Here, we'll assume that you've examined the recruiter and his or her client relationship, both of which are fine indeed.
You've accepted the recruiter. Now let's do business.
Interestingly, whereas your first few minutes of the recruiter's call were somewhat adversarial...you brought up something not on the recruiter's agenda...now that you're getting down to business, your interests and the recruiter's are almost identical.
Of course, the recruiter is still trying to sell you something which you may be wise not to buy. That will be true up to the moment you accept the employer's job and resign your present one. But during this initial phone call, you and the recruiter both want to know the same things...although in opposite order of priority:
You want to find out whether the job is right for you...and whether the recruiter knows enough about it to actually have a proper assignment to fill it. The recruiter, on the other hand, wants to know whether you're right for the job. And if not, he or she doesn't care how interested you are.
Let's indulge your priorities. First, are you "interested"? And only secondly, are you "qualified"?
If you've got a job and the recruiter's trying to get you to consider a different one, then you're the buyer and he's the seller. He'll have to follow your agenda, if you just assert it:
YOUR CALLER: "I'm in the process of filling an exceptionally attractive position for a management information executive in your industry, and I've heard some very good things about you. But I'm not entirely sure that your background is a 'fit.' Tell me; first of all, are you in charge of systems-development throughout the corporation, in addition to supervising all the data centers?"
YOU: "Yes, I am. But I'm in very good shape here at Outstanding Corporation. Before we go into my background, why don't we just see if the situation you have is something that I ought to think about. And if it's not for me, I'll try to suggest some other people who'd be more appropriate."
Right at the outset you've got things rolling in the direction that's best for you. You've conveyed a pleasant, receptive, helpful attitude. But you haven't given up your superior bargaining position. You've politely asserted your obvious advantage.
Already the recruiter is sizing you up. On a subliminal level...and probably on a conscious level, too...he's now alert to the fact that, on this call, he's dealing with a highly aware and competent person. Maybe you're the one he's looking for.
Of course, if you were out of work and the recruiter was calling in response to your letter and resume, your buyer/seller roles would be reversed. You'd be willing to answer all his questions about your background and track record prior to hearing the specifics of the job he's filling. He'd be the buyer.
If there's some reason for you not to deal with the recruiter, or not to be interested in the job, you want to find out right away. Then you don't waste your time or hers.
Ask probing questions. Simultaneously you'll find out whether the position is worth considering, and whether the recruiter is well-informed enough to really be on retainer to fill it. Sometimes, although far less often than most people think, even a retainer recruiter may not be at liberty to identify the employer. But if she's tied in, she can describe the job in detail.
So ask everything that will help you see whether you should spend any time beyond the initial phone call to explore the opportunity:
What are the specific responsibilities?
What's the title?
What position would you report to?
How many subordinates? With what functions?
Is it chief executive, reporting to an outside board? If it's president or general manager of a subsidiary, does it report to the CEO, or to the COO, of the parent? Or is there a group officer in between?
If it's a top marketing job, does the sales force report to it? How large is the sales force? How many product managers? Are manufacturers' reps and distributors used? Which ad agencies? Budget? Media mix?
If it's chief financial officer, does the position have responsibility for administration, management information services, internal auditing, subsidiary controllerships (straight or dotted line), etc.?
If it's a top manufacturing job, does manufacturing engineering report to it? Quality control? Purchasing? Physical distribution? How about off-shore operations and plants? Plants within the subsidiaries?
If it's a top engineering job, does it just include new product engineering? What about quality control and manufacturing engineering?
Don't trust the title to describe the job. Whatever your specialty, ask, ask, ask! And then go further:
What's the boss like? What characteristics does he value most in his employees? What's his preferred working style...lots of your taking the job. If you do, you'll prove you're a lousy decision-maker. And then the recruiter won't call when he gets another fine opportunity that doesn't require relocation.
Wrong Money. The recruiter almost certainly will not tell you upfront exactly how much the client prefers to pay. And of course, until the job is filled, nobody knows what will be negotiated.
However, the recruiter has a very good idea what the upper limits are. He's undoubtedly found out what peer-level jobs in the client company pay. And a smart recruiter always asks the compensation of the position directly above the one being filled. So even if he doesn't want to "go public" by telling you, the recruiter does know "how much is too much."
