Saturday, July 19, 2008

Give me your B-players and I’ll give you mine | South Florida Metro Recruiters

"Buying into the old “more cost-efficient way to recruit people for jobs” codswallop it seems the employers you’d expect to be the most savvy can still leave one scratching their head wondering, “What the hell are they thinking?” Of course, I could be missing something but the AllianceQ sales-gotcha that drawing from a pool of other employers’ rejects somehow delivers better quality candidates is hard to understand."


Anonymous said...

Amitai -
After 20 years in recruiting, I can tell you that there are more "A" candidates rejected by Corporate Americia than B-players. One opening + 4 "A" final candidates = 1 hire and 3 rejected "A" candidates.
To think that if you are rejected by 1 employer you are automatically a "reject" for any employer means that everyone who has ever not been hired for a job is a non worthy candidate.
Have you ever interviewed for a job that you ultimately did not get an offer for? I assume you still consider yourself a highly employable person, why not assume it's true of the general population?
"like an umbrella, a mind is only useful when it's open".

Amitai Givertz said...


Notwithstanding that you may have taken the excerpt out of the original post's context on the point you make you are right and I am wrong. I stand corrected.

Agreed now that one recruiters' reject is another's A-player that doesn't make AllianceQ's approach reasonable, nor its adoption by employers who could do a lot better if they had a well-primed talent pump.

As I am sure you already know, talent pools are created deliberately and systematically with the best qualified candidates sourced to profile/organizational fit, etc. That someone may just happen to fit is accidental and therefore too risky a proposition to start with. Consequently, the touted savings in sourcing dollars would soon evaporate as recruiters waste time and resources wading through unqualified candidates looking for they jackpot hire.

On the original I linked to a post on The Human Capitalist []. There is an interesting exchange of views there too. If you haven't seen it, check it out if you like.

You strike me in your tone as sensitive of the "individual" candidate feelings, a worthy human being regardless of their employment status.

I agree with you we should not forget that candidates as people have feelings but that is not the issue here. I have been rejected for many jobs and that didn't change my worth as a human being or as someone's else's potential hire. So I can relate to your point although I am reminded that being a candidate for a job doesn't automatically make you a good one [at any point in time!]

Even so, thanks for tempering my remarks with a reminder that just because a vendor views candidates as fodder that doesn't excuse me from appearing to be of the same mind.

>> "like an umbrella, a mind is only useful when it's open".

The same is true for parachutes, right?

Thanks for taking the time to comment, whoever you are.