Think Recruiting Is Sales? Think Again.

sales_recruitingI often hear people likening recruiters to salespeople. As they see it, there are a lot of similarities between the two: the structure of their performance metrics is similar, basic workflows are similar, etc.

I’m sure recruiters and salespeople alike would argue there is far more that distinguishes each function – and I’m sure they would be right – but I’m commonly told the biggest difference is what they are selling: salespeople sell products and services, and recruiters sell job opportunities.

Makes sense, right?

Maybe ten years ago. Following a briefing with SAVO – a sales enablement solution provider – I realized sales technology has far outpaced talent acquisition technology. While recruiters are still wrapping their heads around social media and dabbling in candidate relationship management (CRM), sales technology has evolved to a new level of automation.

Full disclosure: I’m not well versed in sales tools and software. As such, I can’t say whether SAVO is at the forefront of innovation or is offering standard sales enablement technology. What I can say is that I spent the entire briefing oooing and aaahing over their product features and thinking, “Why don’t we have this in recruiting?”

For example, SAVO has built an engine that analyzes a lead, evaluates the interest and needs, and makes recommendations on next steps – including the best marketing collateral to share. Not only does this help salespeople make the best use of their time, but it also keeps leads warm so deals close faster.

If that doesn’t pique your interest, it’s because you’re not thinking big enough. Imagine an enterprise recruiting team responsible for hundreds of hires a year. How do they keep up with all of the candidates they have in the pipeline? What happens to those talented individuals who don’t end up getting hired? Think of all the missed opportunities that occur in a single hiring organization on an annual basis!

As many of you know, I’m of the opinion that the so-called “talent crisis” many employers are experiencing is the product of decades of reactionary recruiting tactics. We’ve spent too much time chasing bogus talent qualifiers like undergraduate degrees and harping on resume formatting, and have little to show for it.

I’ll openly admit that I used to be one of those people who believed recruiters and salespeople were very similar, but this briefing was a serious eye-opener. All I could think during the demo was, “If this engine existed in every applicant tracking system, constantly supporting recruiters and serving as a safety net for catching every candidate they touch, I have a feeling we’d hear a lot less about a shortage of talent.”

For all of those solution providers out there who are still dragging their feet in developing more robust CRM functionality, those who are putting all of their eggs in one basket like video or employee referrals – you may want to think again. Take a look at a few innovative sales tools, and you’ll see just how far we have to go before your product is truly “game-changing.”

Just a heads up, I don’t think it will be long before some of these sales solution providers wise up and see the opportunities to be had in the super hot HCM markets. In fact, I know it’s going to happen very soon. Are you ready?

See more at Brandon Hall

About the Author: 

Kyle Lagunas-9About the Author: As the Talent Acquisition Analyst at Brandon Hall Group, Kyle Lagunas heads up research in key practices in sourcing, assessing, hiring, and onboarding – as well recruitment marketing, candidate experience, and social recruiting.

Through primary research and deep analysis, he keeps today’s business leaders in touch with important conversations and emerging trends in the rapidly changing world of talent.

Kyle has spent the last several years offering a fresh take on the role of technology as part of an integrated talent strategy, and focuses on providing actionable insights to keep leading organizations a step ahead.

Previously the HR Analyst at Software Advice, he is regular contributor on SHRM’s We Know Next and TLNT, and his work has been featured in Forbes, The New York Times, Business Insider, Information Weekly, and HRO Today.

Follow Kyle on Twitter @KyleLagunas or connect with him on LinkedIn.

  • LisaRokusek

    Kyle: The fact that HR and agency recruiters both have not embraced edgy and sophisticated sales technology *yet* doesn't refute the position that recruiting is sales. When I look up selling on Goggle this is what I get: Selling is defined as: 1. give or hand over (something) in exchange for money or 2. persuade someone of the merits of.

    Disclaimer: I've always been an agency recruiter, so that colors my perspective. My version of the argument is not that I sell job opportunities, it is that I am a person selling people to people. It is a complex sale, but a sale it most definitely is. Of course in order to sell a person to a person I have to persuade her or him to get on board my train – indentured servitude is not my thing – so at that point I am selling opportunity. But then I sell again to the hiring manager within a company to get an at bat for my candidate, and I sell again during the process and at the end at the offer stage. One could say I am never not selling in this business. One could not say with any level of accuracy that selling is not sales.