So how do you uncover too-low money?
Simple. Just give the recruiter a clear idea of what you're making now, and what improvement you expect within the next year. If the recruiter is someone you already know and trust, or appears to be a first-class professional from a respected firm, you may decide to be forthright:
"The responsibility is very attractive. I'd certainly like to be running my own show. But I'm not sure this situation would make sense for me financially. My base is going up to $150,000 on August 1, and I'll earn about a 20% bonus on top of that. So we've got to be talking significantly over $200,000 for me to come out with any improvement in money."
If you're less confident about the recruiter's integrity and confidentiality, just give the bottom line without saying anything specific he can repeat to others about your compensation:
"I like it here and I'm very well compensated. However, I would be willing to listen if you're talking well over $200,000. Otherwise, I'm really not interested in changing."
Knowing where you stand on money, and knowing there's a ceiling at $175,000 in base-plus-bonus, the recruiter will immediately pull back recruiter...highly paid to serve her clients' interests...will gladly call you in the evening or on the weekend, if that's what you prefer.
Never pretend to be interested if you're really not.
Some executives, unaware of the behind-the-scenes workings of a recruiting firm, will pretend to be interested in a job, just to get to know the recruiter...in the hope of discovering more-appropriate openings than the one being described.
As you can see, this strategy is way off base. If you express interest in the search you're called about, the recruiter's firm won't show you any other job until that project is finished and all the files are returned to the central talent pool...which may take several months. It's a guaranteed method for staying out of the action at that firm for a substantial time.
If you're not interested, always try to suggest people who'd be more appropriate. Also suggest people the recruiter should talk to as "sources." They wouldn't want the job, but probably can suggest potential candidates.
Indeed, if you're highly impressed with the recruiter, offer to let him use your name. Help him get through to the people who know you, but don't know him. He'll be grateful...and will chalk up another reason why you should be one of the first people called when he or someone else in his firm undertakes a search that could interest you.
In closing the phone conversation, also be sure to let the recruiter know what sort of an opportunity would excite your interest. Might as well plant a seed for the future. If you've been competent, warm, and helpful, the climate is right.
If you've clearly pointed out mismatches between the recruiter's proposal and your situation, and he still urges you to come in for an interview, you should suspect him of wanting...above all to apply his tag to your head and see that your resume is widely circulated. Chances are he won't merely be wanting, as he'll say, "to know you better for the future when the right thing does come across my desk."
Generally speaking, true retainer recruiters are extremely busy finding the people clients are paying them to look for today, this week, this month. The successful ones have very little time or inclination to interrupt their ongoing searches to meet any one...no matter how able and attractive...who doesn't fit a current search.
The odds are overwhelmingly against any retainer recruiter...no matter how large the firm he or she works for...ever personally getting the exact project that's right for you at the exact future time when it's appropriate for you to move. Expect the recruiter to behave accordingly. And be wary of one who doesn't.
How much manipulation are you willing to put up with?
Lots of recruiters...sometimes encouraged by employers who'd like them to operate that way...will try to get you to come in for an interview without telling you the identity of the employer you're being considered to work for.
After you've expressed potential interest in their proposition, they go on to say something like this:
YOUR CALLER: "Naturally, of course, I can't give you the identity of the employer on the telephone. We can talk much more frankly in my office, if you'd like to come in and explore this situation further. And do bring your resume. We can look it over as we talk, and we'll have it in case we decide to go ahead."
What baloney!
Is the recruiter's phone bugged...or yours? Conceivably, a switchboard operator might overhear yours if you're at work. But his shouldn't be a problem. And he raised the point...you didn't. Any legitimate concern...and only you will have it...can be eliminated by continuing this call via your home phone tonight, or on the weekend. And all first-class recruiters...retainer and contingency...will gladly do so.
Re-read what the recruiter said. Did he promise to identify the employer, even if you do go to all the trouble of visiting his office, and you hand him your resume, and you submit to an interview? No, he didn't! And don't expect him to, if you meekly go ahead as he suggests.
Obviously the recruiter wants the option of knowing everything about you and conveying nothing specific to you about the identity of the employer...if indeed he's actually been engaged by one.
