Why is the recruitment process not working?
Discussion
bad company said:
<snip>
2. I ALWAYS got my recruiters to find out where candidates were interviewing, why not? The information received gave us intelligence about what our competitors and potential clients were doing. I really don't understand why this is seen as a problem?
It's a problem, because it's an underhanded way of attempting to weasel your way into a company you have not previously represented.2. I ALWAYS got my recruiters to find out where candidates were interviewing, why not? The information received gave us intelligence about what our competitors and potential clients were doing. I really don't understand why this is seen as a problem?
Additionally, many times I have been put forward for a job, only to later find that the agency doing so did not have a mandate from the company to recruit for the role, thereby ruining any chance of me applying directly or through the agency that is mandated to recruit for the role.
Therefore, this is not acting in my best interests, but yet you seem to think it is?
TonyRPH said:
It's a problem, because it's an underhanded way of attempting to weasel your way into a company you have not previously represented.
Additionally, many times I have been put forward for a job, only to later find that the agency doing so did not have a mandate from the company to recruit for the role, thereby ruining any chance of me applying directly or through the agency that is mandated to recruit for the role.
Therefore, this is not acting in my best interests, but yet you seem to think it is?
I agree you should get a refund.. terrible service Additionally, many times I have been put forward for a job, only to later find that the agency doing so did not have a mandate from the company to recruit for the role, thereby ruining any chance of me applying directly or through the agency that is mandated to recruit for the role.
Therefore, this is not acting in my best interests, but yet you seem to think it is?
CaptainSlow said:
Gargamel said:
I agree you should get a refund.. terrible service
...and that's the sort of attitude why recruiters are so disliked.Without candidates, recruiters wouldn't have a product.
@gargamel @bad company
Whether you like it or not, agencies need candidates to earn money - and hence it's about time you showed a little more respect toward your product.
TonyRPH said:
Yes, exactly.
Without candidates, recruiters wouldn't have a product.
@gargamel @bad company
Whether you like it or not, agencies need candidates to earn money - and hence it's about time you showed a little more respect toward your product.
Why though? There'll be another candidate along soon enough and who really vets the agent as a candidate? Recruiter has a job and a candidate is looking for one, it's an easy pickup. There's generally way more candidates than jobs, and way more unsuitable candidates apply than would ever get an interview. Without candidates, recruiters wouldn't have a product.
@gargamel @bad company
Whether you like it or not, agencies need candidates to earn money - and hence it's about time you showed a little more respect toward your product.
The only way I find to filter it is to not work with any agents, mainly because I dont feel I need to, and because I dont want to.
TonyRPH said:
CaptainSlow said:
Gargamel said:
I agree you should get a refund.. terrible service
...and that's the sort of attitude why recruiters are so disliked.Without candidates, recruiters wouldn't have a product.
@gargamel @bad company
Whether you like it or not, agencies need candidates to earn money - and hence it's about time you showed a little more respect toward your product.
Recruitment as a services industry turnsover in excess of £10bn a year, and provides by a large a good service to many clients and candidates alike. The temptation to take one personal bad experience and extrapolate across the industry is at times unwarranted.
Recruitment firms exist to make a profit. Candidates knowledge and information is a part of how that profit is made
For the example quoted above I could cite any number where I have identified from a candidate that they have interviewed somewhere, called that company, been briefed on the role and made a fee.
If the first candidate (who told me) was the best candidate for the role, then they would have got the job. If I have a better person and the client agrees, then they get the job. Who knows a week later the first agency may have found my candidate and put them forward anyway !
Additionally as I previously stated, my preference was to ask candidates only about interviews attended where they weren't successful, or jobs they had been contacted about and not selected for.
Many of my candidates were very happy to tell me everything, as I was actually helping them find the right role/best job. I routinely asked candidates if they were happy for me to call them.
I have worked in this industry for nearly 20 years, if I didn't treat people decently then I would no longer be around, and non of my former candidates would have become clients, which many of them are.
Appreciate this industry isn't loved, but some posters here could do well to recognise that legitimate information gathering/leads generation is not "weasly" - if you don't like it, then don't tell !
Countdown said:
Apologies if you've answered this before as I missed it.
If it's legitimate why don't you tell the candidate (that you are asking so you can put forward other candidates for the same role)?
Read my post again. I asked candidates if they were still in contention for the role, or directly asked them if I could contact the company. If it's legitimate why don't you tell the candidate (that you are asking so you can put forward other candidates for the same role)?
Asking where a candidate is interviewing in order to introduce competing candidates is completely out of order. You've admitted you do it and I know it is common practice. Recruiters always ask that the candidate keeps roles confidential to stop others doing the same to them.