    My in-house sisters and brothers do exactly the same thing, just structured slightly differently. We source, position and persuade. We close.

    From a look at your LI account t doesn't seem like you've been a recruiter. No big deal, but it might explain the mis-diagnosis. But this is an important point, which is why I took the time to respond. Recruiters are salespeople and there is nothing wrong with that.

    I look forward to the sophisticated sales tools that are coming. Anything to make my job – one of the most complex and sophisticated sales jobs there is – easier, will be appreciated.

  • Kyle Lagunas

    Thanks for chiming in, Lisa. But you're missing the point here.

    The core of my argument isn't that recruiters don't sell, but that there is far greater distinction between sales and recruiting today than what is being sold. More specifically, the sophistication of the sales process (supported by advanced sales and marketing technology like SAVO) has far outpaced that of recruiting.

    You see, research shows the name of the game in recruiting has remained very much the same over the last couple of decades: Source, screen, submit, repeat. This transactional approach to talent has created a horrendous mess of the candidate experience, and has propagated much of the so-called talent shortage.

    As I see it, recruiters have an opportunity to be far more than sales – indeed, they could (and should) be doing more than selling people to people. They should be building, growing, and supporting successful organizations. This shift away from transactional, reactionary recruiting is already occurring in the most effective hiring organizations, and other organizations are taking note.

    One of the biggest obstacles to this trend, however, are attitudes like yours – the smug assumption that only recruiters know recruiting. Does only an artist know art? Does only a musician know music? Surely not. Likewise, it doesn't take a recruiter to know that there are some very bad recruiting habits that need to be broken, that there are attitudes that need to be changed sooner rather than later.

    My job as an analyst is to investigate more effective recruiting practices, as well as the technology available to support them, and illuminate the path to improvement. Lacking experience as an agency recruiter hardly disqualifies me from making valuable contributions to recruiting conversations – or so I hope. Otherwise, I may very well be out of a job.

    • Amy Ala

      A non-artist can appreciate art, but surely that's not the same as creating it. I enjoy music, but don't let me near any instruments. I have no doubt that my partners in crime – be they HR, hiring managers, or yes even candidates – no doubt APPRECIATE my mad recruiting skills, I don't know that any of them would be able to replicate them, even with fancy SAVO tools. Just sayin. :)

  • Pete Radloff

    Kyle – I'm not sure I think you are qualified to speak on this. Lisa is a seasoned veteran of recruiting. I avoided admitting that recruiting was like sales for the 1st 10 years of my career, until I started to see all the similarities clearly.

    What I have the biggest issue with, is that you haven't done a day in your life in EITHER sales or recruiting. So exactly what makes you qualified to analyze either – aside from your vast experience as a "professional analyst"?

  • deandc

    Staffing and recruiting is not a sales job.

    I recently read an article were the writer was saying that recruiting/staffing are sales jobs. I absolutely disagree. There is a difference between having a sales component and being a sales job. In order for a job to be classified as sales, sales must make up at least 50% of the job. So with that in mind lets look at the main comments of a staffing professional. For the purposes of this let’s look at the “Staffing Lifecycle (SLC). Below is the simplified SLC, I will put a red S next to the parts that have a sales component, then we will tally it up.

    1. Your HR team (sometimes), say your development manager (or any HM), and you have gotten together and have determined there is a need for a new hire.
    2. You all determine the level, salary, group, relo, visa, diversity, internal, Hiring Manager (HM), responsibilities, etc. You and the HM, write a Job Description (JD).
    3. You and your HM discuss sourcing strategies, you make a Standard Level agreement (SLA), and introduce him to whatever process, method, or model your company uses for staffing.
    4. You post the job, and begin sourcing. You may even source with your HM.
    5. A: you screen sourced candidates. B: you share sourced candidates with HM for review and to decide who should be screened. (here you might get legal, relo etc. involved)
    6. You contact and screen the candidates. S-needed to sell candidates on job
    7. Those that pass the screen go to the HM for review. S-needed to sell HM on Candidate
    8. A: Those that the HM likes are submitted for face-to-face interviews. B: Those the HM likes get tech screens set up. (here you might get legal, relo etc. involved)
    9. Those that pass tech screen are submitted for face-to-face interviews.
    10. Face-to-face interviews happen and hire or no hire decision is made, and offer/s created.
    11. A: Candidates not to be hired are closed out and told thank you. B: (sometimes references are checked here) candidates selected for offers, are notified and offers are made. (Here you might get legal, relo etc. involved) S-To sell the offer
    12. A: offer accepted, are noted in ATS, other groups needed to completed hire are notified, such as legal for visas, relo for relocation, etc. If not already done references are checked here and any background checks are initiated) and HM notified. B: offer declined, and annotated in ATS.

