Temp Staffing vs Search Services
I frequently find that people confuse my services with those of a staffing agency.
Staffing agencies offer the services of individual contributors (mostly) on a temporary basis. The agency is the employer of record and they “rent out” the services of the individual to their clients, usually on an hourly basis and usually for 1.65 times what they actually pay the employee. They are the ones who choose whom to send you and you rarely do any interviewing of the people who will be working for you.
I offer the services of a retained recruiter so that the person I find for you, usually manager-level or above or hard-to-find professional, can be hired directly by you.
A retained search firm identifies your competitor companies and the people doing the job you need to have done. We then contact each one and sell them on the opportunity to work for you, gather resumes and referrals. A fully retained search firm then sorts through the interested candidates, interviewing (perhaps in person), picks the ones they think would be the best and submits them to you. They then support the interviewing and salary negotiation.
A Search Services company can do all that a retained search firm does, or just those pieces you need or want to delegate.
It may be a subtle difference, but you have much more control with the Search Services model.
You have openings in your R&D team that require a PhD. You would be fine with recent PostDocs, if only…..
We know that the current recruiting methods are not really very good. Lots of information is lost between the needs of the department, the hiring manager’s articulation of them, the HR person’s written job description and the hopes of the potential candidates, especially those looking for their first job after academia.
I’ve been in this business long enough that we went from the time of finding people from academia (with nine papers in something obscure) for R&D spots to now when hiring managers and HR people really would prefer someone with at least 2-3 years of industry under their belts.
Of course this frightens the newly graduated and may eliminate the very people who can take a company to its next big product.
So why is this?
What I have heard from hiring managers is that the pace of work in industry is simply much faster than academia and does not allow for the exploration of all of the possibilities of a lead molecule or protein. They say that it takes some experience and time for a newly minted PhD to realize that the clinical, product and marketing endpoints are much more important than knowing “everything” about a molecule or protein.
Is this all that it is? What else makes the “veteran” of a few years in another company “better than” the fresh from school PhD?
Are you hoping to get some inside information from the other company? Process expertise? Simply less “wetness behind the ears”?
What advice would you give the person currently prepping for their PhD defense and looking for their first industry job?
After the resumes make it into the “maybe” pile, do you check LinkedIn or Google for these people? Does their LinkedIn Profile support their resume? Do they have any recommendations for positions similar to the one you are looking to fill? What else do they say about themselves that did not fit in the one or two page resume? Can you tell if they would fit your culture or not?
How much does it cost to lose an employee? How much to replace them?
How do you treat your candidates?