WARNING: this post may ruffle some corporate HR feathers. REMINDER: engaging firms is serious business – this topic could stand more attention. BOTTOM LINE: I hope this provokes some insightful thinking and collaborative conversation within the industry.

If you hire people often, you’re likely no stranger to the term, “throwing spaghetti at the wall.” Most people agree that for one open position, an effective recruiter will ideally source just a few (maybe 3) targeted and strong candidates, versus wasting everyone’s time “throwing spaghetti at the wall” and seeing if 1 candidate sticks out of a minimally-vetted 6 or 7. At this point, we as an industry simply know that going “SPLAT” left and right is not the most strategic and efficient approach, no? (Plus, it’s just messy).

Why is it, then, that when it comes to the way corporate HR deals with firm partners . . . many are flinging that pasta?

What do I mean by this?

1. If you have a massive list of firms and you engage a handful of them at a time for one requisition;
2. If you don’t allow the firm recruiter to speak with the hiring manager at project kickoff.

I do get it; I’ve been on the TA side myself. Internal HR needs to manage the situation, and it all comes down to time: minimizing the time your hiring manager has to spend on recruiting conversations; minimizing your own time speaking with your external partners; filling the job quickly; etc.

Think about this, however:

• On contingent engagements, how much time do you as HR spend dealing with multiple firms at a surface level when you could spend the same or less time working more deeply with a select few (and 1-2 per req) and have better, more targeted results because you’re working with them more closely (which increases their motivation/emotional investment and leads to better quality)? You can still safely facilitate an initial meeting with the firm and your hiring manager. Just attend the meeting as well, set hard expectations that you are to be the main contact, and make sure the firm knows they’re canned if they start talking to the hiring manager without you.

And this:

• As a boutique independent, my 2015 stats included 100% completion rate for retainers and 89% for contingent searches (including a few non-exclusives). In a 2016 survey, 100% of my clients – repeat and new – agreed that it was a good business decision to engage me (again, I work mostly on an exclusive basis, and they knew that and made the decision).

And especially this:

• Imagine I’m sourcing you [the reader, here] for a job, and you’ve said, “I’m not really looking, but sure, I’ll hear what this is.” I share it with you, and you’re intrigued but need to know more. And because you’re a strategic and savvy professional, all these questions suddenly pop into your head and you ask me: “Why’s the job open?” “What’s the culture like?” “What’s the supervisor and the team like? That’s really critical for me.”

And BAM: I’ve lost my credibility and I’ve lost you because I have to say: “Well, uh, I haven’t actually spoken with this job’s manager.” Then I have to start spouting off sales pitches and reasons why you should still look into it anyway and take me seriously throughout this whole thing. And you say, “Thanks, but call me when you have something serious.” It makes me – and the hiring company – look silly. We miss the best hires, especially if it’s an experienced candidate and they’ve got the business acumen to read between the lines as they’re being tapped on the shoulder.

Furthermore, how do you look as an employer if you’ve got all these 3^rd party firms recruiting for you, and they’re in the community engaging candidates and telling people they haven’t even spoken with the position’s supervisor? Does that help or hurt your employer brand? What legalities do you risk by maintaining surface-level relations with handfuls of firms out there representing your company? (Thanks for this point KB!) Imagine yourself as the candidate being recruited again: What assumptions would you start making about what your life would be like working there, based off how they go about recruiting? Would that entice you to take time out of your busy schedule to check them out?

Ever been burned by candidates submitted by firms because in the end, the candidate was simply ‘window shopping’ and not terribly serious about the job? This occurs when firms are unintentionally encouraged to submit minimally-vetted candidates because they know you’re also working with 3-4 other firms. They figure they’ll quickly throw that spaghetti (mmm, Ragu!) and then refocus on their hiring clients who actually work closely with them.

I looove spaghetti, but it strictly goes in my belly. Most of my candidates – around 70% – have never worked with a firm recruiter until myself, and they certainly ain’t taking time away from the office to interview if they don’t feel that I am thoroughly representing the company. And you know what my company clients tell me nearly every time my candidates interview? “Wow that candidate was ‘dialed-in’ the whole time…They did their research…I believe they’re genuinely interested…They knew about us and the business; the knew about [hiring manager], it was great!” Want references on this? Just ask. This is all about not wasting your time. You give me the info I need on the front end; I will respect you, and you will see the ROI later. There’s a reason why I and 4SIGHT am replacing more and more ‘preferred firms’ each year.

I don’t mean to offend if you interact with your firms this way. I don’t expect everyone to work with firms exclusively, and I realize that everyone’s businesses are different and have different approaches that are best for them. But if you walk away from this article thinking, “I suppose this makes sense…” and you appreciate the perspective, that is my goal. I hear this topic occasionally at HR meetings, and how more companies are going in the direction of exclusive firm relations for perm placement. If you agree that recruiters (both firm and in-house) should really vet and qualify their candidates before sending them your way – as to not throw spaghetti at the wall – how is working with firms any different?

When you have a good, open and trusting partnership with a good, open and trusting firm who understands your needs and your risks; who gets inside of the head of the candidate; who matches the candidate to the hiring manager and the business because they’ve seen them first-hand; and when there’s a deeper mutual exchange on the front end of the process . . . the result is a smoother-running process overall, better results, and you will save time and money in the end. Try deep-diving with just one, good firm on the next couple applicable reqs. If you don’t like it after two, go back. But I believe you won’t…

 

EMPLOYERS: Sign up for our monthly employer newsletter & talent view here.

MARKETERS: Sign up for our monthly talent newsletter here.