    So out of 12 steps in our simplified model only 3 have true sales components. That’s 25% so I reiterate Staffing/Recruiting is not a sales job, it has sales components like most jobs do. Some staffing positions may have more sales components than others, some less, but as a whole Staffing is not a sales job, it is a job with a sales component

  • Kyle Lagunas

    Dean, you've hit it right on the head. Having a sales component to your role doesn't make your a salesperson – even agency recruiters, who have a greater sales component to their roles.

    All that aside, however, it seems that the folks who are contesting the points I'm trying to raise haven't read past the first three paragraphs of the article. So I'll lay this out as simply as I can:

    My point is *not* that recruiters do not sell. My point is that the difference between sales and recruiting is far greater than what is being sold. One big difference, as presented in this post, is the sophistication of the technology salespeople are using today. Dean's done a good job of capturing a few more differences just in core workflows. And, as he outlines, the scope of recruiting is far greater than selling.

    Indeed, as I see it, the best recruiters are partnering with organizations to support growth. They're pipelining talent that could one day lead the organization. Recruiters can do MORE than sell – and that's a great thing!

    However, I really can't emphasize this enough: Although I welcome discourse as an opportunity to sharpen minds and build mutual understanding, I find that mutual respect is required for productive conversation. Pete, your assertion that I'm not qualified to analyze the scope and function of talent acquisition is not just unfounded, but particularly offensive – especially considering I've built my career on said ability to analyze.

    What qualifies me to speak to this subject is simple: The majority of my time is spent speaking with hiring managers, business leaders, and heads of talent acquisition – discussing talent acquisition priorities and process. I've spent almost the last decade having these kinds of conversations and reading case studies on these topics. This, combined with my familiarity with emerging technology trends, has enabled me to look at topics like the differences between sales and recruiting through a more objective (and well-researched) lens.

    If you would like to engage in conversation on this or any other topic, to show me the error of my ways or open my mind to your industry perspective, I'm all for it. However, I ask that you leave the condescension and undermining of professional qualifications at the door.

  • LisaRokusek

    Was I smug, Kyle? Apologies if so, it was not intentional, I meant no disrespect. However your lecture on what recruiting "should" be was a bit of a downer to read, and fraught with assumptions.

    You assume that all a recruiter does is: "Source, screen, submit, repeat" which leaves out at least half of what I do. My work only intensifies after I present a candidate, and I take care to provide real service to the candidates I represent and the companies I serve. I only get paid when everyone involved is satisfied. I fulfill dreams and solve business problems for a living. I sell. You seem to assume that there is something inherently wrong with sales, and "selling people to people" and that recruiters should aspire to be or do something more. I'm proud of what I do, and don't find it limiting in any way. I'm curious about that which you think we should aspire to do in the non-transactional, non-reactive future you reference. It sounds like buzzword bingo to me, but I am honestly curious what it looks like. Please tell me.

    You assume that I am not already "building, growing, and supporting successful organizations" as an agency recruiter. I assure you I am, and I do it as a 100% commission sales person, as I own my own business.

    I will admit that there are too many bad recruiters, and I talk about that a great deal on my blog and on twitter and to anyone who will hear me. I think recruiters should suck less, a great deal less, but I do not think fancy new toys will solve that problem. I'd be happy to see recruiting adopt new sales technology, and said so in my reply, but in my opinion that won't do much about crappy recruiters.

    I think the solution lies within. 1) We need to understand the positions we recruit for more thoroughly, and their attraction to prospective candidates. We need to target better and position more carefully. 2) We need to pay attention to the quality of our attention, and 3) We should listen more and assume less. That last part is good advice for for anyone.

