I hardly ever get strong
negative feedback. Well, maybe I get a little bit occasionally.
The environment has changed. Part of the new
rules include the fact that you have to figure out how you're going to deal with
negative press. This used to only be a problem for really large companies or
really high profile people. Today, in our Andy Warhol purgatory, everyone has to
navigate the media rapids.
There are a number of options when the press
runs against you:
Grin and Bear it. Fundamentally, any press
is good press.
Write gobs of nasty hate mail. Some people
need spleen venting.
Create a distraction. Do something more
newsworthy so that the press fades from memory.
Use a blog to reinterpret the material in
your favor. Suggest that the author is looney and restate the case in your
favor. (Intentional Density)
Take the feedback and use it. Rarely done,
often the best path.
Build the feedback into a conversation.
Even more rarely done and really, really powerful.
Steve Levy chose the last course as a way of
handling the less than positive story we spun. (Full disclosure: Steve and I
have a mutual admiration society). I've been suffering through a spate of people
who choose less than optimal responses to negative publicity. That made Levy's
approach even more refreshing.
I don't agree with a lot of what Steve has to
say (except the parts where he flatters me). He did however, manage to persuade
me that he deserved to have his perspective heard. Here's Steve's response:
I am a shameless John Sumser fan; we are
like twin sons of different mothers except he's much older with far more
hair. No one in recruiting is as cantankerous as is John and I can only
aspire to reach the same levels as him. And for the record, when I left
a VM for John several weeks back to talk to him about
BountyJobs, he called back in
less than one hour. Since no one
receives this level of service from him (or so he told me); so I suppose
it's true that he actually respects me.
Let me be upfront and admit that I've been
recruiting since back in the mid-1980's when I moved over to the dark
side from engineering. I never completely left engineering and to this
day can still run a technical product development meeting - meaning I've
been around technology for over 25 years, and HR technology since the
late 1980's. I've seen so many "can't-miss" apps and Internet sites fall
flat because they didn't adequately address critical channel issues or
understand the specific marketplace dynamics. But
BountyJobs is very different.
I sincerely appreciated John's
assessment of the
however, I do have a few comments in response to his write up:
to employers whose preferred vendor network is by its very nature
limited; having a nationwide (and eventually global) network of
independent recruiters to work on one's searches ensures a far broader
reach to talent.
to recruiters because it allows them to potentially engage with
companies they would not normally have access to; the objectively
measured marketplace statistics (no smile sheets at all) actually
creates a level playing field for all recruiters - it's one's reputation
BountyJobs that makes the difference.
Reputation management actually is
implemented exceptionally quite well here. In fact, one of the major
reasons why I was so excited about
BountyJobs was because of of how metrics were handled. There are no
smile-sheet metrics in this marketplace. We have discussed additional
ways to objectively measure the effectiveness of both employer and
recruiter and you'll see these in future releases.
Even more exciting is how
BountyJobs addresses the annoying habit of recruiters who flood
inboxes with unsolicited resumes. The mechanism that allows unengaged
recruiters to "take a flier" - essentially paying a small submission fee
- will truly ensure the quality of the submitted candidate.
update to the old splits network idea"
would have some truth to it if not for the fact that the recruiters get
to keep 25% more of the fee and do not have to traditionally market
themselves to potential companies.And
a splits network is really a black whole to
one of the recruiters; with
BountyJobs, the recruiter knows exactly who is receiving the
a full time "head of recruiter recruiting" who does a fantastic job of
vetting recruiters for the marketplace. Recruiters come to
BountyJobs from many channels including personal recommendation
(including my network), from numerous recruiting communities, and even
from calling those listed in the
BountyJobs is not at all a splits network but a self-contained POS
solution for managing every aspect of a company's externally driven
recruiting channel (it doesn't matter whether it's contingency or
retained). The only legal arrangement for a company is with
BountyJobs and not with any recruiter - considering that an employer
can engage or disengage a recruiter results in a competitive marketplace
where the only solution for a recruiter is to perform or be cast off.
Sure it sounds cruel but competition will bring out the best performers
and guess who benefits?
wholeheartedly concur that RPOs are
made possible by "the
dramatic inefficiencies of contingency recruiters."But
a "smarter version of the contingency recruiter?" The reason
BountyJobs will work is because the inefficiencies are engineered
away by competition. Over time, the less proficient recruiters will find
themselves not being engaged and the "bar" of performance will move
higher. The better recruiters will get the work and the employers the
results. Oh, and with BountyJobs you don't have to "buy" the entire RPO
- just the recruiters who perform for you.
If we were accepting
of average performance, then yes, I'd agree that we were automating a
BountyJobs is a paradigm shifting concept - an EBay like marketplace
for recruiting - that significantly rewards both companies and
recruiters with their desired treasures.