Plenty of recruiters would like to proceed that way. But no employed executive has to accept such ground rules. Indeed, the unemployed executive who objects to them will be considered a lot more formidable than the one who doesn't. Let's hear how you pick up the conversation:
YOU: "Oh, I have no problem with the phone; we're perfectly free to go ahead.
"Also, I can't tell you whether I'm interested in interviewing for a job unless I know what the job is, and of course that includes knowing what company I'd be working for. I'm doing very well here, and haven't been thinking at all about making a change. On the other hand, what you're suggesting does sound interesting...at least on the surface. Is there something more you'd like to know about me, in order to see whether you think we should go any further?"
The ball's back in his court. If he wants you for a candidate, he'll just have to be more forthcoming now, while he has you on the phone. You're warmly open and cooperative...offering to address any potential shortcomings.
If the recruiter doesn't come forward now and ask his key questions which might disqualify you...and let you ask your key questions that might disqualify the job...he knows he'll lose you. Then he'll have to go to the trouble of finding someone else with your qualifications...and with your interest in the opportunity. Someone who, unlike you, is willing to submit to a highly one-sided procedure. That means someone more insecure in his or her job...or as a person...than you are. And unfortunately, the employer probably won't be as interested in that person as he would be in you.
So even if you're sitting at the other end of the wire absolutely quivering with delight at the prospect of having a shot at the position the recruiter has described, you have clout. Use it.
What will the recruiter do now? One thing's absolutely certain. He won't think less of you just because you're not a pushover. His next move will depend on the actual motives behind this call to you:
- If he's trying to tag your head prior to nailing down a proper client assignment, he'll forget that idea...meanwhile telling you, "Too bad; you're missing out on a great opportunity!"
- If he was going to befriend you, and later pitch for your executive recruiting business, after this non-existent "search" is...alas..."cancelled," he'll forget that idea.
- If he has a retainer search, and is merely proceeding with approach #1 of his standard "M.O.," he'll shift smoothly into approach #2 and, in return for your telling him what he needs to know, he'll tell you what you need to know...including employer identity, which he'll request you to "keep confidential." Expect this result 80% of the time.
- If he has a retainer search and also a legitimate mandate for secrecy from the employer, he'll come out with a specific and plausible reason for not being able to name the employer:
YOU: "Well, I guess I won't be standing there all interviewed and waiting, when the other person gets the axe. But do call me when you're in a position to be more specific. I definitely might be interested, depending on who the company is. Meanwhile, I appreciate your thinking of me. Thanks for the call."
Only in possibility #4 was there any legitimate employer-dictated need for confidentiality. And I'm being very generous in estimating that such a need may actually exist in as many as 10% to 20% of the instances when a recruiter calls you. Then, of course, he can't back down.
But what will he do? By holding out, have you lost your shot at the job he called you about?
Probably not. Chances are, you've made yourself more desirable.
In all likelihood, when the recruiter briefs the employer on the executives who were willing to be interviewed without knowing who they'd be presented to, he'll also describe the two or three even more impressive ones...like you...who wouldn't go along with that procedure. He'll explain that he can re-contact these, as soon as the employer lifts the secrecy. Chances are ten-to-one that the employer will immediately say:
"Don't wait. Open up to them right away, so that we can meet any of those who are willing to talk to us, right along with the candidates you've already interviewed."
So, even in this rare instance where there was an employer-imposed mandate to interview without disclosing company identity, you came out just as well by standing firm as you would have by caving in. In fact, you probably look stronger and will be more sought after than the people who jumped at the chance for a "blind" interview.
If your caller had been from a retainer firm where you'd been trying for weeks to get a courtesy interview, you'd instantly have accepted the invitation. However, you'd have known that interviewing on this job would have assigned you to this search, even if you weren't told the employer's identity. Therefore, you probably wouldn't have been returned to the firm's talent pool for consideration on anything else, until after the "mystery" search was completed.
Of course, you'd never have submitted to interviewing by a contingency recruiter without being told to whom you were being offered, unless you were sure that the firm is totally ethical. Otherwise, they might have taken your willingness to be offered to one undisclosed employer as permission to covertly submit you to any company that might hire you.
