Question for agency recruiters
Discussion
If you have put forward a candidate for a vacancy, and the company simply come back with a "no didn't like the applicant" with little or no reason.
Do recruiters at agencies make stuff up!! I know companies do regarding feedback as you rarely get anything constructive. But do recruiters do the same? If the company simply pass on they did not want to employ them for no real reason.
I had an experience recently when apparently I failed a trade test on a skill that is second nature to me after doing it for decades and I have never failed before.
And also was informed they did not like the fact I had done lots of temp contracts over the years. Could that even be suggested as mildly discriminatory? Especially considering it was barely raised in interview!!
The contract thing is fair enough, some firms don't like to see that I know, but to use that as an excuse when the reason why seeking a perm position were fully explained seems made up!!
Do recruiters at agencies make stuff up!! I know companies do regarding feedback as you rarely get anything constructive. But do recruiters do the same? If the company simply pass on they did not want to employ them for no real reason.
I had an experience recently when apparently I failed a trade test on a skill that is second nature to me after doing it for decades and I have never failed before.
And also was informed they did not like the fact I had done lots of temp contracts over the years. Could that even be suggested as mildly discriminatory? Especially considering it was barely raised in interview!!
The contract thing is fair enough, some firms don't like to see that I know, but to use that as an excuse when the reason why seeking a perm position were fully explained seems made up!!
I've never had any dealings with a recruitment company personally, however my partner has with the industry she works in.
They sound like a bunch of total idiots & IMO although they make out like they're working for their 'clients', they're mainly just in it for themselves.
My partner had a positive experience when being placed in her current role, however, since deciding she wanted to move on, the other recruitment consultants she's dealt with, despite being able to talk the talk, don't seem to have a clue what they're doing.
They sound like a bunch of total idiots & IMO although they make out like they're working for their 'clients', they're mainly just in it for themselves.
My partner had a positive experience when being placed in her current role, however, since deciding she wanted to move on, the other recruitment consultants she's dealt with, despite being able to talk the talk, don't seem to have a clue what they're doing.
I take everything recruitment agents say with a pinch of salt. I've had the opposite to you RE contract work - I came out of uni and straight into perm employment and stayed with the same company for 10 years, with a constant progression up the ranks. I interviewed somewhere a few weeks ago and this is what the recruiter said to me when she told me they weren't taking the application further; number 1 I'm okay with, 2 is a bit short-sighted but number 3 left me speechless!
1) They had other candidates better fitting the profile - no issue with this what-so-ever, it's the way things go and despite it being a good interview, I would agree they were looking for someone with a different skill set.
2) They didn't like the fact I had only been with one employer for my professional career, apparently it showed lack of motivation and aggression for personal development - don't agree with this at all given how much I developed with my employer and I enjoyed the job, but whatever, different company cultures etc.
3) I failed to show passion for using Microsoft Excel
I mean WTF it's a tool of the job! Interviewer asked if I was comfortable/proficient using it and I said yes, used it all the time in my previous role and knew my way around it plus some advanced functions. Not sure exactly what they were supposedly looking for if they wanted someone with deep passion for it!
Pretty sure the employer gave them #1 and the recruiter just made up 2 and 3.
1) They had other candidates better fitting the profile - no issue with this what-so-ever, it's the way things go and despite it being a good interview, I would agree they were looking for someone with a different skill set.
2) They didn't like the fact I had only been with one employer for my professional career, apparently it showed lack of motivation and aggression for personal development - don't agree with this at all given how much I developed with my employer and I enjoyed the job, but whatever, different company cultures etc.
3) I failed to show passion for using Microsoft Excel
I mean WTF it's a tool of the job! Interviewer asked if I was comfortable/proficient using it and I said yes, used it all the time in my previous role and knew my way around it plus some advanced functions. Not sure exactly what they were supposedly looking for if they wanted someone with deep passion for it!Pretty sure the employer gave them #1 and the recruiter just made up 2 and 3.
Interesting, I have used them for a long time and find the high street ones are utterly useless
The specialist roles like IT or engineering are a lot better as invariably the people working there are ex that actual industry.
But I a, fairly sure most of what this guy told me was hogwash!!
The specialist roles like IT or engineering are a lot better as invariably the people working there are ex that actual industry.
But I a, fairly sure most of what this guy told me was hogwash!!
Do recruiter make thing up. I that the question ?
Yes.
But when in comes to interview feedback, very little is actually helpful. Some is factual. Some Clients lie, some people can’t handle feedback.
No it isn’t discriminatory to not hire one one with a s
t ton of contracting on their CV. Some employers interpret it that no one in any of those contracts felt like offering you a perm job. Other that it is a sign of a mercenary. Give me my day rate, no loyalty and no discretionary effort or interest in a career.
Right or wrong, many employers will feel like that when they have a perm role, and a contract candidate.
What usually happens is in four or five interviews, poor interviewers will ‘go with their gut feel’. Then the need to explain why, and they can’t - so they either give no feedback, or they say stupid st.
Yes.
But when in comes to interview feedback, very little is actually helpful. Some is factual. Some Clients lie, some people can’t handle feedback.
No it isn’t discriminatory to not hire one one with a s
t ton of contracting on their CV. Some employers interpret it that no one in any of those contracts felt like offering you a perm job. Other that it is a sign of a mercenary. Give me my day rate, no loyalty and no discretionary effort or interest in a career. Right or wrong, many employers will feel like that when they have a perm role, and a contract candidate.
What usually happens is in four or five interviews, poor interviewers will ‘go with their gut feel’. Then the need to explain why, and they can’t - so they either give no feedback, or they say stupid s
t. Interesting outlook.
I would gave thought, as an interviewer, if you felt an apoplicant was a mercenary you could ask that question in a way.
My answer was that the contracts I sued to do were long term, well paid and in the field I knoew well, plus having security clearance often held the door open. Then went on to explain why I now wanted a perm contract, with reasons to back it up.
SO this was either interpreted wrongly or the recruiter made up some nonsense.
The trade test could have been the nail, it is a skill I have done for years and been tested for hundreds of times and never failed, so that would be odd.
Not overly fussed, but when you feel good after interview, it's often a bit confusing to find out it's a no!
And on here there must be some people who have worked in the aggressive and rather pushy world of selling people!!
I would gave thought, as an interviewer, if you felt an apoplicant was a mercenary you could ask that question in a way.
My answer was that the contracts I sued to do were long term, well paid and in the field I knoew well, plus having security clearance often held the door open. Then went on to explain why I now wanted a perm contract, with reasons to back it up.
SO this was either interpreted wrongly or the recruiter made up some nonsense.
The trade test could have been the nail, it is a skill I have done for years and been tested for hundreds of times and never failed, so that would be odd.
Not overly fussed, but when you feel good after interview, it's often a bit confusing to find out it's a no!
And on here there must be some people who have worked in the aggressive and rather pushy world of selling people!!
I can understand some of the views in here, but I can talk from the other side of the fence as it were.
We are lucky here that a good majority have a decent understanding, character assessment and personalities that they deal with on both client and candidate aspects.
Some of the things that clients say definitely CANNOT be said to a candidate though (yes and I have heard some consultants have to explain politely to clients that their requirements are NOT possible).
We are lucky here that a good majority have a decent understanding, character assessment and personalities that they deal with on both client and candidate aspects.
Some of the things that clients say definitely CANNOT be said to a candidate though (yes and I have heard some consultants have to explain politely to clients that their requirements are NOT possible).
Employers often still like to recruit people like themselves. I owned and managed a specialist legal recruitment firm for 23 years before selling.
Some law firms were blatantly racist and refused to recruit black solicitors, several Jewish firms liked candidates ‘of the faith. Most common was firms preferring younger lawyers for succession. All of this was of course illegal and couldn’t be explained to candidates.
Some law firms were blatantly racist and refused to recruit black solicitors, several Jewish firms liked candidates ‘of the faith. Most common was firms preferring younger lawyers for succession. All of this was of course illegal and couldn’t be explained to candidates.
parabolica said:
I take everything recruitment agents say with a pinch of salt. I've had the opposite to you RE contract work - I came out of uni and straight into perm employment and stayed with the same company for 10 years, with a constant progression up the ranks. I interviewed somewhere a few weeks ago and this is what the recruiter said to me when she told me they weren't taking the application further; number 1 I'm okay with, 2 is a bit short-sighted but number 3 left me speechless!
1) They had other candidates better fitting the profile - no issue with this what-so-ever, it's the way things go and despite it being a good interview, I would agree they were looking for someone with a different skill set.
2) They didn't like the fact I had only been with one employer for my professional career, apparently it showed lack of motivation and aggression for personal development - don't agree with this at all given how much I developed with my employer and I enjoyed the job, but whatever, different company cultures etc.
3) I failed to show passion for using Microsoft Excel I mean WTF it's a tool of the job! Interviewer asked if I was comfortable/proficient using it and I said yes, used it all the time in my previous role and knew my way around it plus some advanced functions. Not sure exactly what they were supposedly looking for if they wanted someone with deep passion for it!
Pretty sure the employer gave them #1 and the recruiter just made up 2 and 3.
Number 2 really annoys me. I have had several interviews (not via agencies) who have rejected me as I “haven’t worked for many companies.” They knew where I’d worked before the interview from my CV, and why is loyalty a bad thing? Employers also dislike job hoppers so there’s always an excuse to reject someone. 1) They had other candidates better fitting the profile - no issue with this what-so-ever, it's the way things go and despite it being a good interview, I would agree they were looking for someone with a different skill set.
2) They didn't like the fact I had only been with one employer for my professional career, apparently it showed lack of motivation and aggression for personal development - don't agree with this at all given how much I developed with my employer and I enjoyed the job, but whatever, different company cultures etc.
3) I failed to show passion for using Microsoft Excel
I mean WTF it's a tool of the job! Interviewer asked if I was comfortable/proficient using it and I said yes, used it all the time in my previous role and knew my way around it plus some advanced functions. Not sure exactly what they were supposedly looking for if they wanted someone with deep passion for it!Pretty sure the employer gave them #1 and the recruiter just made up 2 and 3.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff