What's Changed In Recruitment?
Discussion
I met a chap socially the other night, who called himself a Placement Executive, or something. I'd have called him a Recruitment Consultant.
Anyway, he was saying that he had up to 200 candidates on his books at any one time and had never met more than about a dozen of them. Anecdotally, I've heard people say that it's almost impossible to get any feedback from or contact with a recruiter.
In the olden days, the candidate was the commodity that was being sold, and the consultant took an interest in each candidate, advised, and tried to fit them into the right job. Is is just a sausage machine these days? And if so, why? It can't just be because there are so many more people job hunting than there were 20 years ago, surely?
Do any recruitment consultants still treat candidates and clients with respect?
Anyway, he was saying that he had up to 200 candidates on his books at any one time and had never met more than about a dozen of them. Anecdotally, I've heard people say that it's almost impossible to get any feedback from or contact with a recruiter.
In the olden days, the candidate was the commodity that was being sold, and the consultant took an interest in each candidate, advised, and tried to fit them into the right job. Is is just a sausage machine these days? And if so, why? It can't just be because there are so many more people job hunting than there were 20 years ago, surely?
Do any recruitment consultants still treat candidates and clients with respect?
Doofus said:
<snip>
Anyway, he was saying that he had up to 200 candidates on his books at any one time and had never met more than about a dozen of them. Anecdotally, I've heard people say that it's almost impossible to get any feedback from or contact with a recruiter.
This seems to be the norm these days - get as many candidates on the books as possible, so they can spam companies with CVs.Anyway, he was saying that he had up to 200 candidates on his books at any one time and had never met more than about a dozen of them. Anecdotally, I've heard people say that it's almost impossible to get any feedback from or contact with a recruiter.
Doofus said:
In the olden days, the candidate was the commodity that was being sold, and the consultant took an interest in each candidate, advised, and tried to fit them into the right job. Is is just a sausage machine these days?
IMHO, yes, it is just a sausage machine now - all about the money, money, money...Doofus said:
And if so, why?
See above, re: money.Doofus said:
It can't just be because there are so many more people job hunting than there were 20 years ago, surely?
I think more companies are using recruitment agencies now than perhaps 20 years ago.Doofus said:
Do any recruitment consultants still treat candidates and clients with respect?
In my experience over the past 8 years or so - no.However there are still some good, genuine recruiters out there, but they mostly seem to be small one person agencies.
A few years back - I applied for a job via an agency.
Later that day, my boss was spammed with CVs (for my job!!) from the recruiter I spoke to. That is grossly unprofessional in my opinion.
I have even received my own (anonymized) CV in a mailshot from an agency, not even only once!!
The bottom line is, seemingly most of the bigger agencies collect CVs by advertising fake jobs, or jobs with companies they have no mandate to act for.
I have lost out on several opportunities over the years, due to agency "A" submitting my CV to company "X", and then I have had a call from agency "B" (who had a genuine *sole* mandate to act on behalf of company "X") - but because Agency "A" had already submitted my CV, my application could be taken no further.
You will always find liars and bulls
tters where there is money to made sadly.In my experience, the candidate finds a role they are interested online and applies. The recruitment consultant does the initial filtering to ensure you're not a complete numpty before forwarding on your CV to the company. After that the recruitment consultant acts as a middleman arranging interviews, passing on offers and so on.
Recruitment consultants might build a pool of candidates, but in reality all vacancies are advertised online so as a candidate you have access to the whole market, whereas the recruitment consultant only has access to the roles being advertised by their consultancy.
I would never contact a recruitment consultant prospectively only if they were advertising a specific role I was interested in.
Recruitment consultants might build a pool of candidates, but in reality all vacancies are advertised online so as a candidate you have access to the whole market, whereas the recruitment consultant only has access to the roles being advertised by their consultancy.
I would never contact a recruitment consultant prospectively only if they were advertising a specific role I was interested in.
A very good friend runs a specialist recruitment firm. He did this previously, made a lot of money and sold up in 2008. He started again after the 5 years exclusion clause but has found a very different environment.
