As an owner and manager of an IT recruiting company we are constantly talking to candidates and clients alike about the advances of technology and how it can impact our industry or potentially help us run our business better. Over twenty plus years I’ve gone from a 100% paper environment to an almost paperless existence and seen the rise of the fax machine, PC’s, the Web, company websites, job boards, social networks and many different software tools developed specifically to assist our industry.

Currently we’re in the midst of a complete redesign of our Website and Blog and have been for several weeks (look for it soon) and of course continue to look at differing technologies to assist us in what we do. So it struck me as funny this week after reflecting on an interview I had just done with Bill Vick (www.xtremerecruiting.tv) where he asked me about my belief in technology and the tools out there and what recommendations that I would give to new recruiters. Instead of talking about the great tools and all the ways they can help a recruiter I went on to say (since it’s not posted yet this is my best recollection) that the tools are there to help us do what we do and shouldn’t be our first or only focus, and that most recruiters fail when they don’t learn the basics of selling and working within their industry before sitting at a computer to source names and make those all important phone calls.

So while I like the tools out there and they certainly assist me in doing more work faster (making placements) I guess I still think in a bricks and mortar kind of way that everyone should be grounded in the basics.

Most recruiters by nature aren’t trying to offend people as they go about the job of recruiting candidates for their client customers. However our quest to find the perfect person leads us to find many more really talented “close but no cigar” candidates that after showcasing our opportunity to and gaining their sincere interest we must now let them know that they just aren’t a good fit (insert reason here).

Of course, some people take this better than others, but generically speaking I’ve been finding that executives take it worst of all, and I’m beginning to understand why. These are people who are at the top of their respective organizations, have been given challenge and opportunity throughout their career and have succeeded at every turn. So in their mind there aren’t many positions that they aren’t capable of doing.

This is, of course, both a blessing and a curse. As I’ve been recently recruiting for a Director level role my client has expressed many requirements (ranging from size & scope of organization & role to industry, salary and many others) and in my world (Retained Search) the one with the gold makes the rules, and the client has the gold. So I have very little ability to shift the role or function unless it’s just highly unrealistic (prior lunar landing experience is always a toughie).

So understand that when you speak with a recruiter we are just as hopeful that you’re the perfect match as you are and we’ll work in your behalf to make sure your relevant experience is showcased. However, when push comes to shove if the client wants a skill or experience that you don’t possess, no matter how wrongheaded you think they are for requiring it, don’t expect to get the interview.

As Managers, sometimes it can be difficult to determine what your employees are really thinking. Of course, once you do then you’re faced with how to react, and what to do. If there is one lesson in all of this it is the old adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

Let’s face it, some managers don’t fully value input from their employees. Part of the issue is that they can feel that if they receive input/feedback then they must do something about it. The good news is that you don’t. Employees are like kids. They don’t always see the big picture, can often be selfish, and sometimes they don’t play well with others.

So listen to what they say on their way out the door, but don’t wait for the autopsy on the exit interview to find a cure for what ails your employees. Ask the tough questions you need to and you’ll find that you may just garner their respect AND make it a place where people want to work.

There’s much said and written about a shortage of I.T. talent by many parties and for many different reasons. The RPO’s (Recruiting Process Outsourcers) are in the business of selling their service to companies who don’t believe they have the talent on staff or amount of talent necessary to recruit for all their needs (see Hyrian). The Technology industry itself complains almost daily about the difficulty in recruiting and hiring the talent they require and the need to increase the number of H1B visa’s allowed each year. Consulting companies proselytizing to the media "that 10 Million jobs will remain unfilled by the end of the decade." And of course Professional Recruiters are heard delivering their sermons to anyone that will listen that with the dearth of talent companies have but no choice to employ their services to retain the talent they must have. I won’t say these folks have a conflict of interest but they all certainly benefit if conventional thinking is that there’s a shortage of talent.

So are they right? Or, is does this sound a little like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling? The answer is that they are both right, partially. The facts are:

- More people are retiring than entering the job market.

- Fewer kids are going into critical technical fields like Engineering and Computer Science.

- It is more difficult to recruit the talent companies require today than in previous years.

