Reader explains What Recruiters Will Tell You - Reader Feedback Dear Editor - Brief Article

Physician Executive, March, 2002

The column entitled "What Recruiters Can't/Won't Tell You" (The Physician Executive, January/February, 2002) puts forth a number of egregious assertions about the search business that require correction.

The author, Marilyn Moats Kennedy, points out that once a job seeker "understand[s] the head hunter's point of view, [her or she] will change his job hunting expectations and increase independent research and networking."

Perhaps that is true, but Kennedy's erroneous construal of headhunters' point of view will cause many candidates to work with headhunters in an excessively distrustful, ineffective and unproductive manner.

The column begins by telling the readers that "an honest discussion with a recruiter" is "not going to happen." Not only is this insultingly untrue, it also demonstrates a misconception about recruiting and about relationship development.

Most of the headhunters who work with physician executives know that their relationship with candidates needs to be based on trust and open communications or they will not survive in the long haul.

The column asks six questions that Kennedy says headhunters "aren't going to answer unless tortured." Following are my answers to those questions and a touch of the rationale for the answers. My intent is to set the record straight and to foster more productive relationships among physician executives and search consultants.

"What are the ugly details about the hiring organization, boss or co-workers? Tell me their dirty laundry."

The article asserts that headhunters will not speak to the negative aspects of an opportunity because the corporation is paying them.

In fact, most of us spend a fair amount of time trying to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a company so that we present candidates who can thrive in the environment. And in truth, most companies want new candidates to have a realistic understanding of the challenges of the job.

We want candidates to do their own assessment by researching the company and by talking with as many colleagues in the prospective organization as possible and also with the individuals who will report to them.

We work to foster the candidates' understanding of the position and the company--including the negatives--because the success of the candidate who accepts the position is in our self-interest.

"Why are you presenting me to this particular hiring organization" Am I "a good fit," or "long shot?"

The article asserts that even "the most seasoned headhunter" cannot answer questions such as these.

In fact, our clients require that we answer these questions. They pay us to invest our time to learn about their organization, to understand the competencies required for success and to evaluate candidates to be certain that they can do the job

If it is not obvious to the client, I need to be able to make explicit my rationale for including a candidate, lest the client think I am wasting his or her time and resources.

Candidates frequently want to gain a better understanding of the position once they have met with the client and are going on the second round of interviews. Clearly, it is appropriate to share with them how my understanding of the position is evolving so that they understand better how their particular expertise and style will play in the organization.

"What other candidates are you presenting?" and "Who or what types of candidates aren't you presenting...?

Kennedy asserts "headhunters won't share" comparisons of one candidate to another with candidates because physician executives will "argue, fight and try to persuade [the headhunters] "that they don't have a good assessment of the [physician executive's] abilities."

Breaching confidentiality of candidates by naming names or by giving information so specific as to blow an individual's confidentiality would be unethical. However, sharing information about the type of background of candidates being presented is appropriate.

For example, I am currently conducting a search for a physician executive to be responsible for business development and relationship management. It seems to me to be appropriate to share with other candidates--especially those who were interested but who are not being presented to the client--the general background of candidates being advanced.

Two candidates have significant experience with large consulting firms and have developed clients in that environment; another has had large-scale experience managing relationships across organizational boundaries to build consensus.

Sharing this sort of information does not jeopardize confidentiality, and yet it helps the candidate asking the question to understand the criteria. It also helps to make it clear that deciding who to present is not an arbitrary process.

If a candidate wants to argue that we have misunderstood his/her competencies--as Kennedy believes all headhunters fear--GOOD. Sometimes we do miss something and one more qualified candidate is good for the process. Most often, however, this discussion is an opportunity to help an individual understand how his background does not fit the competencies articulated.