Marketing Jobs: "Getting Inside Information"

NEW YORK - While surfing the web today, I rediscovered something that I wrote for the Fordyce Letter last summer.  The Fordyce Letter is the Harvard Business Review of the recruiting business, and the publishers were running a contest called "The best recruiting lesson I ever learned."

My entry (below) won a year's subscription to the Fordyce Letter -- which goes for $189.  Since my submission never appeared on this blog, I thought you readers might enjoy it.

The best recruiting lesson I ever learned ...

... is that the odds of my closing a search skyrocket when I get my candidates to help each other get the job.

Here's how I do it: At the beginning of a search, I assure my candidates that I will do every-ethical-thing in my power to help them get the job. HOWEVER: In good faith, they agree that if they get knocked out of the search, they will make themselves available by phone to discuss my client's interview process with all surviving candidates.

For example, imagine that I submit six highly-qualified candidates for the same VP of Marketing job. Usually, four will get knocked out before the two survivors get called in for final interviews.  My method allows the final two candidates to have confidential, in-depth calls with the four "dead" candidates before going in for their final interviews.  From what I hear, a ton of outstanding intel is traded among these executives.

• What's in it for the "dead" candidates?  A great networking opportunity to help a colleague who's about to get a plum VP-level job at a company they respect.
• What's in it for the "live" candidates?  Valuable intelligence.
• What's in it for me?  Usually money -- and some very impressed VP-level candidates.

I still use this tactic every chance I get, and I'm surprised that other recruiters find this practice so foreign.  It freaking works!  Plus, you'd be amazed at how much camaraderie can be built up among sportsmanlike candidates who share a common goal -- especially when they belong to a tight-knit industrial community like online retail.

Thanks to Jason Davis and ERE.net for sponsoring this contest.  I plan to renew my Fordyce subscription at full price when it expires next month.
______________________________________________________________________

Submit Your Resume | Download my vCard | Get My Searches | 97 Job Search Tips

Comments

[Ted Grigg]

When I was a candidate, this would have not only helped in the interviewing process, but it would provide a sanity check to help me make a wise decision if offered the job.

In most cases, however, the recruiter was competing with other headhunters for the same job. So the headhunter who referred me did not have access to other candidates who made it to the interview.

Thanks for the nice pointer.

[Harry Joiner]

Absolutely! Most of my candidates know each other already, and they agree before the process starts that they will do this. at the time of the agreement, they have no idea who the other candidates are. only after they agree do i reveal this.

it's entirely optional. i've had searches where 3/4 of the candidates do it -- and the 4th is left out. sometimes it's only 2 of 4. sometimes all. sometimes none. they decide.

obviously, the more who participate, the better the intel.

"none of them is as smart as all of them."

[David]

I had a recruiter sort of do this with me. After the interview he quizzed me about the questions that were asked, what they were really after, what went over well, etc.

Then I realized he had another candidate interviewing the next day, and I assume he passed along this info.

What you describe is a great idea, but candidates need to be sure they are out of the running before revealing any information.

[recruiterguy]

Fair enough and I appreciate the quick response. Being retained, I have exclusivity in searches. Your process makes sense in the contingent world.

[Harry Joiner]

well, on the one hand, you're right: just because a student does well on the test does not mean that he is the smartest student in the class.

on the other hand, if you're not playing to win, why prep at all?

i want to give my candidates every conceivable advantage that an internal candidate would have. they still have to pass the background checks. they still have to take the intelligence tests, etc. their references still have to check out, and so on.

but to the greatest extent ethically possible, i want to give my candidates an advantage ... especially against those of other third party recruiters.

[recruiterguy]

Or one that appears to be based on prepping?

[Harry Joiner]

an exceptionally well informed candidate.

[recruiterguy]

What's in it for the client?