After ten years of managing and training new recruiters and building a recruiting business, I have gone back to the desk.

As much as the business has changed, it has remained the same.

The most glaring difference is the third party recruiter's relationship with the Human Resources dept.

In 1979, when I started recruiting, we didn't need a contract signed by our clients. All we needed was a verbal agreement. We charged a fee of 30%, (1% per thousand). I would simply call a hiring manager with a candidate and obtain a verbal commitment that if the candidate were hired by the company, the company would pay our fee.

Then, I mailed the fee agreement to the company. No need to sign. I had your word. If you wanted to hire our candidate, you agreed to our terms.

Then, about ten years ago, everyone wanted a contract. So, we obliged. Sign here. Ok, good to go. 

Now clients are presenting their own contracts.  Since it is our service, and we are providing that service to the company, it is a strange request. I'm surprised that recruiting firms go along.

Let's say I had to have my gallbladder removed. Would a hospital sign my personal gall bladder removal contract? Of course not. The hospital is providing the service, and I am buying it. I sign the hospital's contract. 

I doubt if any plumber would sign my personal plumbing contract before unclogging the drain, yet we as recruiting professionals are signing these contracts. Doesn't make sense.

The guarantee for the hire used to be 30 days. Now the industry standard is 90 days, and we have some clients asking for 180. Since I can't guarantee what torture the company is going to bestow on my candidate, this is not something that we as a company are willing to sign. Within 90 days our clients should know whether it is a good hire or not. If we have uncovered a talented person to do the job, and that person survives company scrutiny in the first 90 days, then it's a good hire. Retention is our client's problem.

I'm still trying to figure out how we can retain another company's employee. We are the recruiters. The hiring decision isn't ours. If you have a retention problem, it is very risky for us to work with you.

We used to work directly with the hiring authority. This was normally the department head, or the person to whom the candidate would report if hired.

Now, clients are requiring us to go to HR first. HR likes to manage the number of vendors it uses. The response, 'we aren't taking on any more vendors' is common. Ask if the eleven vendors being used have produced any candidates, and the answer many times is no. So, with candidate in hand, we move on to the next company. Was the decision by HR to limit the number of recruiters wise? Doesn't seem like it to me. But, I'm just the recruiter.   What good are a hundred vendors if there is no candidate, and why would any HR director want the best candidates to go to their competition? Contingency recruiting used to be about the candidate, and what that particular candidate could bring to the party. We used to talk about our candidate's potential impact on the botom line. I never worried about vendor contracts. Doesn't make sense. Aren't you in HR vying for the best candidates? Or is it about keeping your paperwork to a minimum?

When did HR become hostile toward recruiters? We want a good relationship, we need to have a good working relationship. But, in many cases, we are seen as the enemy. When did that happen? HR used to know that the recruiting function is a sales job. HR is a multi-faceted job. I respect everyone in HR, I couldn't do their job. But, it's not recruiting.

Do I have the reader's permission to slap the next HR person who asks my candidate, "Why didn't you answer our ad"? Or here's a good one, "Why didn't you approach us on your own? Why did you need a recruiter"? The very question shows ignorance of what a recruiter does, and makes the candidate feel bad about 'needing a recruiter', which he didn't. We called him for you. Just like we told you we would. Another question best left unsaid, "Why are you leaving your current employer"? I'll give you the answer: We recruited this person for you. He doesn't need the job. We chased him to the ends of the earth for you. We talked to him at night, we talked to his spouse. We called him while he was on vacation. We made him interested in working for you. The question confuses a recruited candidate. And, it makes him have to come up with a reason. Maybe the reason is our sales ability.

I don't know why we aren't friends anymore, but HR, I love you. You do a great job. What happened to us? We used to be great friends. Can we work together again?

So, I'm back on the desk, sorting it out. My blog will be about working the desk itself. It's a fascinating place to be, full of interesting situations and characters from all walks of life. I won't talk about metrics, I'll talk about recruiting. The measurement of my job is in my paycheck. I will either find the perfect person for my clients, or I'll be hungry.

Not only will I uncover the right person, I will also close him on taking the job. Please don't e-mail my candidate an offer, or leave an offer on my candidate's voice mail. Work with me. Your offer is precious. We have one chance to close the candidate. Let me prepare him, at least. If you don't understand offer psychology, that's ok. I don't understand how you handle benefits, union grievances, or make the organizational decisions that you make.

So, I'm back on the desk. I'm here to make my client's experience with my firm a good one. I'm here to better understand the changes in the industry, and find ways for HR to use our services in the best way possible for the benefit of who pays both of us: Your company.