Also to speculatively send cvs to roles they don't have a mandate to recruit for after misleading a candidate is also out of order, joking that the candidate should ask for a refund, whilst tongue in cheek, just demonstrates why the industry is disliked due the way people are treated.
As I've said before, the industry has become so bad it's become worse than estate agency. The cv harvesting via the internet has caused this, and now it's dealing with recruiters that 12 months ago were selling Toyota Aygos.
Also to speculatively send cvs to roles they don't have a mandate to recruit for after misleading a candidate is also out of order, joking that the candidate should ask for a refund, whilst tongue in cheek, just demonstrates why the industry is disliked due the way people are treated.
As I've said before, the industry has become so bad it's become worse than estate agency. The cv harvesting via the internet has caused this, and now it's dealing with recruiters that 12 months ago were selling Toyota Aygos.
CaptainSlow said:
Asking where a candidate is interviewing in order to introduce competing candidates is completely out of order. You've admitted you do it and I know it is common practice. Recruiters always ask that the candidate keeps roles confidential to stop others doing the same to them.
Also to speculatively send cvs to roles they don't have a mandate to recruit for after misleading a candidate is also out of order, joking that the candidate should ask for a refund, whilst tongue in cheek, just demonstrates why the industry is disliked due the way people are treated.
As I've said before, the industry has become so bad it's become worse than estate agency. The cv harvesting via the internet has caused this, and now it's dealing with recruiters that 12 months ago were selling Toyota Aygos.
Clearly I can convince you of nothing, Also to speculatively send cvs to roles they don't have a mandate to recruit for after misleading a candidate is also out of order, joking that the candidate should ask for a refund, whilst tongue in cheek, just demonstrates why the industry is disliked due the way people are treated.
As I've said before, the industry has become so bad it's become worse than estate agency. The cv harvesting via the internet has caused this, and now it's dealing with recruiters that 12 months ago were selling Toyota Aygos.
I haven't said I would send spec CVs I said I would call that company.
It is common practice
I have confirmed I am asking candidates about jobs they DIDN'T get - what part of that is hard to understand.
You can be professionally offended about a glib comment if you want.
Its nothing to do with CV harvesting, this has been business practice since before the internet... partly because there is nothing wrong with it. It is a simple way to identify new business leads.
The irritation I have with recruitment processes is when I've managed to have personal contact with someone in a company (either via 'phone or email) about me looking for a new position, yet all I am told is to "keep an eye on our careers page".
I called back a person in HR whilst on holiday in August - they had already been handed my CV and had left me a voicemail whilst I was outside - was told I'd be good for a particular role and that I should also keep an eye on the website. I have not managed to reach them for a second/follow-up call.
In the last couple of years I've gained two contacts at a bank (one of whom I'd got in touch with when the other was on maternity) and whilst they were generally good at responding to emails (and I thanked the maternity cover person for their help) - all they did was direct me to the careers website!
More recently, I was not successful at an interview sorted for me by a recruiter I'd contacted via Linkedin that same week, and now, whilst he's told me it's a "no" - I am still awaiting feedback. I've left two voicemails for him today. I think he may be another "put him forward once and say I'll look around for him" kind of guy.
Really irritating.
I called back a person in HR whilst on holiday in August - they had already been handed my CV and had left me a voicemail whilst I was outside - was told I'd be good for a particular role and that I should also keep an eye on the website. I have not managed to reach them for a second/follow-up call.
In the last couple of years I've gained two contacts at a bank (one of whom I'd got in touch with when the other was on maternity) and whilst they were generally good at responding to emails (and I thanked the maternity cover person for their help) - all they did was direct me to the careers website!
More recently, I was not successful at an interview sorted for me by a recruiter I'd contacted via Linkedin that same week, and now, whilst he's told me it's a "no" - I am still awaiting feedback. I've left two voicemails for him today. I think he may be another "put him forward once and say I'll look around for him" kind of guy.
Really irritating.
TonyRPH said:
CaptainSlow said:
Gargamel said:
I agree you should get a refund.. terrible service
...and that's the sort of attitude why recruiters are so disliked.Without candidates, recruiters wouldn't have a product.
@gargamel @bad company
Whether you like it or not, agencies need candidates to earn money - and hence it's about time you showed a little more respect toward your product.
Gargamel said:
Countdown said:
Apologies if you've answered this before as I missed it.
If it's legitimate why don't you tell the candidate (that you are asking so you can put forward other candidates for the same role)?
Read my post again. I asked candidates if they were still in contention for the role, or directly asked them if I could contact the company. If it's legitimate why don't you tell the candidate (that you are asking so you can put forward other candidates for the same role)?
ComoEstas said:
The irritation I have with recruitment processes is when I've managed to have personal contact with someone in a company (either via 'phone or email) about me looking for a new position, yet all I am told is to "keep an eye on our careers page".
