Someone told me the other day he would never want to be a Recruiter but he would want to be a Headhunter.
The term invokes, even in my mind, a very aggressive, target focused individual who flies all over the world in impeccable suits with flashy cuff links to conduct secret meetings in 4 star restaurants for C-Level positions at Fortune 100 companies. Kind of what the Korn/Ferry crew does.
Headhunter
“Executive recruitment that tracks qualified personnel during their work life, and can quickly and precisely locate a suitable candidate for a specific job requirement.”
aka Recruiter – Aha!
Where I used to work no one called me a Recruiter, they called me Special Agent Porter. It was cool. In my mind I was the female version of 007. It kept me sane knowing my secret missions were vital to the organization. I was responsible for reeling in the talent that would drive the organization to its continued success.
If you could chose your own recruiter title, have it be anything you would like, what would it be?
Aug 23, 2009 at 8:45 AM
I think it's not so much the title of the “recruiter” but the approach. A headhunter is clearly a part of the recruiting industry, and is as such a recruiter. It's like arguing that Prada is just a bag or an Apple iMac is just a computer. Sure it is. But it's a Prada, or it's an Apple.
The definition you include clearly states something special in the approach, of personally knowing each client and candidate, which should be the mainstay of this profession. But it cannot be, thanks to the sheer nature of the industry. Too many roles required to be filled, clients who want CV keyword matches and want them yesterday, the advent of large databases easily managed, the competition with a monster.com or a jobsdb.com, and so on.
Even so, a “headhunter” chooses not to join the rat race of keyword matchi….oops, I mean recruiting. And that's only the consultants outside organizations.
Within an organization, the “HR” division had an important role to fulfill when the information age started. Today, the HR department is a bastion of paperwork, payroll management, and other sundry tasks. I speak from experience with large global companies, for instance the large oil and gas corporation in the world or the Top 3 banks on the planet, that HR hardly gets involved in actual recruitment except for junior roles.
In a recent interaction, I met an “HR director” who did present at best a gatekeeper position (a recent return from his Executive MBA at Kellogg, he strained to point out). Did he show interest in knowing the candidate's personality, his fundamental smartness and wisdom, his thoughts on what the role entailed and what he would bring to the table? Not quite. He was stuck on the singular issue that I did not–on paper–seem to have had any experience in his particular industry.
This is not an isolated case. Most people in the perfunctory HR business are of this kind. I know this is hardly the right place to mention this blaspheme little observation, but such is the bitter truth. Show me 10 recruiters and I'll show you 9 buffoons who could be replaced by chimps with monster.com and Microsoft Access skills.
In my humble opinion, a headhunter or [---insert fancy title here---] *chooses* not to get in the database business of managing/mining a gazillion candidates with a 40% true success rate over time (I speak from an actual statistic btw–and any thoughts from you would be great on how recruiters are measuring their ROI these days, or at least the efficacy of their advice to clients over time), *chooses* instead to spend time focusing on the industry and the people on either side of the job, and focuses on the premium, high quality, durable relationships.
As such, a headhunter is just a recruiter as much as an iMac is just a computer. People with an Acer might say pfffft and snicker about the Apple, which is entirely their prerogative, but Apple chooses to target a certain audience and enjoys great favor with it.