• 
• Training
• Consulting
• Resources
• Store
• About Us

• » Articles
• › The Official Rules for Hiring Top Talent
• › Newsletters

The Science of Recruiting - Part 5: Creating Job Stretch

By Lou Adler, January 30, 2004

The best candidates always require more information as they move through the hiring process. It has been my observation that when a candidate decides they're no longer interested in a job it's because they don't have enough of the right information. The recruiter is responsible for getting it to them.

Read more articles by this author.

Related Topics:

The Science of Recruiting, Networking, Recruiting

Related Articles:

The Science of Recruiting - Part 10: Closing and Negotiating Offers - Advanced

The Science of Recruiting - Part 9: Negotiating and Closing Offers - The Set Up

The Science of Recruiting - Part 8: Influencing Hiring Managers - The Hiring Decision

Do not get upset when a candidate puts up the caution flag. Expect this to happen. In fact, anticipate it. By the time a candidate is ready to accept an offer, the recruiter (in conjunction with the hiring manager) needs to create what I call an "opportunity gap" for the candidate. The opportunity gap represents the difference between two job opportunities. This includes the job stretch, the differences in actual job scope, comparison of challenges to be faced, compensation differences, and the long term growth opportunities. The bigger the opportunity gap, the more likely a candidate will accept an offer. Done properly, the candidate should learn a little about this opportunity gap at every interview and during every phone call. Candidates get less interested in a job when they see this opportunity gap shrink in comparison to everything else they're considering. Creating this opportunity gap is how you pull strong candidates through all of the steps in the hiring process.

As soon as a candidate tells you they're no longer interested it's time to act. Sometimes they won't even tell you. Instead they'll stop answering your calls. They might delay setting up the next set of interviews, or they'll make odd excuses. These are all clues that something is wrong. First find out what happened. Most often you'll need to rebuild or create the opportunity gap.

Here are the two most common issues you're likely to encounter after the first interview and some ideas on what to do next.

"The job isn't big enough."

This is one of the most common mid-stage concerns. The truth of the matter is that sometimes the job isn't big enough. However, just as often the job really is bigger, but the candidate doesn't have enough information to determine this. This is why the recruiter must intervene. Your first step is to find out why the candidate doesn't see the job as a big enough moves. First just ask why. Then probe deeper along these lines - the scope of the job; the responsibilities; the span of control including who reports to this person; the team involved including peers and who the person interacts with; some of the big short term challenges; and the long term growth opportunities. If the candidate doesn't have all of the facts to evaluate these points, you'll need to provide them. Ask the candidate if they'd be open to take the next step if information could be presented that clearly showed that the current job was in fact bigger than the candidate thought. If so, then get the proof you need, or indicate that you've arranged for the candidate to obtain this information at the next interview.

Its best if the recruiter knows enough specifics about the job to demonstrate to the candidate that the job is more significant than perceived. Don't try to browbeat the candidate or talk in generalities. Provide real details and challenges. For example, "are you aware that the person in this job will be leading the product launch of the new X-series widgets with engineering and manufacturing?" is the type of specific convincing detail that candidates find reassuring.

If the job really isn't big enough, you have another option - make it bigger. In this case you'll need to work with the hiring manager and see what can be done to make the job more interesting. This doesn't need to be a promotion. Sometimes it's as simple as adding one or two big projects, or clarifying what the big projects are. The hiring manager could also say that she's willing to expand the role of the job once the candidate achieves all of the short term objectives currently defined.

You can also widen the opportunity gap by minimizing the candidate's accomplishments. A thorough interview can often reveal that the candidate's current job isn't nearly as broad as the one you're offering. All too often candidates pull themselves out of consideration without all of the right facts. With a little probing, recruiters can minimize the chance that good candidates will make bad decisions.

"The compensation isn't enough."

It never is. Whenever someone brings this up, you might want to ask them if they're making a strategic or tactical decision. This will momentarily stun them, since they won't know what you're talking about. Then explain that a strategic decision balances all of the long and short term issues together including compensation, the current job and the long term opportunities. A tactical decision tends to focus only on the current job and the compensation package. For the recruiter the key to minimizing the need for more compensation is to offset this with a larger opportunity gap. This is comparable to the salesman complaining that the price is too high. The key to increasing sales is not to lower the price, but to increase the value of the offering. This is what recruiters and hiring managers need to do when confronted with the issue regarding compensation - make the job more valuable rather than increase the comp package.

You also might want to determine if compensation is the real concern. Ask, "if we can accommodate you on the compensation, are you then willing to accept an offer if one were to be extended?" If the candidate doesn't provide an unqualified "yes," then there is something else involved. It might the scope of the job or some other important issue. Raising the comp concern could just be a smoke screen hiding a bigger problem.

Another technique you can use is to create competition. Suggest that if the comp package were to be increased to meet the candidate's needs then there are other candidates who would also need to be considered. Go on to say that these other candidates have more experience, but were not initially considered, since their compensation was too high. So if the candidate wants to press on the comp issue it could be self-defeating by adding additional candidates into the pool. Reinforce this by saying that taking a lower comp for a bigger job is a good way to increase the candidate's future value. It's always better to be under-compensated than over-compensated. Over time compensation tends to balance out with bigger raises anyway.

Finally, if the candidate really pushes for a better comp package, then close the deal using this as a point of leverage. Say to the candidate that you'll try to get the compensation package asked for, but if you do, than the candidate is committed to taking the offer. If the candidate is willing to go forward on this basis, get a start date, confirm other aspects of the offer, and see if you can use this information to finalize the offer. Use this last tactic carefully. We'll discuss it in future articles, but it is one way to test an offer and close it at the same time.

The key to handling every candidate concern is to first determine its validity. Frequently it's just lack of information. If this is the case use the idea of getting the added information as a means to keep the candidate interested and coming back for another round of information. Recognize that one of the recruiter's key roles is to uncover what information is required and then coordinate its delivery. Don't shun this. Welcome it. This is the Science of Recruiting.