I called back a person in HR whilst on holiday in August - they had already been handed my CV and had left me a voicemail whilst I was outside - was told I'd be good for a particular role and that I should also keep an eye on the website. I have not managed to reach them for a second/follow-up call.
In the last couple of years I've gained two contacts at a bank (one of whom I'd got in touch with when the other was on maternity) and whilst they were generally good at responding to emails (and I thanked the maternity cover person for their help) - all they did was direct me to the careers website!
More recently, I was not successful at an interview sorted for me by a recruiter I'd contacted via Linkedin that same week, and now, whilst he's told me it's a "no" - I am still awaiting feedback. I've left two voicemails for him today. I think he may be another "put him forward once and say I'll look around for him" kind of guy.
Really irritating.
Which company didn't you get the job with I called back a person in HR whilst on holiday in August - they had already been handed my CV and had left me a voicemail whilst I was outside - was told I'd be good for a particular role and that I should also keep an eye on the website. I have not managed to reach them for a second/follow-up call.
In the last couple of years I've gained two contacts at a bank (one of whom I'd got in touch with when the other was on maternity) and whilst they were generally good at responding to emails (and I thanked the maternity cover person for their help) - all they did was direct me to the careers website!
More recently, I was not successful at an interview sorted for me by a recruiter I'd contacted via Linkedin that same week, and now, whilst he's told me it's a "no" - I am still awaiting feedback. I've left two voicemails for him today. I think he may be another "put him forward once and say I'll look around for him" kind of guy.
Really irritating.
That does sound frustrating however, quite a lot of the time agencies don't get told why candidates have been rejected. On top of that, if we were to call everyone back who wasn't successful then we'd never spend anytime finding opportunities for other candidates - I'm sorry, it's just the way it is.
Good luck with your search.
Fiddly-Dee said:
By far the most common complaint amongst employers, be they small, medium or large, is the dearth of suitable candidates to fill roles, across the full spectrum of their hierarchies.
Similarly, there are many well-qualified and experienced people who bemoan their inability to land a "decent" job.
The role of the recruitment process, whether internal or outsourced to an agenct, is the marrying up of the above 2 parties, yet something seems to be broken. I do not recall it being this way 20 or so years ago, so what has changed? I suspect a combination of factors, but I would be very interested in the views of those better qualified than I.
I think the original question has been somewhat missed in preference to slagging off recruitment companies.Similarly, there are many well-qualified and experienced people who bemoan their inability to land a "decent" job.
The role of the recruitment process, whether internal or outsourced to an agenct, is the marrying up of the above 2 parties, yet something seems to be broken. I do not recall it being this way 20 or so years ago, so what has changed? I suspect a combination of factors, but I would be very interested in the views of those better qualified than I.
I believe the answer is largely a lot more simple.
We have the lowest unemployment since the 70s. If it wasn't for our over-developed benefits system we would easily have our lowest in history.
Most of the current unemployed are unemployable or completely inflexible as to commuting/relocating effectively making very few people available for given jobs.
As such, any potential employer recruiting for a role is not going to find someone easily by paying the 'going rate' as there is no incentive to swap jobs/relocate. Similarly, though, companies aren't in any kind of profitable boom where they can suddenly afford to up their wage bills by considerable percentages.
Which leaves this stalemate where someone with a lot of experience might struggle to find work as there is nothing local to them and there incentives to relocate aren't there and the companies who need people are in an area where there simply aren't unemployed people.
I know this isn't a black and white issue but by and large I believe the above is why it is increasingly hard to find the right people
blindswelledrat said:
I think the original question has been somewhat missed in preference to slagging off recruitment companies.
I believe the answer is largely a lot more simple.
We have the lowest unemployment since the 70s. If it wasn't for our over-developed benefits system we would easily have our lowest in history.
Most of the current unemployed are unemployable or completely inflexible as to commuting/relocating effectively making very few people available for given jobs.
As such, any potential employer recruiting for a role is not going to find someone easily by paying the 'going rate' as there is no incentive to swap jobs/relocate. Similarly, though, companies aren't in any kind of profitable boom where they can suddenly afford to up their wage bills by considerable percentages.
Which leaves this stalemate where someone with a lot of experience might struggle to find work as there is nothing local to them and there incentives to relocate aren't there and the companies who need people are in an area where there simply aren't unemployed people.
I know this isn't a black and white issue but by and large I believe the above is why it is increasingly hard to find the right people
The other simple answer is that it is hard to find people they want to hire because the criteria filter out too many people. Typically, employers want experience. The skills and experience of the employment market as a whole are surely different to 10, 15 and 20 years ago. As we shift more and more to services and technology then inevitably somebody has to enter those markets to gain the experience.I believe the answer is largely a lot more simple.
