Why is the recruitment process not working?
Discussion
Flooble said:
Interesting, I know loads of 5-10 year experienced developers on £35-50K. Architects only make £55-60 tops. In fact, around here you can sometimes pick up a five year guy for £30K if you happen to hit the market right. I'm guessing you are mostly in London? Do like the speech marks around "cyber" by the way - I approve!
Not London myself or for most of the people I'm thinking of, though the FB and Google guys are.768 said:
Not London myself or for most of the people I'm thinking of, though the FB and Google guys are.
Interesting. I know I can pull in £500/day on contract so maybe that has skewed the figures? Permie I'd top out at 60-70K unless I took a director level job with all the boring politics that entails. In terms of hiring, the only permie guys I'd be hiring on more than £50K would be architects or consultant types. MitchT said:
The old fashioned way was to start at the bottom and work your way up, so people higher up knew what they were looking for in a person to undertake a role lower down because they'd been there. The modern way is for 'career politicians' to bulls
t their way into senior management positions. They haven't actually worked their way up through the ranks and haven't done a day's real work in their lives, so they haven't a clue how to recruit good people as they've no idea what they're actually looking for and what constitutes a good match for a role. These people are usually very good at saying the right things to the right people so have no difficulty selling themselves to the directors who employ them, but are then utterly worthless to a business. However, their ongoing stream of bullst ensures that they're well liked. They usually hire people who aren't going to be a threat to them, not people who will be good for the company.
I like the things you sayt their way into senior management positions. They haven't actually worked their way up through the ranks and haven't done a day's real work in their lives, so they haven't a clue how to recruit good people as they've no idea what they're actually looking for and what constitutes a good match for a role. These people are usually very good at saying the right things to the right people so have no difficulty selling themselves to the directors who employ them, but are then utterly worthless to a business. However, their ongoing stream of bullst ensures that they're well liked. They usually hire people who aren't going to be a threat to them, not people who will be good for the company.I have found it to be a nightmare personally,
Applied for roles in London and Kent, have managed to get interviews but most of the time I do not even get a reply afterwards to tell me I am unsuccessful.
One employer gave me an interview after seeing my CV which listed the main aspects of my current role, it would have been a job where I start at the bottom and work my way up, this I would prefer as you have a greater understanding of the business, the people and how they work. Went up to London, did the interview, and then was told I was over qualified. It made a change, but was a bit annoying that I went all the way up there when they had seen my skills etc on my CV, to tell me that I was over qualified, felt like it was a wasted day.
Haven't had any luck with agencies, just find them to be a complete waste of time.
Applied for roles in London and Kent, have managed to get interviews but most of the time I do not even get a reply afterwards to tell me I am unsuccessful.
One employer gave me an interview after seeing my CV which listed the main aspects of my current role, it would have been a job where I start at the bottom and work my way up, this I would prefer as you have a greater understanding of the business, the people and how they work. Went up to London, did the interview, and then was told I was over qualified. It made a change, but was a bit annoying that I went all the way up there when they had seen my skills etc on my CV, to tell me that I was over qualified, felt like it was a wasted day.
Haven't had any luck with agencies, just find them to be a complete waste of time.
I love these threads...I worked as a recruitment consultant for 16 years at all level, shiny suited hair gelled early twenties through to being a slightly grey haired search / headhunter.
I now work for a *really* big company in Talent, and have hired all over the world.
Big picture.
The process of matching talent to opportunity hasn't fundamentally changed.
More people are employed to "do the work" than have a career, so development and progression which is expensive, isn't as effective as it used to be (Though look at John Lewis today, joined the grad scheme 22 years ago, today become CEO - so it can still work well)
Recruitment
Clients are their own worst enemy, they don't plan, that want the entire shopping list of the Jon Description and the recruiters have to get it exactly to guarantee the fee.
Recruitment is a brutal industry. I think a lot of posters just don't understand it, or feel bitter they didn't get a call back, or a tissue to dry their eyes or something.
The majority of "hires" in the UK are still made by personal contacts and networking.
Some good points on this thread, amongst the usual "angst"
I now work for a *really* big company in Talent, and have hired all over the world.
Big picture.
The process of matching talent to opportunity hasn't fundamentally changed.
More people are employed to "do the work" than have a career, so development and progression which is expensive, isn't as effective as it used to be (Though look at John Lewis today, joined the grad scheme 22 years ago, today become CEO - so it can still work well)
Recruitment
Clients are their own worst enemy, they don't plan, that want the entire shopping list of the Jon Description and the recruiters have to get it exactly to guarantee the fee.
Recruitment is a brutal industry. I think a lot of posters just don't understand it, or feel bitter they didn't get a call back, or a tissue to dry their eyes or something.
The majority of "hires" in the UK are still made by personal contacts and networking.
