I've been asked a lot recently about my recruitment philosophy. I'm sorry to say that the genesis of this question lies in the reality that many senior executives do not perceive that their in-house recruitment teams create value. They see them as administrative and compliance arms of the HR department; junior people who manage too many open requisitions and are simply not instrumental in the identification, attraction and acquisition of talent. This question has re-surfaced for me a memory of a hiring VP at Cisco who said, "I've never once hired a candidate brought to me by our recruiting department." I also recall, from years ago, a hiring manager at IBM complimenting our recruiting organization for the manner in which the paperwork was processed. So, what does it take to get the Marketing VP or any hiring manager to say "I love our company's recruitment team!" ? My philosophy is that it takes a recruitment team that can teach them to fish,
Ralph has been a consistently mediocre performer for your company "forever". He shows up for work each day on-time, occupies his cubicle with an eye toward anonymity, tackles his responsibilities as if they are chores to be checked off a list, and invests in his relationship with others to the minimum extent possible. At the table stake level - attendance, behavior, task completion, ethical conduct, basic learning - Ralph meets expectations. Beyond that, he's a non-performer. He never exceeds expectations nor goes the extra mile. He does not serve as a role model. He isn't respected. As Ralph's manager, you have always viewed the time, effort and cost of terminating him as greater than the value you would bring to your organization from his departure. His job can be rather tough to fill, he never really does anything wrong, his output isn't particularly measurable, you've become adept at relying on his teammates to make up for where he i