Therehas been lots of talk about what makes a successful hire lately on the theblogs I read. Michael Kelemen posted two interesting posts on Recruiting.com (hereand here)that generated some amusing comments. Most of the stuff being discussed I donot really understand until Jim Durbin got in on the comment action and said.
"We have it so much easierthan you guys. We measure success by when the check clears and whether themanager picks up the phone to call us with the next order." (jim is athird party recruiter)
It is easy to see why lots of companies are not happy withthe results they get from their third party recruiters. These candidates gethired because they have the skill set to do it. They also are in a position nowto change jobs. Then once they start, it becomes apparent (based on all of thecriteria that makes a successful hire that I just learned about in the last fewdays of reading the recruiting blogs) that they are not good candidates. I think some of the issues lie in the fact that lots of recruiters report to different people with different agendas
Maybethis is why some companies are looking to make some drastic changes to theiragency agreements to combat this. Here are a couple of good ones:
1.They want 180 day full money back guarentee (can you imagine any recruiteragreeing to this)
2.With each candidate submittal, they want 6 more names and contact info toverify the greatness of the candidate being submitted (can you imagine any recruiteragreeing to this?)
It'sconfusing. Here is a good post from JimDurbin on his blog.
OtherComments:
Iwould also like to say that I was given access to the jobster software and I plan on trying it outto see how it works. I will report back in two weeks on it.
Readthis post by DennisSmith on his blog
Posted by Jason
If you have any interesting information or Blog Posts you would like tosubmit to Recruiting.com Please email me
Post new comment