Some good points on this thread, amongst the usual "angst"
Gargamel said:
I love these threads...I worked as a recruitment consultant for 16 years at all level, shiny suited hair gelled early twenties through to being a slightly grey haired search / headhunter.
I now work for a *really* big company in Talent, and have hired all over the world.
Big picture.
The process of matching talent to opportunity hasn't fundamentally changed.
More people are employed to "do the work" than have a career, so development and progression which is expensive, isn't as effective as it used to be (Though look at John Lewis today, joined the grad scheme 22 years ago, today become CEO - so it can still work well)
Recruitment
Clients are their own worst enemy, they don't plan, that want the entire shopping list of the Jon Description and the recruiters have to get it exactly to guarantee the fee.
Recruitment is a brutal industry. I think a lot of posters just don't understand it, or feel bitter they didn't get a call back, or a tissue to dry their eyes or something.
The majority of "hires" in the UK are still made by personal contacts and networking.
Some good points on this thread, amongst the usual "angst"
Nail, head, hit. I now work for a *really* big company in Talent, and have hired all over the world.
Big picture.
The process of matching talent to opportunity hasn't fundamentally changed.
More people are employed to "do the work" than have a career, so development and progression which is expensive, isn't as effective as it used to be (Though look at John Lewis today, joined the grad scheme 22 years ago, today become CEO - so it can still work well)
Recruitment
Clients are their own worst enemy, they don't plan, that want the entire shopping list of the Jon Description and the recruiters have to get it exactly to guarantee the fee.
Recruitment is a brutal industry. I think a lot of posters just don't understand it, or feel bitter they didn't get a call back, or a tissue to dry their eyes or something.
The majority of "hires" in the UK are still made by personal contacts and networking.
Some good points on this thread, amongst the usual "angst"
Edited by bad company on Tuesday 25th October 23:29
Orchid1 said:
Recruitment consultants are the sneakiest slimiest most dishonest people i've ever come across who lie, lie and lie again in order to make shady deals and protect their commission.
I don't know if there already is one but if not there should be an independent body set up to monitor them and deal with complaints.
ThisI don't know if there already is one but if not there should be an independent body set up to monitor them and deal with complaints.
briang9 said:
This
No really not this. You can't build a reputation, a business, client relationships or candidate referrals from this behaviour. It isn't sustainable. Transactional recruitment isn't a long term business.
Most recruiters rely on referrals and a network.
Try another, approach. who has felt lied to by their boss or the company they work for? A career promise, bonus or promotion that didn't marterialise. That's your Own company not keeping faith.
How are recruiters who represent many different types of business supposed to be able to know perfectly what the client will offer, promise or say about each role.?
Some will say they were lied to, others may at least acknowledge that recruiters operate in good faith.
Over the years I have worked with hundreds of recruiters and managed teams of them. In my experience very very few set out to lie, or act in dishonest way to close a deal.
briang9 said:
Orchid1 said:
Recruitment consultants are the sneakiest slimiest most dishonest people i've ever come across who lie, lie and lie again in order to make shady deals and protect their commission.
I don't know if there already is one but if not there should be an independent body set up to monitor them and deal with complaints.
ThisI don't know if there already is one but if not there should be an independent body set up to monitor them and deal with complaints.
OH is semi retired but undertakes interim work.
Prepared to work away from home under 2 specific terms & conditions which are made clear at the outset. Majority of times initial contacts are made by the agencies via Linkedin or finding her CV somewhere.
Agency 1. Min rate to work away from home discussed / agreed - CV sent to client - phone interview - job offer with start date - contract arrives...... rate circa 30% less than agreed ........client confirms original, higher, rate was never offered to agency from the outset!!!
Agency 2. Similar scenario but agency agreed a max of 4 days only ( 3 nights) but happy to work extra hours over 4 days or just be paid for 4 days - client offers position ....start date agreed - client informs they want on site presence 5 full days a week and not been informed otherwise by agency!!!!
Edited by alfie2244 on Tuesday 25th October 23:56
alfie2244 said:
Judging by events this week ( 2 different agencies) I am starting to think more like this myself.
OH is semi retired but undertakes interim work.
Prepared to work away from home under 2 specific terms & conditions which are made clear at the outset. Majority of times initial contacts are made by the agencies via Linkedin or finding her CV somewhere.
Agency 1. Min rate to work away from home discussed / agreed - CV sent to client - phone interview - job offer with start date - contract arrives...... rate circa 30% less than agreed ........client confirms original, higher, rate was never offered to agency from the outset!!!
Agency 2. Similar scenario but agency agreed a max of 4 days only ( 3 nights) but happy to work extra hours over 4 days or just be paid for 4 days - client offers position ....start date agreed - client informs they want on site presence 5 full days a week and not been informed otherwise by agency!!!!
