Marketing executive search, executive headhunter or executive placement? Call us what you will . . . But call, because recruiters succeed! Why (or How) do recruiters succeed when the actual Employers when the actual employer can have so much trouble doing the same thing? The answer is simple . . . Time.
Retained Recruiters are able to spend the time necessary to identify, recruit and hire the top performers in any specialty, at any level and at any place . . . staying focused and engaged until the search is successfully completed. Employers can’t afford to spend the real amount of time required, even if they have dedicated recruiters on staff.
I’ll also say right now, that a major difference between a contingent executive recruiter and a retained one, is the ability to spend more time, because the retained recruiter is already being compensated. For the purposes of this article, highlighting recruiting success, please understand I’m talking about retained recruiters like Bishop Partners.
The contingent recruiter has to race to get the resume in front of the employer faster, before another recruiter or even the Employer’s own posting identifies a candidate! They simply cannot spend the time necessary to actually develop a relationship with a candidate and understand that candidate’s career vision, values and goals.
Taking the time for that understanding is one of the most critical reasons retained recruiters succeed. (I’m proud to be able to say that Bishop Partners has achieved 100% success with retained searches, over the past 14 years.)
Retained recruiters are able to spend the time necessary, with the Employer/Client to gain a full understanding of that Client’s own vision, values, goals and most important, culture. Recruiters should know and understand the Client’s org chart and/or reporting structure. Knowing the supervisor (or VP) that a candidate reports to will make a difference. I try to get to know a Client’s culture and the job so well, that during some conversations with candidates, I inevitably say “we” . . . rather than “they”.