We're only interested in hiring the cream of the crop.( ~; N: T+ _7 w/ R6 {
( [. [6 u: |; H( j( T; [" w9 w* P
We're only interested in "A" players.
1 }, a5 K) ~! p9 e4 ]$ r: v3 L7 y# p) U: v% l$ M% Y( i
We're only interested in hiring people who really want to work here.$ q7 N4 C, ]( H! R

0 \2 {; ]4 H8 H, Z2 g" UWe shouldn't have to attract top talent by paying top salaries.2 L3 m9 l, R4 w2 @0 _$ `
0 Q/ h. G5 m; p
They're just not our company material or caliber.
, M  }  f" z% G7 z* C  q: h: h8 V7 j# x$ m6 Y- z! `
These are just some of the arrogant statements I've heard from companies over the years. Let's examine what's behind statements such as these and see if there are better ways to position a corporate stance on recruitment.7 J* K! f0 w5 F5 ~* \8 l! c' E& M/ Y

: S/ |( o$ L, y6 S3 ?5 K* rMost people would agree that there are a finite number of potential candidates for any one position. As a recruiter, it's always a good idea to figure out what part of the pool you're fishing in. One of the challenges is that there is usually no agreement on this fact and that it is rarely, if ever, defined. Let's say you're a leading technology company and that you're looking for a software developer in some high demand technology area. Your company often states that you only hire "A" players or the "cream of the crop". How do you know when you have an "A" player? Silly as it may seem, the only way you know is if you hire someone who performs at a very high level after you hire them. Of course those you hire who perform at an average level or at a below average level may not be "A" players. I guess those are hiring mistakes. Have you every known a company that openly states that they only hire "B" players or even "C" players? I doubt it very much. Perhaps a better way to look at it is to clearly define the tangible and intangible characteristics of your high performers and to look for candidates who exhibit those characteristics? Then do the best job you can to hire people who are like your top performers. And let's retire the hackneyed "We only hire "A" players" and replace it with something more meaningful. Perhaps something like this: We seek the strongest talent we can find and attract that is available in the market today. We savor their strengths and abilities and we support them to develop in areas where there is room for growth.

If the popular opinion where you work is that you're only interested in applicants who want to work for your company, then doesn't that eliminate a large part of the applicant pool? And exactly how do you determine an applicant's level of interest? And at what point of the interview process do you determine that? Top talent often must be courted. Throughout the process both sides will learn as much as possible about the other and the level of interest will vary. Companies that take an extremely arrogant stance in this area risk losing a chance to hire some of the very best candidates. Let's say that there is a high performer who is happily working for your biggest competitor. They are not looking for a new position. They wouldn't work for your company if it was the last company hiring. However, one of your recruiters has somehow started a dialog with them. Are you interested? Sure you are and you'd be crazy not to be! So perhaps a better stance is something like this: We seek the strongest talent we can find. We'll do everything in our power to present our company and the opportunity to work for our company in the best possible light so that all applicants will be in a strong position to evaluate that opportunity for themselves.: S4 }' J/ B. M

4 i8 W3 b& s3 J4 dOftentimes companies justify not paying at the top of the market. Clearly not every company can pay at that level or every company would pay the same. Compensation is an often complex area and it's more important to be competitive than to be the top payer. However, being the top payer is an equally valid compensation strategy as being in the top 25th percentile. Salary is only one component of compensation. One must also consider benefits, work environment, the existing staff, commute, the career opportunity, growth, and many other things. A stronger approach than justifying not paying at the top is to present an accurate and balanced view of the whole compensation package so that the candidate can make an informed choice. If your company pays the top salaries then you'll probably attract people who are driven by earning top salaries. That's not a problem if that is a known part of your compensation and corporate strategy. On the other hand, candidates will often accept lower but competitive offers when the whole package is presented well.9 ?5 U4 h! J( {5 a: T- A
( R5 `/ Q: O2 ~9 {" m) M! I# r
Watch out for blanket statements about recruitment that are presented as being part of a company culture or strategy. As you have seen above, such statements are at best limiting to the recruitment effort and at worst downright harmful.