Seven Sins of Recruiting

Disclaimer: This article is a personal reflection and an accumulation of my perspective and thoughts about a profession I have had the pleasure of being a part of for the last 18 years. A lot of you may disagree with what you read because the topics covered below are complex, need nuanced conversations and are hard to summarize in written format. My sole intention is to bring out an alternative perspective about the most common misconceptions or best practices around recruiting and talent acquisition. I can confirm that No recruiters, HR, Sales or Marketing professionals were hurt during the writing process :) 

I recently completed 18 years in a profession that I entered accidentally. 18 years ago, I was interviewing for a tech/business role when in the middle of the interview the recruiter paused and said, “You can be a good recruiter, do you want to try that instead?” Whether this pause was prompted because of my absolute lack of skills for the role I originally applied for, or she genuinely saw something to give me an option is a question that bothers me to date. But I will always be grateful for that opportunity and the wonderful journey I have had as a headhunter, recruiter and Talent acquisition leader. I have had the opportunity to work with some genuinely recruitment-focused tech organizations which has, in turn, given me a unique perspective on common pitfalls and misconceptions about this profession.

I call them the “Seven Deadly Sins of Recruiting”

Sin 1: Recruiting is Sales

One of the most common misconceptions is that recruiting is like sales. While both professions involve persuasion and relationship-building, the similarities stop right there. Recruiters do not sell products; they match talent with opportunities. If one were to consider that recruiting indeed has elements that can be compared with sales, it would mean that HR then is an after-sales service function. Like you always choose a premium product based on its after-sales service, you also always make career decisions based on how well the employee experience is post-recruiting.  Yet, we don’t hear anyone call HR an after-sales service team. 

In the old days, people who spread the gospel were called “Evangelists”. Evangelists or missionaries were part of a group that believed in shared values and objectives and their job was to spread the gospel (the truth, good news, and teachings) to everyone. 

The main objective of spreading the gospel was of course to have non-believers join the believers.  

Recruiters are part of an organisation with shared values and their objective is to spread the gospel (values, teachings, services, and sometimes good news) to turn the non-believers of the organisation into believers. Evangelism sounds like a more accurate parallel to Recruiting than sales. 

This need to equate recruiting with sales is what has also led to recruiters focussing on earning incentives instead of finding great fits for the organisation. Of course, this doesn’t apply to agency recruiters but to in-house recruiters. When closing a role becomes the objective, objectivity usually goes missing. I have been a part of and managed teams of recruiting professionals that have successfully hired 1000s of folks effectively, efficiently, and happily without any incentive structure. All because they were treated as Evangelists and not as individuals part of a Salesforce. 

Sin 2: Recruiting is HR

I think this one is going to raise a few eyebrows, but people who know me, also know how strongly I feel about this. Recruiting is often conflated with HR, but they serve distinct purposes. They are also often in opposite corners on most things. Most HR is fundamentally a regulatory, compliant function with a need to standardize as much as possible. Recruiting on the other hand often acts non-compliant (read unorthodox) and is, in fact, more effective when they have the freedom to colour outside the box (legally of course). Utter the words, “Standard Compensation Ranges'' or “standard benefits” in front of any progressive recruiter and see the reaction. I should ideally share an example here, but I can't give out trade secrets and disappoint my recruiting brethren for some additional likes and shares 😉 #iykyk

In the long-standing argument of ‘Equality vs. Fairness’, HR is often on the side of equality (similar policies, benefits, and processes for everyone) whereas TA evangelizes Fairness. I have spent some time in both these roles and truly believe that an independent TA team that's not part of an overall HR agenda, adds greater value to the organization than one which gets stuck in the endless loop that sounds a lot like “लोग क्या कहेंगे” (What will people say?).

Then there's often the case of the recruiting leader reporting to the CHRO or HR head. For argument's sake let's agree that recruiting is like sales, by the same definition, HR can then be equated to an after-sales service team. And how often have you seen the sales leader report to the after-sales support leader? There are of course excellent examples of exceptional HR leaders who are great at managing TA as a centre of excellence, but my observation comes from the norm and not the exception. Some of the most successful, efficient, and effective recruiting teams are led by folks who report directly to the CEO or COO. HR and TA need to have a maker-checker relationship and that means they always must be independent functions that can help each other get better. 

Sin 3: Recruiting is just Maths

Max Tegmark in his speculative "theory of everything” called the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) famously wrote, 

"The physical universe is not merely described by mathematics but is mathematics". 

