Many times the life expectancy at a company is rather short for those who just do the bare minimum. I too have an issue with those recruiters. In June I discussed robot recruiters on the Animal Recruiting Show and took quite a bit of flack from my peers. You can listen here: http://snurl.com/qs60b.

I believe the onus to ensure the right talent is brought to the table is on the client. If I were hiring a firm to conduct a talent search for my company it would need to provide me with its portfolio of clients and references from within. In other words, I would recruit the Talent Magician I felt I would work the best with and that would best meet my needs. Since the fee can represent up to 40% of the annual salary for a placement my due diligence wouldn’t be conducted lightly.

For what my humble opinion is worth, if you’ve run into or heard of situations such as the ones you’ve described it means to me that not all the tools weren’t in the shed.

P.S. The sketch is funky indeed. I see what you mean about the water pistol. It was courtesy of my friends at The GrowthGAFFE Blog http://growthgaffe.wordpress.com.

Many times the life expectancy at a company is rather short for those who just do the bare minimum. I too have an issue with those recruiters. In June I discussed robot recruiters on the Animal Recruiting Show and took quite a bit of flack from my peers. You can listen here: http://snurl.com/qs60b.

I believe the onus to ensure the right talent is brought to the table is on the client. If I were hiring a firm to conduct a talent search for my company it would need to provide me with its portfolio of clients and references from within. In other words, I would recruit the Talent Magician I felt I would work the best with and that would best meet my needs. Since the fee can represent up to 40% of the annual salary for a placement my due diligence wouldn’t be conducted lightly.

For what my humble opinion is worth, if you’ve run into or heard of situations such as the ones you’ve described it means to me that not all the tools weren’t in the shed.

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.