Everybody can use a hunter. Some companies can live with a few farmers. More after the jump.
(Editor’s Note: Today’s post is brought to you by Allied Van Lines, proud sponsor of the “2012 Workforce Mobility Survey”, designed to capture the voice of HR on topics related to workforce mobility. Allied has more than 75 years of experience in corporate, household and international relocation.)
Is it easier to recruit at a big company vs a small company? I'd say yes, as long as the big company's brand is a good one, resources to land candidates are present, etc. Check out these stats from the last round of the allied HRIQ survey (2012 Workforce Mobility Survey):
According to HR professionals, large companies are more bullish about recruiting in 2012:
--More likely to rate their recruiting, relocation and onboarding programs as “highly successful”
--More likely to search nationally or internationally when recruiting
--More likely to have a formal program and budget for onboarding
--More likely to offer a broad array of recruiting and relocation incentives to job candidates
Still, small companies have advantages, too, according to the survey results. In several respects they are equal to or competitive with larger firms:
--A significant portion of small companies are “highly successful” at recruiting and relocation, suggesting that the playing field can be leveled.
--Perceptions aside, small and large companies perform about the same in terms of securing recruits.
--Small firms retain a slightly higher percentage of new employees.
--In certain areas (e.g., flexible work arrangements, work environment), small companies are competitive with large companies.
Which is to say the following - You're going to be more bullish than the small guys about recruiting this year if you have all the advantages listed above at a big company, right? Of course you are...
Let's face it - if you're trying to build a recruiting department, a lot of the questions you need to answer before you start building center around whether you're looking for farmers or hunters. Crosstab that with whether you've got a big company brand that candidates will naturally gravitate towards, and you'll have what you need to profile the recruiters you're going to start trying to hire.
--Hunter - a recruiter who knows how to actively source, goes after candidates who aren't looking. Whether they're talking to a passive or active candidate, they're listening for the candidate's movtivation and using that as they sell the position in question in.
--Farmer - generally is only going to talk to candidates who are direct applies. Generally smart enough to sell the brand in a small or big company, but not really assertive enough to land candidates the brand couldn't access through their closing skills and demeanor.
Let's build off that and the big company/small company thing. Some profiles crosstabbed with size of company brand:
1. Big Company brand + Farmer = you pay less for a recruiter. You can get away with this at times as a big company.
2. Big Company brand + Hunter = you pay more, but you may need it, especially in hard to land positions in technology, etc.
3. Small Company brand + Hunter = what you need to compete. A hunter is probably necessary if you're hiring a recruiter at a small firm. You don't have the brand, and a hunter is necessary to sell the opportunity and close the candidates you need.
4. Small Company brand + Farmer = you're probably going to get it handed to you. You need someone to sell and close, and the Farmer probably isn't it... Of course, the farmer is more affordable than the hunter...
Translation: If you're at a small company, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. It usually doesn't work out well...
If you would like to learn more about Allied Van Lines, please check out their website or blog. And if you would like to get more information from the Workforce Mobility Survey, you can click here. It’s definitely worth checking out.