We have the lowest unemployment since the 70s. If it wasn't for our over-developed benefits system we would easily have our lowest in history.
Most of the current unemployed are unemployable or completely inflexible as to commuting/relocating effectively making very few people available for given jobs.
As such, any potential employer recruiting for a role is not going to find someone easily by paying the 'going rate' as there is no incentive to swap jobs/relocate. Similarly, though, companies aren't in any kind of profitable boom where they can suddenly afford to up their wage bills by considerable percentages.
Which leaves this stalemate where someone with a lot of experience might struggle to find work as there is nothing local to them and there incentives to relocate aren't there and the companies who need people are in an area where there simply aren't unemployed people.
I know this isn't a black and white issue but by and large I believe the above is why it is increasingly hard to find the right people
edc said:
The other simple answer is that it is hard to find people they want to hire because the criteria filter out too many people. Typically, employers want experience. The skills and experience of the employment market as a whole are surely different to 10, 15 and 20 years ago. As we shift more and more to services and technology then inevitably somebody has to enter those markets to gain the experience.
Good point and explains why there are still some experienced people struggling for work in certain shrinking industries.blindswelledrat said:
Good point and explains why there are still some experienced people struggling for work in certain shrinking industries.
I have a wealth of experience in IT, however I find myself one of those people struggling to get work.In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
There is nothing to say I couldn't adapt, however apparently I "lack experience"*
My son used to work (in IT) for a major player in the gambling industry, and he interviewed many candidates and was continually surprised at the poor quality of said candidates who by and large couldn't do a lot of that which was on their CV.
- I am 55 with 20+ years relevant experience, up to date skills etc. It's a bloody joke. At times I am convinced my age had counted against me.
TonyRPH said:
I have a wealth of experience in IT, however I find myself one of those people struggling to get work.
In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
There is nothing to say I couldn't adapt, however apparently I "lack experience"*
My son used to work (in IT) for a major player in the gambling industry, and he interviewed many candidates and was continually surprised at the poor quality of said candidates who by and large couldn't do a lot of that which was on their CV.
I feel your frustration. I was recruiting lawyers and it was hard to place anybody over 50, perhaps it's even worse in IT.In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
There is nothing to say I couldn't adapt, however apparently I "lack experience"*
My son used to work (in IT) for a major player in the gambling industry, and he interviewed many candidates and was continually surprised at the poor quality of said candidates who by and large couldn't do a lot of that which was on their CV.
- I am 55 with 20+ years relevant experience, up to date skills etc. It's a bloody joke. At times I am convinced my age had counted against me.
It's no good sounding off against the recruitment agents though. They have to find the candidates their clients want to hire.
TonyRPH said:
I have a wealth of experience in IT, however I find myself one of those people struggling to get work.
In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
Pick a specialty you're interested in, rewrite your CV to cover it as best you can and pursue that route?In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
I tend to find big business ask for specialists but want something approaching a generalist; e.g. Java devs that do relational and NoSQL DBs, LDAP, Linux and shell scripting, C/C++ or python, web programming, graphic design, infrastructure and ops work, architecture design, documentation, quality assurance, customer support, project management, etc. So my CV says Java dev at the top then more or less lists a load of other stuff.
bad company said:
TonyRPH said:
I have a wealth of experience in IT, however I find myself one of those people struggling to get work.
In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
There is nothing to say I couldn't adapt, however apparently I "lack experience"*
My son used to work (in IT) for a major player in the gambling industry, and he interviewed many candidates and was continually surprised at the poor quality of said candidates who by and large couldn't do a lot of that which was on their CV.
I feel your frustration. I was recruiting lawyers and it was hard to place anybody over 50, perhaps it's even worse in IT.In my case, rather than specialise in a particular area, I have developed a broad skill set less suited to big business where there is a specialist for this, a specialist for that etc. which seriously limits my options.
There is nothing to say I couldn't adapt, however apparently I "lack experience"*
My son used to work (in IT) for a major player in the gambling industry, and he interviewed many candidates and was continually surprised at the poor quality of said candidates who by and large couldn't do a lot of that which was on their CV.
- I am 55 with 20+ years relevant experience, up to date skills etc. It's a bloody joke. At times I am convinced my age had counted against me.
It's no good sounding off against the recruitment agents though. They have to find the candidates their clients want to hire.
If you put dates of education, date of birth and a job history starting in the 70s then it is easy to pinpoint an age range.
You say 20+ years of relevant experience, but how much of it is really relevant to the employer? Get into their mindset and try to understand their reason for recruiting the role you are interested in. Is 20+ years experience in a team of 3+ years experience going to position you well, or will they take the view that you won't fit in. Indeed, is there already a 'senior' in the team and actually what they need is somebody in between to bridge the gap between the recently graduated and the technical leads or head of department?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff