Recruiter vs. Researcher – a Further Analysis
It is with distinctive pride and pleasure that I introduce to some, but present to others, guest blogger - Amybeth Hale. Enjoy…
**
Recruiter vs. Researcher – a Further Analysis
For anyone who hasn’t read some of my prior postings, this is a topic that I have and will continue to pick apart, beat to death, and feel very strongly about. There are clear function differences between research and recruiting, and my intent is to bring to light these differences. If you have not seen Rob McIntosh’s wiki definition, please check it out. He has taken this subject to a whole new level and certainly given me some food for thought!
After a recent conversation with an IT recruiter and personal friend, I discovered that even people who know me and (I thought) understand what I do as a researcher don’t completely get what differentiates research and recruiting. So in this post, I am going to break these two functions down even further in the hopes that some additional clarification can be made.
In my conversation with my friend, I was reminded that in the world of recruiting, there are two vitally important activities that must be performed: marketing your recruiting services (sales) and candidate discovery. Most recruiters will tend to gravitate toward one or the other. My friend alluded that he prefers the sales aspect of recruiting more than the actual candidate contact. There are other recruiters who prefer the contact with the candidates as opposed to marketing their services to potential clients. What this boils down to is comfort and personal preference.
With this said, in the function of research, there are those who conduct research primarily by the phone and those who do research primarily on the internet. Then there are hybrids who can/enjoy doing both. What it boils down to, like the recruiting activities, are comfort and personal preference.
Here’s where a lot of people tend to get confused about what a researcher truly is. For example’s sake, let’s call the person who enjoys the client side of recruiting ‘Sales’, the person who enjoys the candidate interaction ‘Recruiter’, and the person responsible for generating contact leads ‘Researcher’. The Recruiter will often spend some time conducting his or her own research, though probably not as in depth as the dedicated Researcher would. Most good Recruiters that I have known are subscribers to their industry’s publications and stay up to date on what’s going on with the people within their space. This will assist them in their candidate interaction.
Where people get confused between the division of Recruiter and Researcher is where to draw the line on job function. I have said in the past that Researcher generates leads only and Recruiter qualifies them. In my conversation with my friend, his belief was that as a Researcher, part of my responsibility was a certain amount of pre-qualification of leads, which in his mind boiled down to initial contact and an “are you interested in this opportunity” conversation. This falls in line with some of the things that Rob wrote about in his wikipedia entry, but I think a little further clarification should be made on his analysis. Some other factors need to be taken into consideration, the most important of which would be:
How many Recruiters is the Researcher supporting?
How is the Researcher being compensated?
I think these two questions make a HUGE difference in how one should view the function of Researcher.
FACTOR 1: Number of Recruiters your Researcher is supporting makes a difference in their job function.
Example: if you have a Researcher who is supporting more than 5, maybe 6 Recruiters OR Sales, I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to be pre-screening leads in addition to uncovering them in the first place. In my case, I currently support all of our franchise offices (we currently have about 50 franchise offices with an additional 25+ folks who are recruiting and in process of becoming franchisees, not to mention all the employees of these offices) with research and database support. Granted, the 80/20 rule applies here – approximately 80% of my work comes from 20% of my offices. But even at that, that is more than 10 offices and in-process franchisees that are using me on a regular basis for research and database assistance. How could one person possibly be conducting pre-screening for all of that activity? Even the best Researchers can usually only completely support between 3-6 Recruiters on their own.
FACTOR 2: How your Researcher is compensated makes a difference in the part they play in the recruiting process.
Many Researchers make a base salary and then are awarded commissions based on placement of leads that originated from their research. This percentage can range from fractions of a percent to a 50/50 split. I think that how your Researcher is compensated should play a part in how much of the placement process they are involved in. If you are rewarding your Researcher with a smaller percentage of the placement fee (in my opinion this is 10% or less of the fee), then they should not be expected to pre-screen, pre-qualify, or really have too much interaction with the contacts they generate. If your Researcher is not making a base salary or is given a larger percentage of the placement fee, then I think you can expect them to participate in more of the process. Heavy commission compensation would encourage anyone to help expedite the placement process, thus making it more realistic in this case for the Researcher to be involved further into the process.
In the conversation I had last week, my friend was under the impression that I was not making a base salary and that I split any placements with Recruiter or Sales right down the middle. That, I think, is what a lot of Sales and Recruiters believe happens with Researchers. And to be honest, I always believed that all Researchers were compensated similarly to the way that I am. So we were both thinking incorrectly.