"Metrics decide Merit" in the corporate world. All of us have an unhealthy obsession with data, so much so that we are now quantifying every aspect of the recruiting process. Metrics, pipeline, throughput, funnel, and dashboard are words that are thrown around regularly and hiring manager reviews have started to sound a lot like algebra sessions. 

Simon Caulkin in his now-forgotten article had very aptly said, “If there's one management platitude that should have been throttled at birth, it's 'what gets measured gets managed'. It's not that it's not true - it is - but it is often misunderstood, with disastrous consequences. The full proposition is: 'What gets measured gets managed - even when it's pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organization to do so.'

Recruiting may involve data and metrics, but it's not as straightforward as crunching numbers. That’s why a candidate who scores well and performs brilliantly in the interview process, still has a “मजा नहीं आया” (That wasn't fun) feedback from hiring managers. And honestly, it’s okay to get that feedback. Recruiting is a lot about assessing the intangible qualities that make a candidate a good fit for a particular role, a specific team, and your company culture. Most of these intangibles are also impossible to measure. Let's just say “FQ”, the feeling quotient, is not a term that corporate companies have discovered, yet. While data-driven decisions are essential, they should complement rather than replace human judgment. 

More resumes in the pipeline doesn’t mean more interviews and more interviews doesn’t necessarily mean more hires. Stop making decisions solely on the strength of the pipeline and the flow in the funnel. Most of these metrics can only measure the level of activity being done and are often misunderstood as the amount of effort being put in. Showing recruiting activity is very easy in a corporate environment, making actual efforts to get work done or getting things better is a lot harder to do and to measure. 

Sin 4: Recruiting is not a Support Function

But it is a support function, and there’s nothing wrong with it. I have always been fascinated with statements like how recruiting is no longer a support function, how it needs to be considered a business function and how it's time for us to get a “Seat at the table”. While I am aware that all of it comes from a place of pride for the profession, it inherently also comes from a place of insecurity and looks down upon the idea of support functions. It implies that “business function” is a superior being and hence we lesser mortals must raise our voices to also be considered equal. 

A support function was defined as a function that does not directly impact the bottom line of the organization. It doesn’t mean it is not important or should be relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy. Let's take the example of the most famous support function in the field of sports, the F1 pit crew. 

An F1 pit crew is a team that helps a race car driver stay on track and drive as fast as possible during a race. They achieve this by giving him/her the correct information about the various elements affecting the car, the competitive strategy, and other conditions that can influence the outcome. Often, an extra second or the lack of it at pit stops can flip a race in F1. Nothing underlines the importance of pit crew as a support function than this. While the F1 drivers are the face of the sport and may enjoy the stardom, an efficient and effective support function is an integral reason between winning and losing for them. We all have the names of F1 drivers by heart, but the truly passionate fans are the ones who would know the crew chief’s name. And, the truly progressive organisations always celebrate the crew chief along with the F1 driver, they don’t need the crew chief to become a driver or get a seat in the car pit. 

Is there a case for greater appreciation? Absolutely! But “To Support” is THE nature of the job and so it's only apt that it's called a support function. 

Sin 5: AI will replace Recruiters

As a recruiting leader, it's imperative to acknowledge the undeniable impact AI is making on our profession. AI-powered tools and platforms are transforming the way we source, assess, and hire talent, offering unprecedented efficiency and accuracy. These technologies promise to revolutionize the recruiting landscape, making the process faster and more effective. 

While AI brings undeniable advantages to the recruiting process, it's crucial to remember that it cannot replace the human touch. 

Human ingenuity (HI) >> Artificial intelligence (AI)

AI can at best supplement or complement the recruiters in their endeavour to hire the best talent. The art of building relationships, understanding candidate aspirations, and making complex, nuanced hiring decisions remains a uniquely human skill that cannot be replaced by machines. There’s an Urdu couplet that beautifully summarises this:

ग़ज़ल में बंदिश-ए-अल्फ़ाज़ ही नहीं सब कुछ  जिगर का ख़ून भी कुछ चाहिए असर के लिए 

For the uninitiated, it means that you cannot string together a few words to create a melody. You have to sing it with a lot of passion for it to really make an impact. The future of recruiting lies in the harmonious integration of a string of algorithms and human passion, working together to identify and nurture the best talent. Anyone claiming otherwise is distanced from reality. I am a tech enthusiast and so am always excited about new technology, but if AI is an all-conquering God, each of us has to decide if we want to be God-loving or god-fearing. 