I was never involved with this type of work but I will say that employers often 'try it on' or blame the agency when it was actually their own fault.OH is semi retired but undertakes interim work.
Prepared to work away from home under 2 specific terms & conditions which are made clear at the outset. Majority of times initial contacts are made by the agencies via Linkedin or finding her CV somewhere.
Agency 1. Min rate to work away from home discussed / agreed - CV sent to client - phone interview - job offer with start date - contract arrives...... rate circa 30% less than agreed ........client confirms original, higher, rate was never offered to agency from the outset!!!
Agency 2. Similar scenario but agency agreed a max of 4 days only ( 3 nights) but happy to work extra hours over 4 days or just be paid for 4 days - client offers position ....start date agreed - client informs they want on site presence 5 full days a week and not been informed otherwise by agency!!!!
Edited by alfie2244 on Tuesday 25th October 23:56
How do you know it was the agency telling lies?
I think the process has just become too complicated - there was a thread I was reading earlier where a guy was going for a fourth interview - four, what can you learn in three and four that you couldn't do in two - or one if you manage it properly.
In theory that would mean a candidate having four days off, travelling and still not getting a job - thats 20% of some peoples leave for the year!!
In theory that would mean a candidate having four days off, travelling and still not getting a job - thats 20% of some peoples leave for the year!!
A good friend of mine was hired as a tester. On her first day of work she was told to use a particular piece of software, and she replied that she'd need a day or two to familiarise herself with said software.
To cut to the chase, the recruitment company had altered her CV without telling her, and added proficiency in said software
.
She still has the job, recruitment company is now banned by her employer.
I believe they also managed to get the recruitment fees refunded, under threat of a lawsuit for false representation.
There must be some good recruiters, but there are definitely some cowboys out there.
To cut to the chase, the recruitment company had altered her CV without telling her, and added proficiency in said software
.She still has the job, recruitment company is now banned by her employer.
I believe they also managed to get the recruitment fees refunded, under threat of a lawsuit for false representation.
There must be some good recruiters, but there are definitely some cowboys out there.
esuuv said:
I think the process has just become too complicated - there was a thread I was reading earlier where a guy was going for a fourth interview - four, what can you learn in three and four that you couldn't do in two - or one if you manage it properly.
In theory that would mean a candidate having four days off, travelling and still not getting a job - thats 20% of some peoples leave for the year!!
4 interviews, 3 sets of flights, over £2000 to get my current role (6 years ago).In theory that would mean a candidate having four days off, travelling and still not getting a job - thats 20% of some peoples leave for the year!!
I'll add my most recent recruiter issue.
I have very specific skills in a niche product. An agency recently contacted me via linkedin as a large organisation needed a contractor with my skills but was struggling. I couldn't take the job.
At least 2 other people from the agency contacted me over the course of the next month. One asked if I could recommend someone that could do the role, and there would be a finders fee. I looked the company up and on their website they do offer a finders fee, so I started contacting a few people from my past. I found a good match, and the bloke got the job.
The finders fee was not paid even though they had taken my bank details. I reminded them a few times but they just ignore me. My mate is still there after 2 years so they are still getting a nice monthly fee for me doing their job.
I have very specific skills in a niche product. An agency recently contacted me via linkedin as a large organisation needed a contractor with my skills but was struggling. I couldn't take the job.
At least 2 other people from the agency contacted me over the course of the next month. One asked if I could recommend someone that could do the role, and there would be a finders fee. I looked the company up and on their website they do offer a finders fee, so I started contacting a few people from my past. I found a good match, and the bloke got the job.
The finders fee was not paid even though they had taken my bank details. I reminded them a few times but they just ignore me. My mate is still there after 2 years so they are still getting a nice monthly fee for me doing their job.
AW111 said:
A good friend of mine was hired as a tester. On her first day of work she was told to use a particular piece of software, and she replied that she'd need a day or two to familiarise herself with said software.
To cut to the chase, the recruitment company had altered her CV without telling her, and added proficiency in said software.
She still has the job, recruitment company is now banned by her employer.
I believe they also managed to get the recruitment fees refunded, under threat of a lawsuit for false representation.
There must be some good recruiters, but there are definitely some cowboys out there.
Whilst doctoring CVs is wrong on all accounts, if the particular test software was so critical to the role, why did the hiring manager not ask any pertinent questions about it? I am no IT guy, but did they not explain the current environment/systems/processes and tools? Also, did the interviewee not ask as well? This sounds like a dud CV going into the mix but the process not being good enough to validate.To cut to the chase, the recruitment company had altered her CV without telling her, and added proficiency in said software
.She still has the job, recruitment company is now banned by her employer.
