The Job Order Matrix by Bob Marshall & Kevin Franks Robocruiter said it best. The biggest problem we have in recruitment, other than planning and organization, is working Can t Help job orders as Search Assignments. He knew that out of 15 job orders (JOs) that he would write, 0-1 would be of Search Assignment quality, 4-5 would be of Matching type quality, and 10, or ⅔rds, of what he would write would be of the Can t Help variety. I remember reading some years ago of a famous trainer s recommendation in his 30 steps in the placement process that one of those steps was to take a complete JO. Well, I remember thinking at the time, if that s the case, you are going to be spending ⅔rds of your time on endeavors that are not going to pay off. Indeed, when I was on the road serving as a critical care trainer, I remember finding that the best filled out JOs in the history of western civilization were in failing offices where the franchisee was going bankrupt. They couldn t understand why they couldn t place on every JO they had written. They never thought about the quality. So, the key is qualifying the JOs to make sure that you are spending your precious straight commission time only on the very best JOs. But how do you do this. THE PRICING MATRIX Back in March 2002, after speaking with Paul Hawkinson about an idea I had, I wrote an article for The Fordyce Letter entitled, The Pricing Matrix (TFL, 3/04). This was based on a feeling that I had had for many years that the way we charge fees should be more objective. I never liked picking a fee out of the air. Where did 30% of realistic first year s earnings come from anyway? And why did we reduce it, during the negotiation process, in 5% blocks? Why not 2% blocks? Or 1% blocks? Anyway, I wrote the article and apparently it sparked some interest. Paul reprinted The Pricing Matrix in October 2004 (TFL, 10/04) and then the next month mentioned it again (TFL, 11/04), but this time suggested that we use the same categories to decide which JOs to work. He was right. And ever since then, I have been thinking of actually constructing an official JO Matrix for this mission. In the beginning of this year, the topic came up again in a conversation with Kevin Franks, a top-notch marketing and computer guru who was working in the capacity of COO with a recruiting company with which I had a long term contract. He had taken on a company-wide systems upgrade he was calling Operational Excellence. It involved reviewing and updating procedures, establishing new standards and developing a way to better focus staff and resources to maximize revenue. In looking at the numbers, Kevin realized he was battling the Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) where only 20% of the job orders were responsible for 80% of the income. His original question to me was, How can you objectively classify a new incoming job order? Kevin s main dilemma was that his Account Developers kept working Can t Help JOs as Search
Assignments thereby wasting their time and the support staff s time. In thinking back, I knew he was facing something from an operational standpoint that all of us as recruiters do automatically. Our discussion took me back to the Pricing Matrix and from there we kicked around a lot of ideas regarding creating a JO Matrix. Finally, after a lot of give and take, we put together the chart you see below. This is a work in progress, but the central themes are there. {The JO Matrix Chart inserted here} As you can see, we divided the JO Matrix into ten (10) central categories the original nine categories of The Pricing Matrix and a tenth category, Fee, which we added. Yes, we know there are other possibilities, but we wanted to construct a matrix that was manageable. Then we divided the categories into five (5) columns based on the quality of the JO A being best, then B, C, D and F being worst. We assigned whole numbers (5, 4, 3, 2, 1), not percentages, to each column. The final column was for the score attained in that category. After scoring each category, you simply add up the total. At the bottom, we inserted an adjustment box for minor discrepancies that we had not thought about or changes that the Account Developers thought that the JO warranted. The given was that all of the JOs put through the matrix had a standard pro-rated, replacement-only guarantee of 90 days. Anything greater that that (or not pro-rated) you were to deduct 5. Anything less than that and you got to add 5. SCORING Grade A JOs Score over 40 Grade B JOs Score 30 39 Grade C JOs Score 20 29 Grade D JOs Score 10 19 Grade F JOs Score less than 10 An Excellent JO A Good JO An Average JO A Below Average JO A Poor JO (possibly Search Assignment quality) (probably Matching quality) (Can t Help variety) THE CATEGORIES Here are some to remember as we look at the Job Order Matrix, category by category:
Difficulty of Search Known availability, or sources, of candidates. Where will you find your potential candidates? Do you have a plan in mind and feel comfortable about the sourcing? Has the recruiting of candidates for this type of assignment been very difficult in the past? Urgency How high is the priority of filling this position quickly? Not just what is the employer s desired timetable for making a hire, but how critical is it to them? Is this a priority opening that they are anxiously committed to filling or is it really just one they hope to be able to fill? As always, we work best where urgency exists. Exclusivity Who else is trying to fill this position? Is the company also actively looking (internally or externally or both) and/or do they have other firms engaged? If so, are they just as likely as you to find a successful candidate? Answering these tough questions now, instead of later, will save you a lot of wasted effort. Hiring Cycle Realistic time to process a candidate from first contact to final decision with this client company. Does the HM have a short, well-defined interview schedule? Are they going to make themselves available quickly once a candidate is found? Have they historically been efficient in making hiring decisions at this level? We all know that good candidates tend to disappear as the hiring process lengthens. Salary/Earnings Here you weigh the score based on high or low fee percentage. Obviously, your firm s salary/earnings grid may be based around higher or lower numbers. We chose these as our general median range. The main point is how does the proposed salary relate to the position; is it high or low? If the salary is a little low, but your fee is high, you can bump yourself up one level. Conversely, if the salary is high but your fee isn t, deduct a point. Repeat Business What is the realistic number of placements expected in the current 12 month period? If you have an established history with the client, this one should be easy to answer. If not, you will have to do some research. How many openings do they have each year? How many are open to Search? How many of those would you normally secure? Mutual Cooperation How involved and accessible is the Hiring Manager (HM)?
This is the category in which your relationship with the Hiring Manager is everything. Do you get treated like a vendor, a partner or something in-between? An out-of-touch, not engaged, HM makes everything more difficult and, in many cases, impossible. Fillability Do the combination of all factors on this JO offer a realistic opportunity for us to place a candidate? Look over the categories you have scored so far. How does it look to you? From the analytical side, you should be able to predict how easy or hard filling this position will be for you and your support people. Completeness How well-developed are the job order and descriptions? A complete job order makes your task much easier and, if you are using a support staff, having all of the information up-front is even more critical. While this may seem like an administrative detail that has no bearing being on the list, we found it to be a good indicator of success. When we analyzed the history of the unfilled job order, one common denominator for failure was a sketchy, incomplete JO. Fee What is the realistic gross fee filling this JO will pay? Are you wholesaling your services or getting better than average fees? You know what is standard in your marketplace and in your firm. If you are the cheapest game in town, that is how your service will be perceived by everyone forever. If you routinely take searches at a low percentage fee, or any jobs at less than $12,000, you are merely stating that you feel that your services don t deserve a professional fee and most likely your clients will feel that way as well. (*Note: The $12,000 number above comes from Ron Ritchey in Dallas, TX and goes by the nickname of The Ritchey Rule. What Ron said was that, since all placements require a certain amount of work, that his rule of thumb was to work no assignments with a fee of less than $12,000. It just didn t make sense.) And so, there you have it finally an official JO Matrix. This is an attempt, much like the 100 point sheet and the Pricing Matrix, to give some objectivity to a very subjective business the business of writing fillable JOs. Not only that, but to give the recruiters a way to measure JOs and, by knowing the categories and scores, to be able to push the client company so as to attain higher scores. We feel that using this JO Matrix in combination with the Qualifier JO scheme will allow recruiters to just concentrate on their very best JOs and ignore the rest. As Robocruiter said, you never want to confuse Search Assignments with Can t Helps. He was right. It is a big, big problem. Bob Marshall, CPC, CIPC started in the search business in 1980 and became Western Regional Manager for over 60 Management Recruiters Intl. offices in 1984. In 1986 he founded The Bob Marshall Group, International, training recruiters across the nation as well as the United
Kingdom, Malta, and Cyprus. In 1996, he returned to working a desk full time and continues to train recruiters. To learn more about his activities and descriptions of his products and services, contact him directly at: 770-898-5550 or bob@themarshallplan.org or www.themarshallplan.org. J. Kevin Franks, as a technical guru and marketing executive with over 20 years experience, brings a unique approach to the search business. He is a recognized speaker and published writer on technology, recruitment and employment topics; he has been featured on TV, seminars, magazines as well as numerous online articles and publications. As an early proponent of advanced internet recruiting techniques he helps teach deep web search and recruitment strategies as well as providing this service for his clients. Kevin operates Creative Solutions a marketing and consulting service and also serves as Corporate Strategist for several companies.