This is the third week of our search for a VP Operations for an East Coast healthcare organization. We're now heavily into the sourcing, networking, and candidate presentation process. This article describes in detail the semi-sourcing and networking phase of the recruiting.

Over the years, we've helped many companies apply the principles of Performance-based Hiring^sm to find talented and productive sales people. When we first engage with these companies their conversations often begin with similar words… "Help me find sales people who are aggressive, multitaskers, closers who don't take ‘No' for an answer. It would be great if they came from our competitors and brought with them a few clients, contacts, or knowledge that will help them hit the ground running. And oh, by the way, I need them NOW." At this point in the conversation we have to intervene and help our clients think differently about the process of consistently hiring outstanding sales professionals. Below are three common sense secrets for doing just that:

Several years ago my children introduced me to the Darwin Awards. We've had a lot of fun reading some of the stories of the winners (or should I say "losers"?). These awards go to members of the human race who do something so dumb that they end up removing themselves from the gene pool – hence the name. For instance, take the guy who had a fuse in his car blow out on a long trip. He had the bright idea to use a bullet to replace the fuse. The logic was sound – it's made of metal and conducts electricity, doesn't it? Everything was going fine until the bullet heated up and exploded, leaving a big hole in his chest. As we travel the world talking to recruiters and recruiting organizations, I've become aware of some practices that, while not quite as deadly as the above example, do cause one to wonder what people are thinking. In the interest of brevity, I'm going to list just a few of the more egregious examples. I'll stop short of naming names, but know that every example is real.

You've been working hard to put together a strong slate of candidates for a hard-to-fill position, and through networking and sheer force of personality have assembled three qualified individuals. They each have strengths and weaknesses, but they all have been successful in the past achieving the types of goals and completing the types of tasks that need to be done in this job. Your biggest concern: an unpredictable hiring manager. You're never sure just who is going to hit the mark with this manager because it doesn't follow any pattern that you can see. The manager tends to take immediate likes and dislikes to certain candidates for reasons not based on their backgrounds.

Now is the time to get ready for the recovery. It may sound strange, but if you have been in recruiting for any period of time, you know that hiring fluctuates—it goes up and down, expands and pauses. These cycles come with the territory. Some shifts are more dramatic than others, and currently it appears we are in a more profound slowdown than we would like. The signs are all around us with the housing crisis, gas prices, and layoffs recently announced in some industries. Some leaders may be quick to question what recruiters are doing when there is little or no recruiting going on. Be ready with this answer: creating a proactive pipeline of great candidates for future openings.

When your clients or hiring managers think of you as a recruiter, what words come to their minds? Reliable? Insightful? Unresponsive? Bureaucratic? Whatever the words, these concepts define our personal recruitment brand. Hiring Managers may not communicate these directly to us in formal meetings, but they definitely share their opinions among their peers. Below is a short quiz which should help you get a jump start on where you stand with your personal recruitment brand. Ask yourself each of the following questions and be honest in your answers. No one’s looking, I promise.

It seems like every day you hear about a new recruiting tool or technique. The question is how many of them are really being used by recruiters? And more importantly, how many of them are effective? We asked that question on the Adler Group's Recruiting and Hiring Challenges Survey of 2008 to try to get some sense of how recruiters rate the tools and techniques they are using. The actual question was, “On a 1-5 scale (5 is best) how would you rank the effectiveness of these recruiting tools?” A rating of 3 means pretty effective, 4 means animportant resource, and 5 means an invaluable tool. In analyzing the results, a tool needs a rating of 3 or higher to be considered effective.

Plan, Do, Study, and Act is Dr. Edward Deming's approach to Total Quality Improvement. If you know anything about The Adler Group, you know that we believe hiring should be a predictable, repeatable business process. We advocate a process called Performance-based Hiring which we firmly believe allows organizations to systematically hire top talent. To make it predictable and repeatable there must be a structured approach to hiring that can be scaleable throughout an organization and a continuous process of planning, doing, studying, and acting to improve upon that process. There are four components to this process including the creation of a Performance Profile for each position, a focus on sourcing top talent (we call this "Talent-Centric Sourcing"), an evidence-based interview using our Two Question Performance-based Interview, as well as an integrated process for recruiting and closing the candidate. In our recent survey we asked candidates to measure the effectiveness of key aspects of the hiring process from the recruiter's perspective by answering the following question:

Technology is both the booster and the bane of people-oriented processes. The combination of the major job boards and applicant tracking systems (ATS) has transformed recruiting, but has brought its own set of problems. It's a classic illustration of Michael Hammer's views on information technology. In an article published in 1990 in the Harvard Business Review, the MIT professor made the case that companies focus on fixing the wrong issues, using technology to automate existing work rather than using it to make non-value adding work obsolete. BPR, or business process engineering, postulates that unless you review your processes before implementing new technology, you run the risk of doing the wrong things faster. At the very least, you may add an additional administrative burden without concurrent productivity gains.

Question 12: How would you rank your company in using the following metrics to track performance?

One of the areas we wanted to explore in our recently completed survey was the use of metrics in tracking recruiting effectiveness. We asked recruiters and recruiting managers to rank their use of a particular set of recruiting metrics in tracking their team’s effectiveness. We picked metrics that we considered to be some of the most important indicators of recruiting efficiency and success. These include: