Great recruiters are worth their fees because good people not getting back to you (link is to Recruiters Online on Facebook, invite required...just ask for it).   

Maureen SharibJust yesterday I was discussing this.
The conversation with decision makers goes like this:

The perception that people are easy to find is whats out there.
That being said, perception is reality so lets deal with that.

Names? 
We have names. 
We dont need any more names!
We need to TALK to those names.
We dont have anyone who can talk to those names!

So, as Matt says, "getting good people to get back to you is damned near impossible" is a perception issue.

It's what managers are being fed by staff that are relying on inefficient and namby-pamby contact means (InMails, emails, mumbled scaredy-cat, low-tone volumed VoiceMessages and texts) rather than BOLD AND PERSISTENT AND ORDERLY TELEPHONE CALLS to get the messages out.

Part of this is because staffing departments are too bought in to LinkedIn's overcharges for their product and companies feel they have to spam and bam every LI member on the planet to realize a return on investment that is ever-lowering but just as much blame has to fall on the individual recruiter's shoulder who takes this low and blameworthy road because of the non-confrontational and cowardly route it represents.
The conversation with decision makers goes like this:
The perception that people are easy to find is whats out there.
That being said, perception is reality so lets deal with that.
Names? 
We have names. 
We dont need any more names!
We need to TALK to those names.
We dont have anyone who can talk to those names!
So, as Matt says, "getting good people to get back to you is damned near impossible" is a perception issue.
It's what managers are being fed by staff that are relying on inefficient and namby-pamby contact means (InMails, emails, mumbled scaredy-cat, low-tone volumed VoiceMessages and texts) rather than BOLD AND PERSISTENT AND ORDERLY TELEPHONE CALLS to get the messages out.
Part of this is because staffing departments are too bought in to LinkedIn's overcharges for their product and companies feel they have to spam and bam every LI member on the planet to realize a return on investment that is ever-lowering but just as much blame has to fall on the individual recruiter's shoulder who takes this low and blameworthy road because of the non-confrontational and cowardly route it represents.

Which leaves the best recruiters with some variation on Andrew Gadomski number crunching answer to the conundrum of actually recruiting a good person:

Andrew Gadomski I stand by the tested concept over several hundred, maybe 1000 searches. Make a list of 25 people who will take the call or reply to the email, knowing that you need to produce another 25 leads who will take the call / email because of who led them to you. Usually you get 3 or 4 pretty solid people. Additional tech or data storage shortens this...sometimes. Planning really well is the greatest time reducer. Figure 7 minutes of planning for every initial conversation you need to have (about 3 hours of planning). If you don't feel you have time for that, realize that will probably burn that time in wasted effort elsewhere (poor activity, bad calls, goose chasing). Happy Friday all.