Round 1 "Sourcing (the starting point) is in no way even in the same LEAGUE as Selling" ~ Jerry Albright

[Maureen Sharib]

¡Ole!
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 stream:
“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 surrendered:
“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
Round 2
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
******

[Paul W. Grimshaw]

Which came first the chicken or the egg? OK.. Which came first the sourcer or the recruiter? Both eggs/ Both chickens? both hybrids? just get out there and recruiter, lets get these folks hired.

[Ted Neiswander]

Having spent 30 plus years recruiting and sourcing and managing many others, I would say that quality of product - be it an attractive assignment or extremely well qualified candidate - trumps sales ability every-time. I specifically recall a recent conversation with a Fortune 500 CEO who referred to his use of a particularly obnoxious non rule following recruiter of my acquaintance by pointing out that he always finds the best people. Since top people are rarely unemployed strong sourcing is a requirement and increasingly difficult. Although I consider myself to be a gifted sales type and an only adequate sourcer I must find ways to do both excellently. Jerry would probably know that the best chefs put a great deal of effort into having absolute top ingredients. For me this usually involves sourcing help. Some talented sales people do find ways to make proverbial silk purses which long term does not serve either them or their clients.

[Recruiting Animal]

A placement can be made by a person who can source but has no special sales technique. It cannot be made by a great salesman who doesn't have the ability to source a candidate.

[Maureen Sharib]

Kevin, what I sense in what you said is to stop fighting the river. Though I usually agree with that sentiment I feel it's important that we defend our value propositions when challenged. I didn't start this argument 'though I am contributing to it.

[Kevin Franks]

Sourcing and Recruiting are just two very different but intertwined fuctions. I am not sure they can be equated easily the skills needed for success as a sourcer are usually very different than those of a recruiter. We know that the sources of candidates make a difference, active vs passive, intenet vs offline. The fact is that our experience in being able to quickly find and then short-list the ones we feel confident in passing on to the recruiter or client is what matters. Jerry has his points but the core of the argument is questionable; If he and othe recruiters like him see no value from sourcers then they will get no value from us. Others have found how we can improve there hiring ratios, time to hire and ability to work considerably more assignments. Let's concentrate on helping those that embrace it.

[Ronald Peterson]

I don't know how to sell something save through a dialogue and you cannot have that without both a party and a recruiter, a name and an ability to engage. Jerry is right when he notes that sourcing is possibly just having a name on a desk but separating that from the next step seems foolhardy to me. I've certainly seen sourcers with an end game of compiling names without the engagement, but that is a low probability game. Better to have the two skills held in one party.