I believe this is where the true disconnect is. My friend admitted that he wished he did not have to conduct research. I asked him if he were to hire someone he would label as a Researcher to work for him what duties he would have that person do, and what he would then be responsible for. Here’s how he broke it down:
How he described his desired ideal duties: negotiate and talk to clients, get job orders, set up interviews
How he described the duties of someone he would hire as a Researcher: find leads, qualify them, and be the intermediary between him and the candidate, for which they would be paid a 50/50 split of the placement fee
When he said this, I had a light bulb moment! What he had just described as his ideal duties fell into Sales, and what he had described as Researcher duties fell under Recruiting (I mentioned the term Project Coordinator, going back to my old MRI days)! I finally understood why some people think that’s what research is all about. They perceive the complete job function of a Researcher to be more of a hybrid of a Recruiter and a Researcher (i.e. what some like to term a SOURCER) rather than the two being completely separated functions. Couple this with the idea that he thought I was ONLY making compensation through commission, and I had an epiphany. Finally, a breakthrough to this misconception that has driven me mad! I felt so relieved and was very excited to be able to write this further clarification.
**BONUS FACTOR: I spoke with Rob about these ideas, and he brought one more factor to my attention – the “Fear Factor”. What this is, is the idea that some Recruiters/Sales fear what Researchers can do, and the idea that they may lose some job satisfaction or have to pass along some of the credit if a Researcher did their initial footwork for them and eliminated the “hunt” from their job function freaks them out. Sound silly? Answer me this question then: How many of you out there who are Sales or Recruiters do your own research and would probably not consider using a Researcher? Rob said to me, “We all know (even these Recruiters) that the true, real, and definite value in recruiting is the ‘finding of talent’, not the processing of talent…I am not saying there is no value in holding the hand of the candidate through the interview process, ‘selling’ them or crafting a great offer….but, rather if you asked a business leader what would they like their recruiter to focus on and inevitability the response we all know will come back is ‘Find me more people’”.
In conclusion, I believe that Rob’s analysis of the job function of a Researcher is a great piece of work and helped clarify things for me; I definitely agree with the Proactive vs. the Reactive techniques he describes (reactive not being things for which a Researcher should be responsible). His description of primary and secondary sourcing hits the nail right on the head. There must be a clear line where your duties as a Researcher stop and the duties of a Recruiter start. However, I would simply add to this definition the factors of compensation method as well as number of Recruiters/Sales to be supported by the Researcher in determining the duties for your Researcher. Give them too many people to support beyond lead generation and they will become a jack of all trades and a master of none.
This is just a small sampling of some of the ideas I plan to cover when discussing what true research is at SourceCon! If you are interested in attending but have not registered yet, I have good news for you! Use this promotional code – ABH0730 – when you go to register and you will receive a 10% discount on the cost of admission. See you in Atlanta!
Some additional interesting resources regarding this topic:
Sourcing (wikipedia entry) – Rob McIntosh
Researchers (AKA Sourcers?) – Rob Merrill
Obtaining Upper Management Buy-In For Sourcing – Shally Steckerl
Jim Stroud’s Podcast with Doug Beabout – Jim Stroud
Emerging Roles In Recruiting – Dave Lefkow
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
There are a lot of maybes.
A True researcher is a Candidate Developer,Internet sourcer and a Phone sourcer. There are many other important roles for the recruiter to play including client relation, HR aspect, closing etc..
The role description for a Researcher could vary with your work load and the requirement……..
Amy,
Good points. In my 24 years in executive search I’m passing along something a senior level recruiter told me many years ago. The difference between a recruiter and a researcher is simple - one makes money for the firm and one costs money to the firm. Over the years this comment has inspired me to quantify researcher value.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rithesh. Having been “raised” at one of the huge international independent professional services firms as a true executive search researcher, I’ve been a candidate developer, internet sourcer AND phone sourcer - for many years. Now, as a Research-based Recruiter, I’ve added business developer, client/candidate negotiator, and closer to the mix… Sometimes I feel like Faye Dunnaway’s character (with an added twist) in that scene from the movie ChinaTown with Jack Nicholson… “I’m a Researcher… I’m a Recruiter… I’m a Researcher AND a Recruiter… (SLAP!)” But, I love it, love it, LOVE it all!
Research is a very important and critical piece of the talent acquisition puzzle. You have to know where to find the coconuts, because without the coconut, you can’t make a tasty drink.
At the same time, there are a number of steps between finding a name and processing the candidate. The recruitment process lies in the middle. Finding names is the first portion of the talent acquisition process, and processing the candidate is the last part.
In other words, the monkey that sees the coconut in the tree is very important. But so is the giraffe that comes along and knocks it out of tree. So is the gorilla that comes along, rubs and bangs on the coconut, thereby cracking open the coconut to make a tasty drink for the clan.
Like you say, Amy, not all animals are great at all of the tasks or enjoy doing them! What is the most important step? Well, it likely depends on the animal you ask 
As a recruiter who also does his own research and sourcing who used to have a sourcer, I have to say life was much easier back when. If I could be on the phone doing my job and spending less time sourcing and researching my productivity would grow exponentially.
