It started out simply enough. I replied to a twitter that the Recruiting Animal
had posted regarding a discussion Jerry Albright
had been having with someone. Animal said:
“@Jerry_Albright doesn't think sourcing is the key part of recruiting - selling is”
I casually announced, thinking I was adding something of value to the Twitter
“Animal, sourcing/selling: I think they're equally important”
Within a few minutes Jerry, who’s always game for a debate, registered in in his own indomitable style:
“Wrong. Sourcing (the starting point) is in no way even in the same LEAGUE as Selling (which never ends.....)”
I could feel the hackles raise on the back of my neck. Immediately I sassed back:
“No, Jerry YOU'RE wrong. If you don't have anything to sell; well, then you don't have anything to 'sell'.”
Not to be outdone, Jerry responds, sounding like he is talking to nobody in particular; just making a fact statement:
“Sourcers seem to think once a name is on the desk - the job is over. Honey (as in Money Honey) that's when the work begins”
They call me Money Honey in the ‘sphere ‘cause I’m always askin’ “how much?
” in addition to the other questions I’m always askin’. Animal coined the moniker for me - some think it fits. I was warming to the fight when I answered:
“‘That's when the work BEGINS’? It continues, Jerry, it continues... Don't be silly, honey.”
Unconcerned, Jerry asserted:
“A "sourced" name is what I would consider "raw material" that then goes into my placement machine. Sorry - but it's a small part”
There it was – that paintbrush slapping all of us the same color of black. I cried:
“I'll give you an inch. An "Internet sourced name" (one that anyone w/a 'puter can find) is "raw" material. Very raw.”
Sensing victory (I guess) Jerry went haughtily on:
“It matters not where the name came from. Before a "presentation" has been made - the "work" has not begun.”
He adds a not-so-subtle warning after his message: #dontpushme2day
Flushing at the red flag, I flashed:
“It ABSOLUTELY matters where a name comes from. Depending on where it comes from much is decided.”
He went on mercilessly, sensing my distress:
“Until a "name" has been qualified re: experience, interest, availability - it is worth no more and no less than any other.”
I screamed out, trying to make my point about how phone sourcing differs from the average Internet sourced product and having to edit my claim against Twitter’s damned 140 character limit:
“That's what phone sourcing BRINGS-qualified, experienced. It's up2recruiter2generate interest. Many r available 4 right opp.”
Appearing to feel like he had won this argument, he twittered:
“Then you should stop calling it "sourcing" Honey - it's more like "partial recruiting"....and shake the stigma....”
“I know phone sourcing value is greater than Internet sourcing - shake the stigma? Hmmm...You may have something there.”
And he just might. What do you think? Did Jerry take a mile on this or is he, as I think, DEAD WRONG where (phone) sourcing is concerned?
Blood on the Carpets
Jerry: @TechTrak Y is it U feel throwing a piece of meat up on the counter is the same as serving Beef Wellington?
TechTrak: A phone sourced name is NOT a piece of meat. But if you want cooking simile, I suggest it be regarded as U.S. Prime.
Jerry: @TechTrak You have agreed then - a "name" is simply one of the ingredients - not remotely close to the end product. #caseclosedMaureen
TechTrak: I agree that a "name" is a part of the process and w/out a name NOTHING GETS SOLD. BOTH activities are important.
Jerry: @TechTrak U are maintaining that sourcing is equal to sales - no. way. what. so. ever. #knockitoffMaureen - I'm in a race today
TechTrak: I'm maintaining that nothing gets sold w/out product on the shelf +s/he who puts it there is of = value to s/he who sells it.
TechTrak: Placement can b made by sourcer who has no special sales technique.Cannot b made by great salesman who can't source. ~@animal (HAS SPOKEN)
Jerry: @Animal Again - wrong. Just how is this placement made by someone who doesn't sell? #bushleaguecommentsm cc @techtrak
Jerry: @Animal And just how does this "good fit" end up being hired w/o someone asking him if he wants to check it out? #leavemealone
TechTrak: "Again?" "Wrong?" Hey Use some diplomacy! HaHaHa @animal U seein' dis?
Steve Levy: @TechTrak You're both right: a sale can be a candidate's name or one's recruiting services for a specific job; a "client" still pays
TechTrak: @LevyRecruits He is WRONG - DEAD WRONG when he says sales is more important than sourcing and THAT is the issue here.
Jerry: @TechTrak @Animal Any "recruiter" who thinks their job is done once they somehow have somebody's name - #isnotarecruiter
TechTrak: @Jerry_Albright Who said that? That a job is done once a name is procured? Yer twistin' things. Nobody (in this convo) has said that
Jerry: @Animal Listen here! Mo said "sourcing is equal to sales" or somesuch nonsense. That is certifiably absurd. Keep it in context plz.@TechTrak
Jerry: Value of: 1 name - somewhere around $1 (maybe) Value of taking that name and moving it through the entire sales cycle? - up to $100K or more
TechTrak: Jerry_Albright 'splain to us how names are ofNO VALUEwhen w/out a name nobody gets placed in that sales cycle.'member-yer talkin to US now.
TechTrak:I'm not the only one who says sourcing is of equal value to sales. NOT by a far shot.If it ain't on shelf it don't get sold.
Jerry: @TechTrak sourcing is not "putting it on the shelf" it is SIMPLY info gathering #getoverhouselfalready
TechTrak: @Jerry_Albright This might help 'splain things: http://tinyurl.com/yg5yj79
Jerry: @TechTrak I'm done for a bit. Clients need me. (More than they need a few names/numbers.....) Enjoy the afternoon