While talking "shop" on a recent visit with Sylvia James (Manager of Talent Acquisition at Spectrum Health), she had some excellent, practical advice that I thought would be worthwhile to share!

We were discussing how often hiring managers request more "candidates to review" (even after we have given them a quality slate of 2-3) and the negative impact that has on process efficiency and time management.

On the surface, there almost seems to be distrust on behalf of the hiring manager that:

• The candidates submitted for consideration are NOT all high quality and worthy of being hired.
• That we haven't found the best candidates possible.

In addition, often times the hiring manager asks us to "rate" the candidates (1st , 2nd , 3rd ) for them.

When put in this situation, it is very difficult to guide the hiring manager into a quality decision without spending wasted hours trying to find the elusive "perfect candidate" that doesn't exist and/or isn't better than the two to three you have already provided them!

So what can you do?

First and foremost, managing this situation starts with the intake session you have with the manager when qualifying the position (check out our resources section for more information on this subject!).

But let's assume you have done a quality intake session and the hiring manager still behaves like outlined above (probably because of past experiences with recruiters that have not managed the process correctly :))?

That is were Sylvia's common sense advice really hit home with me!

• First and foremost, don't fall into the trap of rating your candidates: If they ask you to rate them simply state - - "I wouldn't bring candidates to you that I didn't think were worthy of getting hired! I like all three of them and think they all merit your attention. I would rather have you interview them and then afterward, we can discuss the candidates skill sets as they relate to the position."

When you take this approach, if the first candidate they interview is not the right fit, you can immediately focus on the other two candidates. If you fall into the trap of "rating" them, you will often get this response. "If Joe was your first choice, let's hold on the other two while you spend time looking for more #1 candidates." At this point, it is very difficult to get their attention on your 2nd or 3rd choice! Who wants to hire the "runner up"?

• Make sure they know all the work that went into getting them these candidates: If managers understand all the work that goes into providing a slate of candidates, they would know that we exhaust many options and ONLY bring them candidates worthy of being hired. From the very first conversation (intake session), keep the manager informed of what you did to find the candidates you presented. This usually puts them at ease regarding the question "Is there anyone else out there that is better ?. .."

• Cost benefit of continuing to search for a better candidate: If the manager wants to "see more candidates", make sure they know the ramifications of that decision. The reality is (as we all know) that if I continue to search for someone "better", we are at risk of losing the 2nd or 3rd person to our competition. A good rebuttal. "Sue - we could put these two candidates on hold and continue to look for others but there is a high probability that we won't find anyone better and . . . both the candidates take other positions and/or are no longer interested. I would hate to be out another 2 weeks with ZERO candidates and little options".

No one wants to hire your 2nd or 3rd option. Manage the process from the beginning with a good intake session and 'train' your managers to understand that you only bring candidates to them that are worthy of being hired!