I was always told that the number one way to ruin your recruiting career was to get caught up in research. I’m finding this true more and more every day. For me personally, I actually really enjoy sourcing and researching so this is a real quick way to kill a career… or perhaps birth a new…
I would agree with Josh here in that when you break down the entire process from start to finish, it should be broken down and delegated so you don’t fall down a rabbit hole you can’t get out of. Each player has their role and when all are functioning you’re dealing with a well oiled machine with incredible productivity.
A sourcer/researcher should provide the names and contacts for individuals, nothing more should be required. Realistically, the people who opt to become sourcers and researchers do so because they don’t want to be on the phone, so why put them in an awkward position. The recruiter should be the one with the phone skill and should be the ONLY person to speak to the candidate.
A great recruiter has been trained to handle candidates, control conversations, earn trust, build relationships, and above all know their industry well enough to carry on a conversation about the position you’re sending them to. A great recruiter can do both source and facilitate, but you’re cutting your production in half by placing them in this position.
A great sourcer knows how to read a job description, find all the information available, and provide a bulk supply of names and contact for qualified candidates.
Why send someone who’s great at what they do to do something they don’t want to when you could just as easily do it yourself and much better as it’s what you’ve been trained to do? If each party does what they’re best at and all the bases are covered by people who know how to do their job, then you can only expect great things. Putting it all on one person can only hurt this equation as it’s taking time away from what you’re best at.
If a person spends half their day researching and half their day recruiting you’re getting at best a combined half a days work. If you have two people, you’re getting a full days work. Yeah, you’re spending money, but you can’t make money without spending it and in the end you’re life will be a lot less stressful, and a placement a day vs every other day certainly weighs out the cost paying someone to make it happen, not to mention you’re only making your clients happier…
that’s my 47 cents^^
Hi Amy:
This discussion does seem to go on and on, and will probably never be over but as one who for many years has done both full-life-cycle recruiting and Internet sourcing I feel I am at least qualified to offer an opinion. I think a major differentiator between the two professions is one of sales. Aptitude and inclination. When I am in my recruiter mode I am a salesperson. I sell my clients on my services…my candidates on my clients…ice to eskimos if I can get a fee, which is why I disagree with the person who said sourcers should be involved in pre-qualification. That is a sales role to me, and should be handled by a sales type person. There are too many variables in a pre-screen that require the reactionary skills of a seasoned sales person. When I am in my (Internet) sourcing mode, I am not selling anything to anyone…not even speaking with people. Just researching companies and identifying candidates for me or my clients to contact. This mode does not require any sales at all, however, it does require the knowledge, patience and follow-though that many of the recruiters simply do not have. Yes, there is some crossover but generally, to me, they are two distinct vocations that are equally important to the process of making the next hire, which is why I also disagree with the statement that recruiters make money and sourcers cost money. A good sourcer is worth their weight in gold.
Mark
WOW - Mark is DEAD-ON. What an incredible insight!
Mark is absolutely correct - if we were to break down the value chain, Research is primarily a marketing activity. Recruiting is primarily a sales activity.
Without targeted leads, we have nobody to sell to! Both portions of the value-chain are extremely critical.
To go back to my analogy, it is absolutely critical that the monkey point the coconut out to me. Frankly, the monkey’s eyes are better than mine. Moreover, I have ADD so I can’t concentrate on all the trees long enough to see the fruits up there. Since I’m a gorilla, I have more muscles than the monkey to break the coconut open, but I just can’t see all the coconuts the way he can. Plus, even if I could, another monkey down the block in another tree saw another coconut that I was working on breaking open. I’m very grateful to have a Giraffe help me out when there’s one around, because he is better equipped to knock out coconuts, but with most of my clients, they don’t have a Giraffe onsite!
Mark, I am on record to say that your insight is the breakthrough concept of the year in terms of research vs. sourcing vs. recruiting.
Kudos and well done.
Josh Letourneau
Mg Director, LG & Assoc Search/Talent Strategy
jl (at) lgexec.com
Hi if anyone can help me I need to know as we r reseachers in the Game how much commision should you get when you make a placement?
as @ my workplace wew still developing that but we dont hve figures……
your help will be highly aprreciated.
sabelo76@gmail.com
Amybeth,
I really liked your Blog about the recruiter vs.. researcher.
I also liked Rob’s comments but I think you guys both missed one thing .
You mentioned the fear factor of the recruiter but what about the fear factor of the researcher.
The researcher does some of the work and the recruiter gets all of the credit. There
are pats on the back from the boss, hiring authority and everyone else for the great candidate they have placed but the researcher
gets nothing for finding them initially. I agree that the researcher is not screening the candidate but they are the ones who found this person. Maybe the recruiter would have found this person on there own. Maybe it would have taken a few extra days or maybe they would have not found them at all. That is a lot of maybes.
Maybe the recruiter needs to say every once in a while thank you to there researcher.