想招聘？别要求不切实际的东西

    对于想要招聘的企业来说，现在的就业市场是买方市场。不过许多经理人都表示，他们对招聘人员招来的候选人并不十分满意。

    根据企业领导力委员会招聘调查服务（Corporate Leadership Council Recruiting，简称CLC Recruiting）的统计，在具有招聘权的经理人当中，只有三分之一的经理人对招聘给自己业务带来的影响感到满意。

    对此，CLC Recruiting的常务董事托德•萨弗斯通表示，人们很容易把这种情况怪罪在内部和外部的招聘人员身上。经理人们普遍觉得“招聘应该是一件轻而易举的事”，因为市场上充斥着大量的求职者。

    “招聘正确的人才就好比在干草垛里找针。干草垛变得更大了，但是针的数量很大程度上并没有改变。仅靠招聘经理自己的力量，是无法攻克这些干草垛的。”萨弗斯通表示。

    的确正如萨弗斯通所说的那样，“现在活跃的求职者们对企业爱得要死，他们都在‘海投’简历”。根据CLC Recruiting的报告，在2007年到2010年间，求职者的平均人数增长了128%。

    不过萨弗斯通也表示，求职者过多，容易使经理人奢求所谓的“俊杰之才”，也就是其资历远远超过岗位需要的人才。

    艾德•戴维斯曾任美国联合航空公司（United Airlines）和康尼格拉食品公司（ConAgra Foods）的人事总监，他对这个问题并不陌生。“如果一个市场上出现了过剩，那么人们常犯的一个错误，就是会附加许多不必要的要求。”

    戴维斯表示，如果你想招聘员工的话，首先你需要明确确定这个岗位的关键技能。你是如何定义这个岗位上的成功的？哪些领导能力和技术能力是这个岗位真正必要的？

    “如果你加上了这些附加条件，就会变得像大海捞针一样。招聘新人所花费的时间会变得更长。而且你最终得到的人才，真的就是业务成功所需要的人才吗？”

    萨弗斯通表示，如果你的招聘经理只是点头附和，同意寻找“俊才”的话，那么他们并不会帮上你什么忙。而“如果你只想让招聘人员严格服从你的命令，那你很可能会以更高的代价，换来更低质量的人才。”

    萨弗斯通认为，你所需要的并不是一个只知道讨好你的人，而是一个让你觉得有些不舒服的招聘人员。 “最好的招聘人员会问一些最不明显的问题，比如他们会问：你需要招聘员工吗？告诉我你想让他们做哪些日常工作。”

    Recruiting Toolbox, Inc公司是西雅图的一家咨询公司，该公司的常务董事约翰•乌拉斯特里卡认为，一旦你做出了招聘员工的决策，一名好的招聘人员应该召开一场30分钟到60分钟的战略会议，以“商讨如何寻找符合要求的人才，并且吸引这些人才，向他们推销公司。此外还需在会上确定几位优秀的面试官，他们可以帮助评估人才，以及向人才推销公司。另外会上还需讨论薪酬、安置援助、移民和总体流程等事宜。”乌拉斯特里卡在一封电子邮件中说道。

    乌拉斯特里卡指出，最好的招聘人员可能会希望你抽出更多的时间。因为尽管一名出色的招聘人员“能够钓到A级的人才”，但你才是需要把那个人才“忽悠”进来的人。“一个A级的人才在正式被录用之前，需要体验到招聘经理花费在他身上的投资，因为这会告诉他，一旦自己被录用了，在这位经理手下做事究竟会有多好——或者有多坏。”

    如果你很难从招聘人员那里得到你真正需要的人才，那么你应该亲自上阵去招聘吗？

    戴维斯指出，如果招聘不是你的日常工作的话，那你定位人才、筛选人才需要耗费的时间太多了。而专业的招聘人士“知道人才在哪里。他们也知道如何以高效、合法的方式来接触到人才。”

    萨弗斯通指出，最优秀的招聘人员对人才的需求情况和可获得的人才都有很深的了解。这种了解使招聘人员有权利说：“在你愿意提供的薪资水平上，在你要求的时限内，你是不可能找到一名能说五种语言、而且具有你想要的资质的会计的。”

    这些招聘人员“深知他们所说的话是什么意思。他们拥有挑战招聘经理的权利。”

    萨弗斯通说，如果你的招聘人员迟迟没有进展，你最好把你对人才的具体要求告诉他，然后告诉他为什么你需要这些要求。

    如果你觉得招聘人员无法完成这一挑战，你可能就得把问题提交给招聘或人力资源部门的负责人了。

    不过萨弗斯通认为，在你这样做之前，你可以先与最了解当前招聘形势的人谈谈，这个人可能是一位级别更高的经理人，也可能是人力资源部门的负责人。“他们或许能够从现实的角度上进行检验”，看看你的预期是否合理。