I believe they also managed to get the recruitment fees refunded, under threat of a lawsuit for false representation.
There must be some good recruiters, but there are definitely some cowboys out there.
bad company said:
alfie2244 said:
Judging by events this week ( 2 different agencies) I am starting to think more like this myself.
OH is semi retired but undertakes interim work.
Prepared to work away from home under 2 specific terms & conditions which are made clear at the outset. Majority of times initial contacts are made by the agencies via Linkedin or finding her CV somewhere.
Agency 1. Min rate to work away from home discussed / agreed - CV sent to client - phone interview - job offer with start date - contract arrives...... rate circa 30% less than agreed ........client confirms original, higher, rate was never offered to agency from the outset!!!
Agency 2. Similar scenario but agency agreed a max of 4 days only ( 3 nights) but happy to work extra hours over 4 days or just be paid for 4 days - client offers position ....start date agreed - client informs they want on site presence 5 full days a week and not been informed otherwise by agency!!!!
I was never involved with this type of work but I will say that employers often 'try it on' or blame the agency when it was actually their own fault.OH is semi retired but undertakes interim work.
Prepared to work away from home under 2 specific terms & conditions which are made clear at the outset. Majority of times initial contacts are made by the agencies via Linkedin or finding her CV somewhere.
Agency 1. Min rate to work away from home discussed / agreed - CV sent to client - phone interview - job offer with start date - contract arrives...... rate circa 30% less than agreed ........client confirms original, higher, rate was never offered to agency from the outset!!!
Agency 2. Similar scenario but agency agreed a max of 4 days only ( 3 nights) but happy to work extra hours over 4 days or just be paid for 4 days - client offers position ....start date agreed - client informs they want on site presence 5 full days a week and not been informed otherwise by agency!!!!
Edited by alfie2244 on Tuesday 25th October 23:56
How do you know it was the agency telling lies?
2. More a failing than a lie perhaps - Same agency she had just completed a 1 yr contract under the same terms (without issue) but a different regional office - A complete waste of everybody's time and H/O not impressed.
Gargamel said:
The process of matching talent to opportunity hasn't fundamentally changed.
Clients are their own worst enemy, they don't plan, that want the entire shopping list of the Jon Description and the recruiters have to get it exactly to guarantee the fee.
Having done a fair bit of recruitment for my own teams and on behalf of others, both within the same organisation and as an external consultant, I'd say these are the salient points. The two parts that many companies cannot separate are relevant experience, and time in the industry. Most will want someone with XX years experience in ZZ industry, as if skills are not transferable. No matter how many times it's discussed, these two are almost always linked in the employer's mind.Clients are their own worst enemy, they don't plan, that want the entire shopping list of the Jon Description and the recruiters have to get it exactly to guarantee the fee.
Many posts filled through personal recommendations. My own experience of being recruited is that this works very well - haven't answered a job ad in 12 years. And whilst I'm no headhunter, this is how I try to fill positions for others - an ad on Seek or elsewhere is the last resort. If you're relying on job ads, you need to work on your connections.
edc said:
Whilst doctoring CVs is wrong on all accounts, if the particular test software was so critical to the role, why did the hiring manager not ask any pertinent questions about it? I am no IT guy, but did they not explain the current environment/systems/processes and tools? Also, did the interviewee not ask as well? This sounds like a dud CV going into the mix but the process not being good enough to validate.
My friend was up and flying with the client's specific software in a short space of time (she's very smart, and the best tester I've ever worked with). The issue is that the recruiter never contacted her to ask, just added a lie to her CV to get the placement.edc said:
Whilst doctoring CVs is wrong on all accounts,
That depends on how you define 'doctoring'. We used to alter CV's so that they were all in our house style which enabled the hiring manager to easily identify relevant information. We would also highlight skills & experience relevant to the job. I would emphasis that we would highlight or bring to the front information that was already there- not add anything.edc said:
Whilst doctoring CVs is wrong on all accounts, if the particular test software was so critical to the role, why did the hiring manager not ask any pertinent questions about it? I am no IT guy, but did they not explain the current environment/systems/processes and tools? Also, did the interviewee not ask as well? This sounds like a dud CV going into the mix but the process not being good enough to validate.
To give you an example of why "doctoring" CVs is annoying; when we recruit Finance staff there's a basic/minimum level of experience/skills they require and then lots of additional "nice to have". When we're shortlisting for interview they are more likely to be selected if they have more of the "nice to have" items. Quite a few times we've invited people in because they (apparently) have "SAP experience" or "advanced Excel". It's only when you question them at interview that you find they've used Oracle "which they think is similar to SAP" or that "advanced Excel" is drawing charts or using SUM
It basically means a wasted interview slot. There are some good agencies out there but (IME) most of them are just failed estate agents.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff