I can speak to this particular issue from the perspective of both a recruiter and a candidate. I get literally dozens of calls every week for positions that have nothing to do with my background and skillset. This is the downfall of searching for keywords and not actually reading resumes and understanding job descriptions. It's sad, but true.
But I can empathize with why some of the recruiters who call me despite my completely off-kilter-for-this-position skill set. How many recruiters have worked for an account manager who used expressions like "hammer those phones?" The answer would be most of us. It's a common philosophy with so-called "old school" sales guys: they swear by the "contact sport" theory of recruitment. You know, the more people you contact the better your chances are. This is a quantity vs. quality argument, plain and simple.
It's also archaic and borderline barbaric. When I hear account managers say "the same techniques that worked 20 years ago will work today," I try my best not to start laughing like a hyena who bathed in tequila. But it's difficult. I know making a lot of phone calls gives me more chances to find a good candidate. It makes sense. But in the age of job boards, social media, and more intelligent gatekeepers; what's the point?
If managers are running companies on an efficiency model, how can one argue that thoughtlessly pounding, hammering, and nailing the phones is an effective use of time? Calling the right candidates is a far more useful technique. Realistically speaking, I could make 50 calls to candidates varying from good fits to "they matched one keyword." Or, I could make 20 calls to excellent candidates, get 5 referrals, and submit a bevy of qualified potential commission checks...err, candidates. What sounds like a better idea?
A good recruiter is analytical and thorough. Recruitment isn't telemarketing. It isn't door-to-door sales. It's solving a puzzle. And you can't solve a puzzle with the contents of a toolbelt.
No comments:
Post a Comment