When we talk about the recruitment process, we usually refer to a “best practice” to apply to achieve its goal – attracting and selecting the best candidates. However, it is not sufficient to describe the reality of the recruiter’s work, with its diversity.

There are two profiles of recruiters. The first has an “matching” approach to the profession, preferring a short process where the recruiter’s time is invested upfront to analyze the position and expectations.

Their role is to find a candidate whose characteristics are closest to the needs of the position to be filled. These recruiters are “pickers”: like farmers, they sort based on sizes and other objective criteria.

The second profile of recruiter has a “constructivist” approach to the profession, believing that a longer process where time is invested at the end of recruitment is the most desirable and effective.

In their view, successful recruitment depends on the relationship between the candidate and the company, and thus involves allocating time after hiring to coach, socialize, or train the new recruit. They position themselves as relationship builders.

For “picker” recruiters, the goal of recruitment is to describe the positions and candidates and then identify the best matches between them. For their “builder” counterparts, the recruitment process itself will build this match.

These differences in approach are also reflected in the tools recruiters prefer. While the first group resorts to techniques capable of providing reliable information about the position and the candidate, such as assessment tests, the second group will prioritize forming a consensus on the company’s needs and the characteristics of candidates, focusing on dialogue and exchanges between stakeholders.

Roles and approaches are not fixed: pickers are overrepresented among juniors. The more recruiters gain seniority, the closer they get to the builder type.