    不过公平起见，你要确保下达给招聘人员的目标并非总是在变动。萨弗斯通表示：“许多招聘人员称，经理人很难坚持他们最初的职位描述。他们一直在改变要求。”

    到了决定的时候，就要干脆利落地做决定。

    “决策犹疑不定，可能会十分危险。”萨弗斯通说。

    有些经理人花了大量的时间来对人才进行比较和筛选，迟迟不做决定。他们应该明白，最佳的人才是会溜走的。

    “你每推迟一天，招聘的质量就会有所下降。大多数业务经理都理解收益递减效应的影响，不过在招聘上，他们却认识不到这一点。”

    译者：朴成奎

    It's a buyer's market for companies looking to hire, but managers aren't giving recruiters high marks for the candidates they are delivering.

    Only one in three managers who have hiring authority is satisfied with the influence recruiting has on their business, according to the Corporate Leadership Council Recruiting research service.

    It's easy to blame recruiters, both in-house and external, says Todd Safferstone, managing director of CLC Recruiting. Managers "think recruiting should be a cakewalk" because the market is teeming with candidates.

    "Haystacks are bigger, but the number of needles is largely unchanged. Hiring managers won't be able to cut through those haystacks on their own," Safferstone says.

    It is true that "active candidates are loving organizations to death right now. It's spray and pray" when it comes to sending out resumes, he says. CLC Recruiting reports that between 2007 and 2010 the average number of applicants increased by 128%.

    However, that surfeit can lure managers into demanding "purple unicorns," candidates with qualifications that go far beyond what's required, Safferstone says.

    Ed Davis, former head of staffing for United Airlines and ConAgra Foods (CAG), is familiar with the problem. "In a market where there appears to be a surplus, the common mistake is to tack on too many unnecessary requirements."

    If you're planning to hire someone, you need to clearly identify the skills that are crucial for that position, Davis says. How will you define success in the job? What are the truly necessary leadership and technical skills?

    "When you layer those [extra] things on, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It may take longer to get [the new employee] and is what you ultimately end up getting really what you need for on-the-job success?"

    Recruiters who just nod their heads and agree to hunt for purple unicorns aren't doing you any favors, says Safferstone. And those "who want recruiters who are order takers are likely to get lower quality candidates … at greater expense."

    Instead of a complacent order taker, you want to a recruiter who makes you a little uncomfortable, Safferstone says. "The best recruiters ask the most non-obvious questions: Do you need to hire someone? Tell me what the day-to-day experience is going to be."

    John Vlastelica, managing director for Recruiting Toolbox, Inc., a Seattle-based consulting firm, believes that once you make a decision to hire someone, you should expect a good recruiter to set up a 30 to 60-minute strategy meeting "to discuss how to find, engage and sell candidates who fit the profile, identify quality (not just available!) interviewers who can help to assess and sell candidates, and discuss things like compensation, relocation assistance, immigration, and the overall process," Vlastelica says in an email.

    The best recruiters might expect even more of your time, says Vlastelica. Although a great recruiter "can get an A-player on the hook," you're the one who will need to reel that candidate in. "A-players need to experience the investment a hiring manager makes in them as a candidate, as it tells them volumes about how good -- or how bad -- it may be to work for that same manager once hired."

    If it's so difficult to get what you need from recruiters, should you just do it yourself?

    No, it takes far too much time to locate good candidates and screen them when that's not part of your day-to-day job, Davis says. Recruiters "know where the talent is. They know how to access talent in a way that's efficient and legally compliant."

    The best recruiters have deep knowledge on both the state of the demand for talent and the available talent, according to Safferstone. That knowledge allows a recruiter "to say that finding an accountant who speaks five languages is never going to happen at what you are willing to pay, with the quality you want, in the timeframe you want."

    These recruiters "really know what they're talking about. They've earned the right to challenge the hiring manager."

    If a recruiter you work with hasn't stepped up, spell things out, Safferstone says. It's best to say "here's exactly what I need [and] why I need it."

    If you feel the recruiter can't meet the challenge, you may need to raise the issue with the head of recruiting or human resources.

    But before you do that, Safferstone recommends talking with the person who is most in tune with the current recruiting situation. That person, perhaps a more senior manager or head of HR, "might be able to give you a reality check" on whether your expectations are reasonable.

    Be fair -- make sure you haven't been giving the recruiter a moving target. "A lot of recruiters report [that] managers have difficulty sticking to the original job description. They keep changing requirements, Safferstone says."

    And when it comes time to decide, decide.

    "Dithering on the decision can be really dangerous," Safferstone says.

    Managers who take their time shopping around should understand that the best candidates will slip away.

    "Every day you delay, the quality-of-hire ticks down. Most business managers recognize the point of diminishing returns, but they don't tend to recognize that in hiring."