  • Amy Ala

    "sales technology has evolved to a new level of automation."
    Sigh. I can't think of a single candidate in all my years who wished for more automated contact. Hey I appreciate a good tracking tool as much as anybody, and I feel terrible when great people fall through the cracks. It happens. While tools and technology may help minimize SOME of that, there's also the risk of making the process even LESS personal – to Lisa's point – that won't do a damn thing to solve the crappy recruiter problem. You may think I'm not thinking big enough, but the candidates that I've personally "sold" from point A to Z resulting in a new career opportunity aren't bemoaning the fact they aren't getting the right marketing materials.

    Then, we're told not to put all our eggs in the employee referral basket, while at the same time being told employee referrals are the largest source of hire. Or is that just a line being sold by employee referral solutions sellers? Color me skeptical.

  • Pete Radloff

    Kyle, I've taken some time to put up my thoughts on the subject. I hope you'll take a moment to peek at it.


  • Pete Radloff

    Kyle, I'm not being condescending when I say that I don't think you are qualified. I talk to engineers and recruit them all day, but that doesn't make me qualified to say whether their code is crappy or not. I leave that the engineers here who do it and are qualified to speak on the matter. So I think it's great that you analyze all day, and you talk to HR and TA professionals. But step into our shoes. Do it for just 6 months, and I think your tune will change. It's not an attack on your cred, it's pointing out a quantifiable lack of evidence in your experience, that's all.

    • recruitingdaily

      Snap. You done stepped this game up, son. Dayum.

  • LisaRokusek

    Persuasion is part of what I do each day. Each message I send – whether via text, voice, or an image, is targeted – I've contemplated the lens through which it will be viewed and I act appropriately. This is sales.

    This is an important discussion. I've been thinking about what function recruiters provide, what makes us really effective – and I'm aware aware that there are many variances. There are almost as many ways of being a recruiter as there are recruiters.

    I think how we see ourselves matters. I think if we distance ourselves from sales – as if it is something dirty, or something we "just don't" or shouldn't do" we lose something. Many people struggle with that – after all this time sometimes I do. So I want to look at that. If it helps someone (even if it is only me) do better, perform better, feel more comfortable about what we do and the value we provide – then I think it a worthwhile discussion.

    Kyle, I've not attacked you – I've disagreed with your opinions and backed up my disagreements with ideas. You called me smug and demanded I respect you while telling me I missed your point.

    I'm still waiting for you to engage mine.

  • Amy Ala

    I'm trying to understand the point, if it's not to say recruiters are not salespeople. Is it that good recruiters should be proactively pipelining passive talent for future opportunity hires? Check. Is it that we should work hard to provide a positive candidate experience regardless of hire/no hire outcome? Check. So what am I missing here? I ask in all sincerity. Like Lisa and Pete, I appreciate any tool that helps me to be more organized and effective. Is that what SAVO's selling? How? I'm totally confused on what we're supposed to take away from this. So far I've got Lisa's smug, Pete's condescending, and I'm not thinking big enough.

  • Kyle Lagunas

    Lisa, your point – and Pete's – is not being contended in this post whatsoever. Nowhere in the post or subsequent comments do I say recruiters don't sell, or that they're not salespeople. This post is all about how far sales technology has outpaced recruiting technology.

    Amy, my point can be derived directly from the post:

    "I’m commonly told the biggest difference is what they are selling: salespeople sell products and services, and recruiters sell job opportunities… Following a briefing with SAVO last week, I realized sales technology has far outpaced talent acquisition technology. While recruiters are still wrapping their heads around social media and dabbling in candidate relationship management (CRM), sales technology has evolved to a new level of automation."

    I go on to explain in detail what impressed me about SAVO and how I think it can be applied to recruiting. Then I pose a challenge to solution providers to step their game up so recruiters can be even better at their jobs.

    Really, though, this hive mind mentality is just too funny: "Everyone, quick! Someone who isn't a recruiter is talking about recruiting! Oh my gosh, he got sassy with us because we completely misinterpreted his post and blew it out of the water! Can you believe that? He clearly has no idea what he's talking about. We should band together and drag his name through the mud! Yeah! Get him!"

    If you disagree with my actual point – that recruiting technology isn't nearly as sophisticated as sales technology – then let's talk. If all you want to talk about is how much you sell, by all means feel free – but please leave me out of it.

  • LisaRokusek

    Kyle: I don't think your point was all that clear, but I did agree with you that sales technology is exciting.

    I took exception to several things you said: First, your title: Think Recruiting Is Sales? Think Again.

    Then you said this: "I’ll openly admit that I used to be one of those people who believed recruiters and salespeople were very similar, but this briefing was a serious eye-opener."

    And this: "Having a sales component to your role doesn't make your a salesperson – even agency recruiters, who have a greater sales component to their roles. "

    Then, in a response, you said this: "The core of my argument isn't that recruiters don't sell, but that there is far greater distinction between sales and recruiting today than what is being sold. More specifically, the sophistication of the sales process (supported by advanced sales and marketing technology like SAVO) has far outpaced that of recruiting."

    And this: "While recruiters are still wrapping their heads around social media and dabbling in candidate relationship management (CRM), sales technology has evolved to a new level of automation."

    I said you've made a lot of assumptions about recruiters, and I do think that is fair. I also think accusing the people who have responded to your post of hive mind, and saying we have banded together to "drag your name through the mud" is highly inflammatory and overly dramatic. I think you should learn to take criticism a tad more graciously. Holy hell, man, you did everything but throw a hissy fit. One might say you kind of did that. Also, if a group of people grossly misunderstand what your argument is, well, then you might want to look at how you constructed it.

    If you said that ATS systems haven't caught up with the cutting edge advancements in sales technology, I'd probably agree, but that isn't what you said. You said your main point is "recruiting technology isn't nearly as sophisticated as sales technology" and I have to disagree, mostly because of the false dichotomy that – despite your protestations is present in your words.

    Many recruiters have embraced the ever-evolving and exciting panoply of sophisticated sales technology – I know I have. And I look forward to new advancements. You know why? I'm a sales person.

  • Kelly

    I've been in sales my ENTIRE life. I've recently taken a position for a company that recruits sales reps for automotive dealerships, after working in the automotive sales industry for quite some time. The last thing that I would want to do is sell someone on a job. I present the features, the benefits, and the logistics of a position. But if someone is unsure of a position, I'm sure as heck not going to hard sell someone into a role where they won't last for 30 days. How will that serve me, my client, or my candidate. If a candidate has it, they have it. If I see the potential, I will help them realize it. But if it's not there, I'm selling on the opportunity of a position that isn't EVER going to be there for them.

  • bennettsung

    This is a fantastic debate and being a recruiting technology partner of Salesforce via AppExchange, I feel I have some context behind this discussion.

    Is Recruiting Sales?
    There is some validity to this statement, but I don't think I would ever personally call a Recruiter a Salesperson. The statement I would make is that if you itemized the sourcing & recruiting lifecycles components and put them next to Marketing & Sales Funnel, they are very very similar. I found the presentation at last year's LinkedIn Talent Connect Conference to re-affirm my point of view that recruiting teams should be modeled after sales …

    Regarding innovation gaps between sales & marketing and talent acquisition?
    I recently heard and agreed with the a sentiment that recruiting is 5 years ahead of Human Resources yet 5 years behind Marketing. In fact as a recruiting technology product marketing executive, I closely monitor the Sales & Marketing Automation space for glimpses of what recruiters can add to their their toolkit.

    Having been a user of Savo, they have a fantastic content marketing platform that adds tremendous value to ensuring the right marketing materials are made available 24×7 across the organization and it continues to add sophistication to ensure the right marketing materials are delivered to prospects.

    What do I see to be the next big tool coming from the sales & marketing space into recruiting?
    In this world of transparency, finding job seeker names & contacts has definitely gotten easier, but the added volume of data has created a new challenge for recruiters and that is breaking through the B.S. Once you have determined this is a job seeker you would like to pursue, then how do you nurture the job seeker over the long term? Well, this is where the current marketing / lead management automation tools from the likes of HubSpot and Marketo will being to make inroads to help recruiters.

    Recruiting is not only Sales. .Recruiting is Sales & Marketing.

  • Colin M

    Hey all,

    This has been a fun post to read.
    Kyle – it seems your point was this (correct me if I'm wrong):

    Recruiters could benefit from much of the innovative tech hitting the "Sales" world.

    I personally couldn't agree more. My CRM leaves much to be desired to say the least, and I'd love to take a look at a software that wasn't built in 1986.

    People are reacting to your post because what REALLY makes a good recruiter is their ability to build and maintain relationships, not the tech. Give me all the tech in the world, and Lisa will still run circles around me; she's been doing this way longer.

    What we all hate, whether we are in sales, recruiting, or any profession, is transaction business.
    We are people, not robots, and to keep our value in the 21st century that distinction will become increasing important to prove.

    Thanks to everyone for the comments, it's clear everyone here cares about this topic.

  • Pemberton Gordon


    You have some interested points to consider. I took a look at the SAVO product and it seems to have some key features that integrate well with and Microsoft CRM product that deals with the following: Content, Opportunity, and Process. I can definitely see the value in the tool. All Dogs can learn new tricks. I have worked both as internal recruiter and outside agency. I saw an article that big search firms are moving away from being just transactional focused to Partnering with Companies to maintain competitive advantage ( I will dig up article). I can see your point which is to leverage tools to help improve value to clients. I am assuming the argument is moving away from saying hey guys I have this really good resume to hey guys what can I do to partner with you and add more value. I like fresh ideas that will help both clients and my own Company. I have worked as a Contract Recruiter, Branch Manager Staffing Companies, and Business Owner of Search Firm. I can see the value of what you present in reference to touch points in the recruiting process, candidate experience, and branding. I can see the value as it relates to Talent Management and Retention. Great article. I would be interested in utilizing analytics to drive customer engagements. Feel free to connect with me on linkedin

  • dfraser11

    I think a referee is needed here. I do believe that Kyle has innocently made a post about the technology that he witnessed 10 years ago known as SAVO. I also think that the recruiters have responded to a challenge. I am new to getting involved in these blogs however as a newbie I thought these posts are about opinion in which case we all have one, right?

    Kyle, by the title of your post "Think Recruiting is Sales, Think Again" I believe this may have sparked some emotional response because the title does sound like a challenge don’t you think? Perhaps it was a catchy statement to spark some interest and some debate and get attention which is all good. That is what I have been reading about lately as I have been learning about blogging. Anyway, I do think things got carried away and in some cases your point was missed regarding the technologies in the recruiting industry. Maybe some of the solution providers will take offense to that and possibly they will take it as a warning as well, who knows? I also agree that we should all keep a professional demeanor as well without taking shots.

    I can say this, with over 20 years of IT recruiting experience, training recruiters and owning my own contingency search company that there is a lot of room for new and better technology solutions. In fact I spent several years working with some programmers to create our own because I wanted more features and abilities. I particularly liked this “SAVO has built an engine that analyzes a lead, evaluates the interest and needs, and makes recommendations on next steps – including the best marketing collateral to share.” I am not sure exactly how it works however something comparable in recruiting would be cool. AND it doesn’t have to take away from the selling, qualifying and closing part that recruiters do where sales is required. It is true that our industry could be behind in innovative technologies but I think many industries are.

    It appears you spend a lot of time researching the subject and I wouldn’t mind knowing some of the things you have learned about how companies are leveraging data for recruiting.

    To my fellow Recruiting salespeople I agree wholeheartedly that sales is a huge part of what we do, in fact I believe sales is a huge part in everything that happens involving people and people transactions. If someone caused someone else to do something regardless of what it was then a sale took place. You sell yourself every day to your clients, you sold your spouse, you sell your kids on why they should do this or that. I think the debate about sales is a separate topic all together.

  • dfraser11

    I think a referee is needed here. I do believe that Kyle has innocently made a post about the technology that he witnessed 10 years ago known as SAVO. I also think that the recruiters have responded to a challenge. I am new to getting involved in these blogs however as a newbie I thought these posts are about opinion in which case we all have one, right?

  • Pingback: Recruiting IS Sales – How I’ve Come To Accept It | Recruiting In 3D()

  • Pingback: Are you a recruiter or a sales person? You should be both! | A Sales Guy Recruiting()

  • Pingback: Why I’m (Still) A Recruiter: My Take From the Talent Trenches | ATC Events()

  • Medieval Recruiter

    Just spotted this article, and I agree. The lag in the development and application of such tech to recruiting is massive. And I’d say it’s for two reasons. One, recruiting is sufficiently different from sales to not count as sales. Two, companies barely value their employees, they don’t care much about candidates. Few if any companies understand the need to attract people to work for them, they think they deserve and are entitled to a workforce and devalue their labor to a great degree.

32 Facebook Graph SearchesEvery Recruiter Should Know
Just add your e-mail!