Sin 6: Tech Recruiting >>> Non-Tech Recruiting

Most recruiting leaders will agree that the distinction between tech and non-tech recruiting often sparks lively debates among recruiters. Especially in the fast-paced, highly competitive, and dynamic world of recruiting in India, there’s always been a misplaced superiority assigned to Tech recruiting over non-tech recruiting. So much so that anecdotal data shows almost a 15-18% difference in salaries for tech and non-tech recruiters. 

I find the comparison similar to traditional fans of cricket pronouncing Test Cricket as a superior form of sport as compared to limited overs cricket. One might prefer one over the other but to claim that one is superior to another is a bit harsh. The choice between tech and non-tech recruiting should not be framed as a competition, but rather as a complementary effort. You have different requirements and need different skills for different forms. As in cricket, the top 1% are skilful in all forms, so is the case with recruiting. The good recruiters can do both tech and non-tech hiring with equal ease and efficiency. 

I often loosely compare Tech and Non-tech recruiting to Ad filmmaking vs Feature filmmaking. Feature filmmakers have the luxury of time and larger budgets to bring out the emotions and convey the message, whereas ad filmmakers often have to tell the story and touch hearts within 30/60 seconds. Both use storytelling as a medium but both need vastly different skills. 

The opportunity to work with a Global talent pool, experience cutting-edge futuristic technologies, handle high-value (sometimes downright obnoxious) salary offers and use interesting assessment tools is what makes the world of tech recruiting so glamorous. The need to keep up with rapidly changing technologies, dealing with high-demand talent with specific preferences, and the pressure to fill roles quickly due to market competitiveness make tech recruiting exciting and difficult at the same time. 

However, recruiters working in non-tech roles may argue that their roles require a more nuanced understanding of candidates, industries, and client organizations. With large candidate pools, non-tech recruiting truly personifies the needle in a haystack phrase. The ability to assess and match soft skills, industry expertise, and cultural fit can make non-tech recruiting a uniquely complex and rewarding endeavour. Ultimately, the perceived difficulty of recruiting in tech or non-tech sectors may vary based on individual recruiter preferences and experiences. Both areas offer valuable and fulfilling opportunities for recruiters to make a meaningful impact on their organisations and candidates.

Sin 7: Everyone in the company has to be a recruiter

Recruiting is an acquired skill. One needs a heady combination of functional and life skills to really count as a top-percentile recruiter.  Yes, it's not rocket science, but nothing is as difficult as rocket science except for rocket science which is also not difficult for people who study it. The problem is no one studies recruiting, it's not a dream field for a 12-year-old or even a 19-year-old for that matter. Most “MBA HR” curriculums in the country (or globally) don’t teach recruiting. “Selection & assessment” is a footnote in the entire curriculum. Add to that, the online recruiting courses which claim to make you a TA specialist for a few bucks, do even more damage because all they teach you are tools used in recruiting and how to use them. The core skills of having constructive conversations, building relationships, gathering information, business acumen and just basic executive presence are completely ignored. The result, what a vast majority of TA leaders will also concur, is a flood of fairly mediocre recruiting talent which makes entrepreneurs, founders, tech and business leaders believe that recruiting is their problem to solve. That further extrapolates the problem because tech and business leaders use tech and business metrics to track progress and drive decisions, which might get you the hiring numbers in the short term but will severely hamper quality in the long term. 

Lack of formal and structured education, a very low bar for entry (most people think if you can speak well, you can be a recruiter, Which is why my accidental entry in recruiting bothers me 😅) and a very fast-food approach to recruiting is leading to the dichotomy where recruiting is the number one problem for most organisations and yet recruiting teams are still struggling for approval, authority and appreciation. 

The TA community needs to take a hard look in the mirror at what's leading to this sense of mediocrity. Recruiting needs to do what Product Management, a fairly young function (there is a legendary story of “brand men” from P&G where the title was first coined) did to reinvent itself. It is one of the most sought-after roles today, data shows that PM roles have increased by 30-35% in the last 5 years; MBA schools over the last few years have started teaching Product management as a full credit course and more and more young graduates see it as a dream job.  

The current generation of recruiting leaders are amongst the last who have seen the rise of technology in recruiting but still have their fundamentals rooted in the good old days of hands-on recruiting that involved cold calling, relationship building and personal networking. These leaders owe it to future recruiting professionals to raise the stature of recruiting in the corporate world. 

P.S: I understand that some of you would disagree with everything or most things above. Humble request to keep the comments civil and the conversation positive.