If I were happily employed, I'd never agree to be interviewed for any "opportunity," no matter how attractively described, unless I knew in advance the employer's identity. However, if I were eager to move, I might propose the following:
YOU: "I'd be pleased to meet you and discuss my background, which seems to be exactly what you're looking for. The only thing I ask is that you not submit me to any employer without telling me who I'm being offered to.
"You can tell me who it is after the interview, if you decide to present me. Or tell me that you have other candidates that you prefer, and therefore you won't submit me. Or tell me you don't know yet whether I'll be submitted, and you'll get back to me later if I am to be submitted.
"I just don't want my name and information submitted to anyone without knowing who it is. Is that OK with you?"
Even employment agencies for clericals accept the proposition that "applicants" have the right to say in advance what companies they are and are not willing to be presented to. When you state your position in this way, no legitimate executive recruiter can refuse. But do so on the phone prior to your interview...when you'll have more clout, and you'll get a clearer answer.
To encourage a "let's get down to it" telephone discussion, volunteer a thumbnail review of the points...pro and con...that should spell "go" or "no go" to the recruiter:
YOU: "Look, I'm in charge of all marketing and sales over here, reporting to the President. I moved up to this job three years ago from head of product management. Since then we've been making very strong gains in market share, volume, and profitability. Here are a few things you should also know, however: I'm 54 years old and I don't have an MBA. In fact, I don't quite have my BS. My only college has been at night at NYU, and I've let that program slide since my promotion to this job. I'm about 15 credits shy of a BS in Marketing. Also, you've got to be talking over $150,000 or you can't reach me on money."
It's all there!
That took you less than a minute to say. Yet it summarizes the key points the recruiter would have tried to draw out in a face-to-face meeting.
If the recruiter knows his client will never accept a non-college-graduate (and in my opinion, that's very shortsighted), or won't want somebody in his 50's when the search has already turned up several outstanding candidates in their late 30's, then both you and the recruiter will be spared a useless interview.
On the other hand, if the prejudicial factors you raise are not disabling, then you've undoubtedly "sold" yourself to the recruiter with your 60-second summary...a virtuoso display of cutting through to the heart of a matter. The employer will be identified, and you'll be invited to meet the recruiter.
If the recruiter is uncertain about the employer's attitude toward the factors you've laid on the table, he'll:
- say that his client is a wonderfully broad-minded person who'd never break the "equal-opportunity" laws, and
- promise to get back to you with "further information," once he's "ready to go ahead"
Special Note for Employers Using Executive Recruiters
Your first impulse...particularly if you haven't been served and coached by top professionals in the recruiting field...will be to request your recruiter to keep your project "highly confidential," and perhaps not to reveal your identity until after he's interviewed the executive and "confirmed that the person is really a strong candidate."
The less competent your recruiter is...and the less honest, as he competes for your business by telling you what you want to hear...the more likely he'll imply that he can provide such "confidentiality" and still get you the strongest possible candidates. Don't imagine for one minute that this is true.
The executives most willing to go along with such treatment are out of work (which these days doesn't mean they're not good)...or in difficulty...or so marginally qualified for your job that they're thrilled to pursue it, regardless of the overbearing procedure.
Executives who are already at the right level for your job, and are currently employed by companies that think they're excellent and reward them accordingly, will not be clogging their calendars with interviews by recruiters who won't tell them who they're being solicited to work for.
Face-to-Face with a Recruiter: Your Interview for the Job She Called About
You and a recruiter have accomplished about as much as possible over the telephone. You tried to disqualify the opportunity, and you couldn't.
You're not "sold." But you are interested. So you're going to go see the recruiter...or possibly she's coming to see you. Now what?
Now you prepare for the meeting!
That's right. Even though the recruiter called you; you didn't call her. Even though you agreed to the meeting only after she drowned you in charming persuasion. Still you prepare. This meeting is far more important to you than to her. It's just part of one day's work to the recruiter. But it could change...for better or worse...your entire career.
So take some time to figure out what you want to accomplish. What questions do you want answered? And what do you want to communicate, so that the recruiter will rank you among her finalists, and will accurately convey your best features to her client?
