rely largely on ‘gut feel’ to make decisions about who to hire. Sure, you can find great staff based on gut feel – but if you get it wrong, it can turn out to be an expensive and damaging mistake. By putting the right processes into place and educating those responsible for hiring, every company should be able to make informed decisions and employ the right staff.

Related posts:

  1. Good adverts, good candidates At Jobsite, we are often being asked what the best...
| More
avatar Keith Potts 30 April 2007 A word from our MD Keith
  • Joe

    “Gut feel” I fear will always have a place in the recruitment process. Some people often confuse the analysis of a person’s environmental fit with “gut feel” also. I have heard people say things like “I don’t thing he / she would fit in, don’t ask me why”. Maybe if the interviewer drills down into these gut feelings they will actually find that they are based on something. It is almost like using the competence based approach and adjusting it to fit “culture and environment”.
    It has also been quite useful to introduce potential employees to the team, maybe even invite them on a team building or team ideas day, to see how the team / environmental dynamic fits. But please don’t just rely on gut feel for the “yes / no” big decision!

  • Kerry

    I am a Recruitment specialist and have over 20 years in the industry – don’t get me wrong I agree with what your saying. However probably 1% of people would follow your advice or fall into your IDEAL group.
    Headhunters I feel are more likely to follow this practice but recruiters with many jobs on their books are very unlikely to ever use this and really you are in a dream world if you ever think this will/could happen.
    Let’s face it, if people were satisfied in their job 1/20 of recruitment agencies would exist. However the market is as it is because people WANT to move – not because they are unhappy but because people want the amount of money they deserve or just because they are purely ambitious. We dont live in the 60′s anymore where there is that “job for life”, instead its a dog eat dog world where there are millions of others who can and indeed will replace you.
    Anyway be interested to know what you think

  • Keith

    Kerry,
    Thanks for your comments, sorry for the delay in responding but I’m just back from holiday. You may well be right that in practice this would be rather difficult but let’s explore this a little further. How many times do we all hear about recruiters who place someone in a job who subsequently leaves because the cultural fit wasn’t quite right? At the same time, how much effort do we put into finding out what it’s actually like to work within the particular company… visiting them and experiencing it for ourselves is time consuming, but alternatively how many of us actually try to find out from the employer what type of person would culturally fit in? Finally, what happens when they do leave early, I imagine, most recruiters lose all or part of the placement fee?
    We also need to remember that that’s not the only loss because the company themselves have had to pay for induction training, security checks, the opportunity cost when others have to put in effort to integrate the new member of staff into their team etc etc.
    According to CIPD research, 12% of employees quit their job in the first 3 months of employment, costing UK companies £2.5 billon per year. Our own research shows that people mainly leave because they don’t exactly fit in culturally. Maybe we should be exploring what the costs actually are and see whether they outweigh the benefits. What would be good is to hear examples of what companies are trying to do to tackle this problem and share with us good practice so that others can benefit.
    Keith

  • Georgie Girl

    Hi Keith. The “alchemy” of recruitment is not dependant on a single factor. Culture fit is important as is motivation, and all the other intangibles or “soft stuff” that are not obvious on a CV and they often create that sense or “gut feel” that you refer to.
    I agree that the role of the recruitment CONSULTANT is just that – to consult/advise/inform BUT often the (computer) processes, job descriptions and dictats from the paymaster (client) can and do prevent us from finding the TRUE talent and not simply someone who ticks all the boxes.
    Furthermore, companies often use agencies because they cannot fill the role themselves and/or because there is a sense of urgency. They want it and they want it NOW so, as a recruiter yes you can and should endeavour to match on everything but how do you assure chemistry?
    The current trend for pyschometrics is not fool proof and it further reduces recruitment into a PROCESS AND NOT AN EXPERIENCE FOR THE CANDIDATE.
    How can you accuracy convey a sense of yourself via a computer system?
    The phrases “customer relationship management system”, “Human Capital”, “applicant tracking system” are impersonal and reduce people to widgets without thought or feeling.
    We are individual and there is no such thing as the perfect candidate.
    It may be time for me to “get my coat” because unless there is a sufficient number of employers who value the individual time and attention a true consultant offers their candidate then our days are numbered and I do not want to work in an impersonal supply chain environment.

  • Keith

    Georgie Girl,
    There must be a balance to be had between the super efficient computer systems which help the recruiter through the workflow involved in doing their job (the impersonal side) and the business of making sure each candidate is has been given the personal touch.
    Yes, the culture fit is part of the mix and recruiters who have better stability with their placements tend to be the ones who consider as much of this type of thing as possible. It does seem a shame that situations do not allow it as you have highlighted here.
    Take care
    Keith

Disclaimer: Any views here do not necessarily reflect the views of Jobsite. As such we cannot be held responsible for the views expressed here or any actions taken as a consequence.