But boys and girls that’s where the “facts,” such as they are, end. I believe in Einstein’s’ Theory of Relativity (that is if Einstein was a Headhunter). Everything is relative and here’s where the “chicken little” part comes in.

Fact #1 is that more people are retiring than entering the workforce but what’s not being written about is that more people than ever before are working past retirement age. In point of fact, 38% of those surveyed for a March 8, 2008 article in HR Review said they intend to work well beyond the age of 65 and, that number is believed will increase over the next 8 years or so. There are many reasons why (better health, greater financial need, etc.) but the biggest will be demand. Yes, Keynesian theory (please take out your Economics 101 text) will most definitely apply.

Fact #2 is that fewer kids are going into technical fields. Anyone that’s tried to recruit and/or fill needs for junior level technical talent (1-3 years of experience) can attest to the dearth of individuals available. The burst of the tech bubble in 2001, the continued move of lower level (see Programming, Systems Administration, etc.) offshore, etc. are all factors in why the numbers are less today than in 2001 but closer examination of the numbers reveal that we aren’t as bad off as everyone wants to believe. In an article in eWeek.com, the numbers show that more Bachelors in Computer Science degrees were granted in 2007 than in 1997. While that’s still a far cry than those granted in 2000, that should be looked at as an anomaly rather than the baseline. Interest in all fields, I.T. include, is cyclical.

Fact #3 is that it’s more difficult today to recruit and fill needs for highly skilled talent than in most of the last 20 years. As a recruiter myself I know this to be absolutely true. However, why is this occurring? Is it simply because of the lack of volume of talent? In a word, no. There are several factors but I believe the single biggest issue is one of perception. The perception that all the jobs in the field have or are moving to India, China and Eastern Europe as well as that IT simply does not have the “rock star” status it did in the late 90’s can shift the future workforce down other paths when reality says there will be plenty of work. So what proof do I have this is perception not reality? How about the US Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 2007 BLS report released in December projects record increases in I.T. job growth from 2006 to 2016 with the only exception being a 4.1% decline in programming jobs.

So with record increases (demand) set to occur for the next decade yet fewer grads (supply) you’d expect increases in compensation, benefits and bonuses and/or, flexibility on required skills to offer opportunities for training to secure the best and the brightest talent. After all economic theory provides for precisely this reaction by the market. However, if you expected this to be occurring you’d be dead wrong. Because with all these economic forces conspiring against companies seeking to hire talent the biggest impediment to securing that talent remains the companies themselves. To put it simply, companies are being inflexible and often unrealistic in their expectations as well as offering very ordinary compensation packages thus acting as if we’re in a slow market where the supply of candidates exceeds demand. Regrettably, this could not be more wrong…

One of our biggest pet peeves in the Placement industry is companies that don’t understand the power of perception and the effect perception has on:

1. Whether candidates accept or reject their employment offers.

2. The caliber of talent they attract in the first place.

3. The ease and speed with which they attract talent (especially in their local market).

I just finished an article from Wachovia’s Calibre MacroWorld , a Financial publication for Investors that quotes a recently released survey by Kelly Services . The thrust of the article relates to the importance of perception especially in these economic times. They interviewed more than 115,000 people in 33 countries on a wide range of issues about how they find work and how they deal with aspects of the job search process.

44 percent of respondents said the worst part of the search process was waiting for a response. Executive Vice President of Kelly Services, George Corona said “"Companies often overlook the importance of creating a positive experience for candidates during the hiring process, and miss the opportunity to strengthen their employment brand among highly skilled candidates." "Ensuring the candidate experience is one that produces a connection between the employer and job seeker will provide a competitive edge in the tightening labor market."

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Moving slowly to schedule interviews, provide feedback on the interview and make decisions communicates indecision at best and ambivalence at worst. Either way, “A players” are left non-plussed and oft clueless hiring managers left miffed wondering why their offer was turned down. Top candidates have options and they’re intelligent to know that the way a company makes hiring decisions is a window into the way they makes all kinds of decisions. Done properly (with the assistance the internal or external Recruiter this is a competitive advantage and will insure referral of friends, etc. Done poorly and hiring will continue to become increasingly difficult, even in a softening market.