One objective must be virtually in-the-bag by the end of the meeting. The other can be pursued later by phone, if necessary.
If time runs out on your interview and you haven't asked quite all of your questions...or if new ones occur to you afterward...you can always phone for answers. Is there anything wrong with this?
YOU: "A few important questions occur to me that we didn't get a chance to cover when we were together..."
No, nothing at all out of line. But imagine this call:
NOT YOU: "Unfortunately, Paula, I was so busy asking questions during my interview, that I got home and realized I hadn't told you some additional...and very impressive...things you should know about me. Make yourself comfortable, and I'll begin reciting my further virtues to you now..."
You get the point. You had plenty of chance to challenge the job during one or more phone calls before your interview. And you can phone with more questions later. The interview is your chance to let the recruiter find out how ideal you'd be for the position. Don't wind up with you convinced that the job's right for you, and the recruiter not convinced that you're right for the job.
Of course you can try to fill in omitted selling points with a follow-up letter. Indeed, that's your only shot. But the recruiter's impression will overwhelmingly be based on your face-to-face interview. It's almost impossible to raise your ranking by anything you mail in afterward.
Forewarned, both you and the recruiter can modify your agendas to fit the pre-acknowledged time slot. Such a statement isn't discourteous; it's the mark of a thoughtful and efficient executive.
Candidate interviews by recruiters usually range from an hour to an hour-and-a-half. I personally devote far more time to them, but I also pre-screen more restrictively and invite only a few exceptional people to interview. Each recruiter has his or her own personal style. Achieve your objectives by adapting to the recruiter's game plan.
Another point. If you agreed to this meeting without knowing in advance the identity of the employer, you should also reconfirm, right up-front, the ground rules that were negotiated earlier:
"You know, Paula, you still haven't told me who the employer is. Your feeling was that at the end of this meeting, you'd know whether or not you'll be presenting me. Then you can tell me who it is...As we're going ahead...or that I'm not a finalist if we won't be going further. That's just fine with me. What I really want to be sure of is that we're agreed that I won't be presented anywhere, unless I know in advance where that will be."
Beginning with a recapitulation of points agreed on earlier over the phone is merely appropriate businesslike procedure. But if you delay them to the end of the interview, the same points will seem nagging and distrustful.
Once timing is established, it's not offensive...and can be helpful...to send up another trial balloon:
YOU: "I don't know where you want to start. I do have some potential reservations about the job...especially since reading the 10K and proxy statement you sent me. Or do you want to start by talking about me? I just know that before I can agree to be a candidate, I'll have to have answers to a few key questions."
Your concerns aren't such "show-stoppers" that you should have phoned and possibly cancelled your interview. But they do have to be addressed. The recruiter can now decide whether to tackle them right away, or to go ahead and talk about your qualifications, with the understanding that she can't sign-off until your questions are answered. Indeed, your down-to-business approach may encourage her to proceed just as frankly:
"Let's take a look at our main questions first, and cover whatever else we have time for at the end. My two basic questions about you are: How much experience have you had in acquisitions and divestitures? And what happened at Yesterday Corporation?"
Or the recruiter may even say:
"Look, I'm already convinced that you're one of the best candidates in America for this position; let's get your questions out of the way first, and then let me tell you some further things I've learned about the job."
The better you and the recruiter know how much time you both have, and the issues of greatest interest to the opposite party, the more useful...and persuasive...the meeting will be.
Do you have a resume? And do you hand it over?
Yes! You never come to a recruiter interview without a resume. And once you're satisfied that you're dealing with a professional you respect, you don't hesitate to hand it to her.
As a successful executive at $100,000+, you know about visual aids and leave-behinds. A resume is both. Even if you're more concerned about getting information than communicating it, the resume will still be helpful. It will speed the recruiter's inquiry...and make more time available for your questions.
If you're being courted by the recruiter, and the job seems only marginally attractive, just bring in the last resume you made...even if it's ten years old. Update your home address and phone number. Also jot down on a sheet of yellow pad the dates and titles of your more recent jobs. Your early career will be thoroughly covered, and you can talk your way forward from there. First-class recruiters always type up their own version of candidate information. So informality won't count against you, even if you wind up meeting the employer.
