| |
July/August
2003
Hiring
cheaper isn’t hiring better
WHY
COMPANIES CONTINUE TO GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY PAY FOR
PARTS
IS PARTS,” said the long-running television commercial
that mocked a fast-food competitor’s processed chicken
pieces.
Sometimes
it also seems that bodies are bodies, interchangeable and
most wisely obtainedprocured at the lowest possible cost for
the least amount of effort..
Certainly,
anyone who works in today’s corporations knows that far
too few employees are trying to do far too much work with
far too limited resources. At some point in the last century,
people were those companies’ most important resourceproduct
– but that was then and this is now, dude. If not ignored
or placed on hold by corporate edict, hiring has become a
necessary evil as opposed to a golden opportunity.
And with
every possible ounce of cost being wrung fromout of corporate
budgets, it seems to make sense to hire on the cheap: waste
not, want not. This has led to the creation of computerized
“vendor management systems” for personnel procurement;,
applicant-tracking software that classifies, and files
and retrieves réresumées electronically;, “preferred
recruiter” lists based largely on search firms’
willingness to discount their services,; increased reliance
on online job boards, and so on.
While
it might be argued that certain kinds of skill-intensive positions
can be filled through automated recruiting and assessment,
that is hardly the case for positions where factors such as
leadership, judgment, persuasiveness, management style and
emotional intelligence come into play. In our 44 years in
search, Sanford Rose Associates has yet to see a résumé
that presents its subject as a whole human being – capable
of accomplishing some things more than others and destined
to reach a certain level of personal achievement.
What
happens over time – especially in larger, more “organized”
and more bureaucratic organizations – is a gradual dumbing-down
of the hiring process. Actions are taken and decisions made
on the basis of their efficiency (or, better yet, cost-efficiency).
Those responsible for finding and attracting the ideal candidate
are denied access to the very individual who most understands
the needs and dynamics of the open position – namely,
the person to whom the position reports. Candidate interviews
are repeatedly rescheduled, and hiring decisions are postponed
for months. Adding injury to insult, search firms are asked
to work for smaller fees and accept later payment, two dampening
factors on a firm’s level of commitment, degree of thoroughness
and sense of urgency.
It’s
like the wife who never knew her husband drank until he came
home sober one night: life seems normal until a better alternative
arrives.
How
Strong Relationships Help
For many
years, Sanford Rose Associates has promised employers to find
those people who make a difference in organizational performance.
Many are happily employed and not actively seeking other work,
which means their résumés are not in general
circulation. When a genuine opportunity is presented to them,
they expect that all parties – client, search consultant
and themselves as candidate – will proceed with the utmost
respect, professionalism and confidentiality.
Readers who do not seek that level of candidate will not need
to read further. Let’s assume, however, that most corporate
executives in their heart of hearts want the best possible
person when critical position openings arise. (Non-critical
positions are another matter. Few if any organizations, for
example, will require a world-class search for a mailroom
clerk.)
Since
the mid-20th century, wise employers have turned to outside
search firms to help fill those critical positions where strong
internal candidates do not exist, and/or where fresh perspective
and approaches are required. Why?
- Search
firms conduct searches day in and day out – 24/7/52.
They are not amateur hobbyists or weekend warriors –
but, rather, stay at the peak of their game.
- Many,
including every Sanford Rose Associates office, specialize
in particular industries and occupational fields. That means
they know you, your company, your industry and where the
top-performing people are.
- They
understand that position descriptions rarely describe what
problems and opportunities await the next incumbent, what
factors will determine success or failure and what objectives
must be accomplished in what period of time. Therefore,
they expect access to the people with the answers.
- And,
in all candor, search professionals are good sales people
– not only in marketing their services to prospective
clients, but more importantly in presenting career opportunities
to candidates and bringing the search to a happy conclusion
for all concerned.
It goes
without saying, therefore, that close relationships and unfettered
access produce better searches. The search firm is much more
likely to do it right the first time – and the employer
to hire a superior person.
Meanwhile,
Back at the Ranch …
While
a few huge organizations consume dozens of engineers in one
gulp, field enormous sales forces and engage scores of IT
contractors, most do not. The kind of back-office programs
described at the beginning of this newsletter to manage the
hiring process are overkill (and over-cost) for the vast majority
of employers and do more to impede the hiring process than
to strengthen it or speed it up.
Sometimes
in-house recruiting operations hopefully augment the Human
Resources Department, but more often than not HR is subject
to the same downsizing, consolidation and outsourcing as occurs
in all other areas of the modern corporation. At the
same time, repeated surveys by HR Executive magazine have
shown that its readers rank recruiting near the bottom on
their list of corporate priorities. That can lead overworked
HR professionals to treat recruiters as friend or as foe.
Under
the foe scenario, recruiters are an interruption and distraction
from other tasks. If allowed to speak with hiring managers,
the recruiters will interrupt and distract them too. (As one
harried HR manager said recently to a search consultant, “If
you can’t find the information you need in the job description,
try our website.”)
Under
the friend scenario, however, the search consultant is acknowledged
as a trusted consultant and valued extension of the HR Department.
This kind of manager realizes that the search professional
can help make the HR star shine a little brighter by “finding
people who make a difference,” in the words of the Sanford
Rose Associates trademark. That style of manager trusts the
search consultant to keep him or her in the loop.
Companies
that believe in farming out searches to a broad cadre of contingency
recruiting firms will find it difficult and time-consuming
to initiate the kind of close relationship that produces superior
candidates. (In fact, the opposite occurs: confused candidates
who have heard the job described at least six different ways
by six firms, and who consequently proceed to discount the
opportunity.)
By contrast,
companies that zero-in on one, two or (at most) three firms
with which they can develop close relationships receive all
those benefits that lead to successful end results: a complete
understanding of the company and the position, a strong sense
of urgency and a deep commitment to find the best possible
candidates. It may be more work in the beginning, but it pays
off in the end.
|
