Why we hate Recruitment Agencies
Discussion
I saw a role advertised in December 2013. At the time I thought that I would be one of the many contractors who were about to be culled just before Christmas. I applied, I spoke to the RC, connected with him on Linkedin, but it went dead. His client wasn't sure what he was doing. Contacted by him again in April 2014, because he knew my contract should end in May. CV went forward. I took another contract with another company. He contacted me again in September, I had an interview and pending paperwork was offered a role, but no PO. Reference and clearance would take 8 to 12 weeks. A week after I finished that contract, the security clearance came through. Waited and waited for a PO, which eventually came through with a Jan 5th Start date. Today I got a computer log in.
I am one of many arriving to do similar roles. All hands to the muster station.
Sometimes there's a slow burn, but I think 13 months from start to finish for a 12 month contract is quite amazing really. RC seems a really good bloke.
I am one of many arriving to do similar roles. All hands to the muster station.
Sometimes there's a slow burn, but I think 13 months from start to finish for a 12 month contract is quite amazing really. RC seems a really good bloke.
It must be a tough gig being asked to select anyone from a pool of candidates. We've know for some years human performance follows a power-law distribution so only a very small number of candidates will actually be high performers. If you are filtering candidates based on aspects of their employment history or education...you may well need hundreds or thousands of candidates to find one talented person (assuming you can spot that one person).
You can sort of see we are a bit rubbish at it however by the way we measure and reward productivity (hours worked, pay bands etc.) and the way we tend to treat labor as a homogeneous commodity that can be readily substituted. In a way what we are implicitly saying it's still beyond the capability of a company to identify talented people.
So we ask recruiters and HR teams to do something we implicitly believe not to be possible. However we all keep playing the game.
You can sort of see we are a bit rubbish at it however by the way we measure and reward productivity (hours worked, pay bands etc.) and the way we tend to treat labor as a homogeneous commodity that can be readily substituted. In a way what we are implicitly saying it's still beyond the capability of a company to identify talented people.
So we ask recruiters and HR teams to do something we implicitly believe not to be possible. However we all keep playing the game.
MikeGoodwin said:
My life is in the hands of these people ffs.
Alternatively, when you are looking for a job, you could simply think about the role you want. The Company you want to work for and apply directly to them. No recruitment consultant in the history of the world has ever been paid to find a job for a candidate that did not want to use an agency.
Recruitment professionals come in many forms and over the years I have realised that most should be viewed in the same light as estate agents.
In formative years had to deal with many really poor, lying, cheating, horrible and two-faced scumbag recruitment people. However there are some honest and ethical RCs out there who genuinely care about both client and customer - unfortunately these are in the minority.
Size of agency does not necessarily dictate a high standard eg a well business actually sent me my own CV with name deleted.....read 1st page and thought candidate sounded interesting and moved onto page 2 when the realisation dawned upon me!
As your career progresses and you reach the dizzy heights you discover that they change into "headhunters" - they have no websites and may not even exist within the UK. These people are very, very good at their craft and drive around in £80-150K cars. Luckily I know 3 such professionals.
RCs have to exist as many branded businesses will only deal through PSL (preferred supplier lists) which is a shame as it would save them 20% in fees.
In formative years had to deal with many really poor, lying, cheating, horrible and two-faced scumbag recruitment people. However there are some honest and ethical RCs out there who genuinely care about both client and customer - unfortunately these are in the minority.
Size of agency does not necessarily dictate a high standard eg a well business actually sent me my own CV with name deleted.....read 1st page and thought candidate sounded interesting and moved onto page 2 when the realisation dawned upon me!
As your career progresses and you reach the dizzy heights you discover that they change into "headhunters" - they have no websites and may not even exist within the UK. These people are very, very good at their craft and drive around in £80-150K cars. Luckily I know 3 such professionals.
RCs have to exist as many branded businesses will only deal through PSL (preferred supplier lists) which is a shame as it would save them 20% in fees.
.......because many HR departments are not very good at what they do AND if the candidate does not work out they "blame" the RC rather than identify that the flaw is within the process. HR would argue that they do not have sufficient internal resources nor expertise across all roles necessary to be filled. Also RCs will have a much larger database of candidates and are better "geared up". Finally HR are not Personnel (an in joke). Thus have a PSL.
Good "Resources" Directors and Departments are a massive asset to any well run business.
Funnily many Recruitment Consultants "hate" HR - as see them as a blocker.
Good "Resources" Directors and Departments are a massive asset to any well run business.
Funnily many Recruitment Consultants "hate" HR - as see them as a blocker.
T5R+ said:
.......because many HR departments are not very good at what they do AND if the candidate does not work out they "blame" the RC rather than identify that the flaw is within the process. HR would argue that they do not have sufficient internal resources nor expertise across all roles necessary to be filled. Also RCs will have a much larger database of candidates and are better "geared up". Finally HR are not Personnel (an in joke). Thus have a PSL.
Good "Resources" Directors and Departments are a massive asset to any well run business.
Funnily many Recruitment Consultants "hate" HR - as see them as a blocker.
Our clients were happy to pay our fees as we found them quality candidates they would not have been able to access themselves.Good "Resources" Directors and Departments are a massive asset to any well run business.
Funnily many Recruitment Consultants "hate" HR - as see them as a blocker.
Prior to the recession one of our clients (large firm of solicitors) offered to pay 150% of the normal fee rate as they wanted us to direct the best candidates to them rather than their competitors.
A few years ago I applied for a few jobs with a recruiter, nothing came of it and I decided to stay in my existing role as I got a promotion and pay rise. Fast forward about a month and my boss's line rings. He's out of the office so I answer for him. "Hi it's Dave here from w
kers 'R' Us - I was hoping I could help you with the task of filling BJG1's role"
I think that's the most unprofessional thing I've experienced. Went absolutely mental at him.
kers 'R' Us - I was hoping I could help you with the task of filling BJG1's role"I think that's the most unprofessional thing I've experienced. Went absolutely mental at him.
BJG1 said:
A few years ago I applied for a few jobs with a recruiter, nothing came of it and I decided to stay in my existing role as I got a promotion and pay rise. Fast forward about a month and my boss's line rings. He's out of the office so I answer for him. "Hi it's Dave here from wkers 'R' Us - I was hoping I could help you with the task of filling BJG1's role"
I think that's the most unprofessional thing I've experienced. Went absolutely mental at him.
He was probably an inexperienced rookie. It may have been better to have made a complaint to the Directors or owners of the business.kers 'R' Us - I was hoping I could help you with the task of filling BJG1's role"I think that's the most unprofessional thing I've experienced. Went absolutely mental at him.
BJG1 said:
bad company said:
He was probably an inexperienced rookie. It may have been better to have made a complaint to the Directors or owners of the business.
He wasn't an inexperienced rookie, he was a named director of the company Du1point8 said:
Don't start it.... BC will say every mistake that is brought up is acceptable and done via a rookie, yet recruiters are the dogs danglies...
No I didn't say what that recruiter did was in any way acceptable. Perhaps you could show me where I have justified such actions or indeed any other bad practice by recruiters?bad company said:
Prior to the recession one of our clients (large firm of solicitors) offered to pay 150% of the normal fee rate as they wanted us to direct the best candidates to them rather than their competitors.
That's one of the reasons why we would never agree to use only one Agency - most Finance people tend to be signed up to at least 2 or 3 agencies. If one of them wants to risk losing out on commission by sending us a lower quality of candidate it's their lookout.Countdown said:
bad company said:
Prior to the recession one of our clients (large firm of solicitors) offered to pay 150% of the normal fee rate as they wanted us to direct the best candidates to them rather than their competitors.
That's one of the reasons why we would never agree to use only one Agency - most Finance people tend to be signed up to at least 2 or 3 agencies. If one of them wants to risk losing out on commission by sending us a lower quality of candidate it's their lookout.Aren't recruitment agencies the solution to a problem that never existed?
All they seem to do is muddy the water. More often than not (in my experience) all they do is cloak who and where the business is, what is expected of the role and more often than not, what they are willing to pay. Exactly the kind of information you need to:
A) If your skills match the role
B) Decide if you the location is suitable
C) Is the salary sufficient
D) How best to tailor my CV to the role
Life is so much simpler when a business advertises directly.
I am constantly flooded by these online agencies who obviously trawl through your CV in an automated fashion and then bombard me with unsuitable jobs. My last role had the word 'Engineer' in it. I am not an engineer, please don't berate me!
However, I have an interview tomorrow arranged via an independent RA, so I may love them soon
All they seem to do is muddy the water. More often than not (in my experience) all they do is cloak who and where the business is, what is expected of the role and more often than not, what they are willing to pay. Exactly the kind of information you need to:
A) If your skills match the role
B) Decide if you the location is suitable
C) Is the salary sufficient
D) How best to tailor my CV to the role
Life is so much simpler when a business advertises directly.
I am constantly flooded by these online agencies who obviously trawl through your CV in an automated fashion and then bombard me with unsuitable jobs. My last role had the word 'Engineer' in it. I am not an engineer, please don't berate me!
However, I have an interview tomorrow arranged via an independent RA, so I may love them soon
bad company said:
Countdown said:
Possibly not. Feel free to explain.
Sorry I didn't mean to sound like a smart arse. My point was that the firm of solicitors offered the increased recruitment rate to all of the agencies on their PSL. They simply wanted the agencies to send them the best candidates.Have to be honest - I still don't understand. Why wouldn't the agencies send through the best candidates anyway? Is it because they're inundated with requests for candidates (i.e. they get 10 different employers asking for CVs so they send the best ones (give first refusal) to the firm paying 150% commission)?
It maybe that Finance staff are less in demand
Countdown said:
Fair enough
Have to be honest - I still don't understand. Why wouldn't the agencies send through the best candidates anyway? Is it because they're inundated with requests for candidates (i.e. they get 10 different employers asking for CVs so they send the best ones (give first refusal) to the firm paying 150% commission)?
That's exactly it. Their was a real shortage of the lawyers they wanted so they figured that by offering higher fees the agency would direct the best candidates to them first.Have to be honest - I still don't understand. Why wouldn't the agencies send through the best candidates anyway? Is it because they're inundated with requests for candidates (i.e. they get 10 different employers asking for CVs so they send the best ones (give first refusal) to the firm paying 150% commission)?
Countdown said:
Fair enough
Have to be honest - I still don't understand. Why wouldn't the agencies send through the best candidates anyway? Is it because they're inundated with requests for candidates (i.e. they get 10 different employers asking for CVs so they send the best ones (give first refusal) to the firm paying 150% commission)?
It maybe that Finance staff are less in demand
Back in the boom times (read late 90's) it wasn't unusual to have around 30 open vacancies for newly qualified chartered accountants on the go. (a fact of the top 4 slashing training during the Asia crisis of early 90's) Have to be honest - I still don't understand. Why wouldn't the agencies send through the best candidates anyway? Is it because they're inundated with requests for candidates (i.e. they get 10 different employers asking for CVs so they send the best ones (give first refusal) to the firm paying 150% commission)?
It maybe that Finance staff are less in demand
More broadly
You are an agency, your client calls in a job. You know that there are three agencies working on the role. You will only get the commission if the client hires one of your people...
So do you ... A send your top two candidates, and say to your client. These are the best two.
Or send all ten that might fit, to stop your competitors even getting a sniff, albeit with a candidate you probably don't think is the best.
The point on paying 150% of fees. is simple.
As an RC I have two clients. Both are looking for s
t hot lawyers. One gives me 30% commission. One gives me 20% commission. Now, which one to send my best candidate to ? Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff