Recruiters are Dilettantes

Though there might be something jarring about being called a dilettante in life, when it comes to the business of Recruitment being a dilettante is (almost) exactly what you need to be.

With one big exception, that is with your own actual trade-craft. That is what you must learn, and come to know deeply, to be considered anything close to a good Recruiter.

"You know they know their stuff when they take delight in explaining a difficult concept to you."

As a dilettante Recruiter, you must be able to demonstrate a genuine, high-level, interest in the expertise of your candidates. That doesn’t mean you need to know how to do those things yourself. In fact, it’s imperative that you don’t get distracted with nitpicking at technical detail labouring under the misapprehension that these are things you need to know in depth, at all. It isn’t. That depth is for your Client to determine. It is not your job.

So, what do Recruiters need to know? What is your job?

You need to know if your Candidate knows

Despite what your Clients may think, Recruiters do not need to know, for example, the difference between Procedural and Object-Oriented Programming. They do not need to have a kernel level knowledge of an Operating System. They only need to be able to discern if the Candidate knows their stuff, and that they can respond to you compellingly under interview conditions. (And, therefore, be put through their paces by your Client).

You might wonder how on earth you’d be able to present to your Client the right candidate with the right level of skill and experience if you don’t know, in depth, the mechanisms and machinations of their work. How could you possibly say to your Client that a Candidate is right for the role if you can’t qualify technical skill with academic precision? (Well, the answer is that you never do. You always communicate without prejudice. I’ll return to this later.)

No, you determine if somebody knows their game properly through a number of methods that together help you establish a reasonable understanding of a Candidate’s level of skill and experience, their level of competency, some kind of impression of their behavioural style and personality, and, to as far an extent as you can, if the job is in the Candidate’s interest. Not to mention, a strong understanding of the Candidate’s commitment to the role should they be offered it.

(Shameless Plug: I?talk about this in Module 4 of my online Recruitment Course here).

But, for now, here’s a quick run down of some of the more pertinent things I found helpful when I was interviewing Candidates.

You ask the same question... in different ways, at different times, throughout your interview. Is the answer consistent every time? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

You get actual clear and substantive answers from them. If they respond in a way that leaves you wondering if your question was even answered at the end of their spiel, then you either adjust your question, or you determine that they don’t know the answer.

You want a Candidate who can answer... a behavioural interview question properly. i.e. They need to respond to the question with a specific time they actually experienced that situation and how they responded. Not how they would respond if it were to happen now. When that happens I always think to myself, dude, everyone reckons they’d run into a burning building to save a crying baby. But unless it’s actually happened to you, you don’t actually know what you’d do. Woulda, coulda, pal. Strike.

You know they know their stuff... when they take delight in explaining a difficult concept to you. I once sat with a guy who just loved and understood Perl so deeply that it actually made me love it too. Perl crew are eccentric, animated and brilliant fun. Perl, itself, was very much out of fashion at the time. Yet this guy STILL made it sound fascinating. I adore him to this day.

Remember, in the end, you’re a Recruiter. You don’t hire. You introduce people to your Client who interview well, who you think your Client might be interested in and whom they ultimately hire. They’re the ones who ask the deep technical questions and NEED to know the answers are right. Not you. They’re the hirers. Not you.

The Worst Recruiters

There is no doubt in my mind that the very worst recruiters I have worked with, or partnered with, in my career, are those who have had history working in the field they’ve begun to recruit in. So often these people have been on the other side of the coin as Clients, working with recruiters, becoming frustrated with recruiters (and I have no doubt it’s because those very same recruiters didn’t manage the process or the expectations of their Client), and not fully understanding their own roles as hirers, with the result of determining that they could do a better job than the recruiters they’ve experienced.

And they never have. Ever. I’ve literally watched recruitment agencies pop up out of nowhere talking the big talk about how they ONLY hire recruiters with deep technical expertise in the mistaken belief that this is what makes a great Recruiter. Those agencies all fall over. They aren’t commercial. They have no deep Recruitment trade-craft.

"...it means that you, the Recruiter, must never make promises you can’t keep."

Without Prejudice

Earlier I mentioned the phrase without prejudice. And effectively, without getting too legal-speak about it, it means that you, the Recruiter, must never make promises you can’t keep. You don’t make admissions you may later be liable for. It’s a cynical world, Recruitment. Let’s not pretend now it’s all sweetness and light. Start practising a schema of language that is without prejudice. You don’t sell people. Gross. No, you search them out from under obscure and mystical rocks, and simply present those wonderful people to your Client with what you’ve determined their strengths and weaknesses are, with a brilliant narrative style. They are NEVER the right or perfect person for the job. Those people don’t exist.

An added commercial benefit, if somewhat a cynical one, is that speaking without prejudice ensures that you never have to give refunds. You made no promises but you did the work. You utilised your recruitment trade-craft. AND, your Client hired a Candidate through you. That’s why they pay a fee. They don’t get that fee back just because it didn’t work out with that Candidate within, say, a 3-month period from commencement. So many factors are at play at that point as to why it didn’t work out. But you still did your job. In the same way a doctor doesn’t cure you of a cold just because you went to his clinic for a consult. You still paid your fee, you still have a cold. They did their job.

And, though it may seem counterintuitive, when you don’t make promises you can’t keep, you are reinforcing Trust. This is the long game after all.

If you’d like to chat to me about these ideas and how they might help you in your business journey - send me a DM or email me. Contacts are in my Linkedin profile.?(And don't forget to visit our?website?and subscribe!)

Georgie x