On the other hand, if the position could be a major career breakthrough, it's certainly worth the time and effort to prepare a highly-persuasive resume, stressing your most recent...and presumably your greatest... accomplishments. Not only will it help the recruiter understand and communicate what you've done, the very act of creating it will prepare you to meet the recruiter and the employer. You'll be in command of facts-and-figures...not only on what you're doing now, but on what you've done in the past.
If you just bring an old resume, be sure to read it over. I'm amazed how many people hand out papers they seem totally unfamiliar with. Time is wasted as the recruiter, who's freshly read your information, seems to know more about your early career than you do. You're a dud as a business communicator, when that happens.
Also, be prepared to talk your way through your work history. Some recruiters will read your resume carefully, asking questions and making notes. Others will set it aside and ask you what happened. You won't score points with a "tell-me" recruiter if you clam up and say, "It's all there in the resume."
Bring along any supplementary information you may need.
If you don't have an encyclopedic memory, bring a few sheets of statistics, so that you can refer to them when a performance question arises.
A recruiter's interview has two purposes:
- to obtain information, and
- to see how well you handle yourself and how thoroughly you seem to understand what you're in charge of.
Be honest about negatives.
Be frank up-front about major negatives that referencing will highlight. Expect the recruiter to check you out before she passes you along to her client. If you've been fired, or if profits have evaporated under your management, she's probably going to find out. And it will be a strike against you that you tried to conceal the information. No one has a record of perfect achievement. And many very able people have been fired. Offer a brief explanation that establishes your version of the matter, but don't highlight it, and don't be defensive.
Don't view the recruiter as your "advocate."
Bear in mind that the retainer recruiter is paid to represent the corporation's best interests, not yours. Don't expect her to conspire with you about the best way to present your qualifications. It would be a breach of professional ethics to try to convince the client that you're a strong candidate when you're really not.
Anything that could make you more costly or inconvenient to hire than other candidates should be brought out during...or prior to...your interview. Then the recruiter can forewarn the employer, and you'll be considered from the beginning with your "disadvantages" in full view.
If you're the best person, then simultaneously with his or her growing interest in you, the employer can think of ways to deal with your special needs. Above all, there won't be "unpleasant surprises" later, to throw cold water on your candidacy and raise doubts about your candor.
For example:
You have a low-interest mortgage, and without a "mortgage-differential" from your new employer, you'll lose $60,000 to $80,000 in after-tax out-of-pocket costs.
You'll lose $40,000 in profits on stock options which won't vest for another ten months.
You have a child with a costly medical problem, and you can't afford to move unless the illness won't be excluded as a "pre-existing condition" under the new company's insurance.
You're in the midst of renovating your house, which could be tough to sell right now at its proper value. You'll have to stay where you are, unless you can have the services of a home relocation company that will price it fairly and take it off your hands.
You have a pension that vests, all-or-nothing, in seven months, and you'll move prior to that only if you can negotiate a settlement with your present employer or receive special treatment from your new one.
Tell the recruiter about any problem that may require modification of the way her client normally handles a new hire.
Prepare yourself for a later client interview.
If it looks like the recruiter is "sold," and you're going to be a "finalist," ask questions that will get you ready to meet the employer. Take advantage of the recruiter's knowledge of her client's situation...either at the end of the interview if there's time left, or in a later phone call. Find out exactly what the employer is looking for, and get a sense of what to expect at the interview.
The Ideal Result: "To Be Continued"
Just as with the courtesy interview, a positive ending to this session is the sense that exploration of your candidacy is "to be continued." If and when it becomes clear that you're a "finalist," accept "yes" for an answer, and leave. And if there are questions in your mind about whether you should be a candidate, resolve them with the recruiter and either decide to go ahead or withdraw.
Executive recruiters can be frustrating. Grin and bear it.
From the job-changing executive's point of view, retainer recruiting firms seem dismayingly inefficient. When you deal with a large and respected firm, you know that, at that very moment, they're handling hundreds of searches...many of them almost certainly an ideal "next step" for your career. Yet you only hear about one at a time. And which one is largely accidental, depending on which recruiter in the firm hap-Dens to be in a position to deal with you, what jobs he or she is trying to t and what success he's had with each of them.