He's says he's an un-paid salary negotiator. He'll find someone suitable, vet them, assess and test, placing the best person in front of the client who offers the job; only for the candidate to be offered a better deal by their current employer whereupon they decide to stay put.
It's thus forcing him to widen the pool of candidates which is not something he's naturally keen to do and never had to previously.
He's says he's an un-paid salary negotiator. He'll find someone suitable, vet them, assess and test, placing the best person in front of the client who offers the job; only for the candidate to be offered a better deal by their current employer whereupon they decide to stay put.
It's thus forcing him to widen the pool of candidates which is not something he's naturally keen to do and never had to previously.
Feedback from a recruiter? – forget it, if you want feedback; ask the person who interviewed you. I have interviewed well over 200 people previously. I’ve been asked for feedback twice in that time, and been more than happy to provide it.
I have met a few recruiters when they come in to work and schmooze their talents to the company I’m currently at. They are mostly the sort where you have to check your watch after shaking their hands. I have told more than a few to stop contacting me with CVs when they have no idea of the role requirements.
“Precision engineering experience, controls or pressure rated equipment who can do classical stress hand calcs. If they can do Solidworks to some competence – great.
A CV arrives from someone who has only ever designed furniture and shop fittings. Tw@t face at the agency just heard Solidworks and sent through the first CV he had with Solidworks on it. The actual experience required was irrelevant, because he had no idea what I was talking about. This is very common – in fact it’s the default.
Recruiters are all about getting CVs in front of clients and that’s it, they don’t care about the morals of what they do - it’s all about the commission.
30 years ago, there used to be a sheet of paper handed round design offices with a list of all the UK contract agencies on it and contact details. 47 in total. How many are there today?
Back then, many of these people would have at least 50 contractors in work on their books, so 10% was the maximum they would take. The odd cheeky beggar would try and take 15%. Now they walk away from a job, if it’s less than 25%, as it isn’t worth it, as many of the recruitment people have only a few people placed.
Usually its a profoundly inept HR department that is the main cause of the problem.
I have met a few recruiters when they come in to work and schmooze their talents to the company I’m currently at. They are mostly the sort where you have to check your watch after shaking their hands. I have told more than a few to stop contacting me with CVs when they have no idea of the role requirements.
“Precision engineering experience, controls or pressure rated equipment who can do classical stress hand calcs. If they can do Solidworks to some competence – great.
A CV arrives from someone who has only ever designed furniture and shop fittings. Tw@t face at the agency just heard Solidworks and sent through the first CV he had with Solidworks on it. The actual experience required was irrelevant, because he had no idea what I was talking about. This is very common – in fact it’s the default.
Recruiters are all about getting CVs in front of clients and that’s it, they don’t care about the morals of what they do - it’s all about the commission.
30 years ago, there used to be a sheet of paper handed round design offices with a list of all the UK contract agencies on it and contact details. 47 in total. How many are there today?
Back then, many of these people would have at least 50 contractors in work on their books, so 10% was the maximum they would take. The odd cheeky beggar would try and take 15%. Now they walk away from a job, if it’s less than 25%, as it isn’t worth it, as many of the recruitment people have only a few people placed.
Usually its a profoundly inept HR department that is the main cause of the problem.
I used to work in an engineering design office where there were 22 engineers, only two staff (me and "Dan the staff man"). The head engineer was also an agent for about 15 of the remaining 20, basically he picked up contractors CV as as he moved around he took his "team" with him, making 50% more than his contract rate through his contract agency. Needless to say the last ten years until his retirement he has been staffy as the world changed and was known as "Dan2 the staff man too". His name was Graham!
CzechItOut said:
............... but in reality all vacancies are advertised online ....................
.
This is not correct. Perhaps it is at the more senior end of the market but a number of roles are not advertised..
In fact some of the upper echelons of "recruiters" cannot even be found on the internet, even in this day and age! They network and smooch with key power people and have hiring/firing knowledge of a business that even many managers do not know.
On the topic of RCs - so many liars, cheats, charlatans and scammers it is unbelievable.
Sadly, think that even cattle are treated better than some people seeking new roles - because so many RCS are just dire.
There still exist some consummate professional RCs but are generally at the sole or small agencies.
bad company said:
I’m amazed that the recruiters are apparently mostly st st their jobs but successful,
Now why would that be?
I started my agency in 1989 & sold in 2012. Perhaps we were also st?
I was waiting for 'bad company' to chime in - always defending the industry.t st their jobs but successful,Now why would that be?
I started my agency in 1989 & sold in 2012. Perhaps we were also s
t? @bad company - so you sold up in 2012...
In my experience, things began to go wrong with agencies around 2008 or so - and maybe - just maybe - yours was one of the better* agencies perhaps?
Either way - each time we have one of these topics on here - the same issues arise again and again, from multiple people - proof (if proof were needed) that the industry is in dire need of an overhaul, and perhaps some form of regulation.
The Job Centre website on gov.uk used to be a brilliant source of local jobs, until it was sold out to Monster (I think Monster) and now it's just full of crap.
Small companies simply don't use it any more.
- as I and others have stated above - there are still some good agencies out there - however they tend to be small agencies, often run by one or two people.
bad company said:
I’m amazed that the recruiters are apparently mostly st st their jobs but successful,
Two reasons, I would suggest:t st their jobs but successful,1) The vast majority of recruiters are, in fact, not successful. That can be evidenced by the fact that most recruiters are in their early 20s and move on from the job after a couple of years.
2) Those recruiters who deem themselves successful are using a different metric than the rest of us. A recruiter who spams their contacts with huge numbers of CVs and manages to place a small %age may well consider themselves to be successful, as they've made a fair bit of money. For the vast majority of their clients however they are just a pain in the arse.
deckster said:
bad company said:
I’m amazed that the recruiters are apparently mostly st st their jobs but successful,
Two reasons, I would suggest:t st their jobs but successful,1) The vast majority of recruiters are, in fact, not successful. That can be evidenced by the fact that most recruiters are in their early 20s and move on from the job after a couple of years.
2) Those recruiters who deem themselves successful are using a different metric than the rest of us. A recruiter who spams their contacts with huge numbers of CVs and manages to place a small %age may well consider themselves to be successful, as they've made a fair bit of money. For the vast majority of their clients however they are just a pain in the arse.
2). ‘Spamming’ CV’s is not effective as clients get fed and stop reading them. A more targeted approach is best. I used to say to my team use a rifle not a shotgun.
TonyRPH said:
I was waiting for 'bad company' to chime in - always defending the industry.
@bad company - so you sold up in 2012...
In my experience, things began to go wrong with agencies around 2008 or so - and maybe - just maybe - yours was one of the better* agencies perhaps?
Either way - each time we have one of these topics on here - the same issues arise again and again, from multiple people - proof (if proof were needed) that the industry is in dire need of an overhaul, and perhaps some form of regulation.
The Job Centre website on gov.uk used to be a brilliant source of local jobs, until it was sold out to Monster (I think Monster) and now it's just full of crap.
Small companies simply don't use it any more.
Yet the industry continues to grow with more agencies opening (a lot of those won’t be around long).@bad company - so you sold up in 2012...
In my experience, things began to go wrong with agencies around 2008 or so - and maybe - just maybe - yours was one of the better* agencies perhaps?
Either way - each time we have one of these topics on here - the same issues arise again and again, from multiple people - proof (if proof were needed) that the industry is in dire need of an overhaul, and perhaps some form of regulation.
The Job Centre website on gov.uk used to be a brilliant source of local jobs, until it was sold out to Monster (I think Monster) and now it's just full of crap.
Small companies simply don't use it any more.
- as I and others have stated above - there are still some good agencies out there - however they tend to be small agencies, often run by one or two people.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.recruitment-int...
Badda said:
Why does ‘successful’ equate to ‘good at their jobs’?
You know full well that you can make decent returns in recruitment and not work in the best interest of your clients OR candidates!
No I don’t know that. Recruitment firms get paid on successful placements. They can’t force ‘square pegs into round holes’.You know full well that you can make decent returns in recruitment and not work in the best interest of your clients OR candidates!
Successful placements happen when a worker accepts a job with a client. That only happens if BOTH are happy.
bad company said:
Badda said:
Why does ‘successful’ equate to ‘good at their jobs’?
You know full well that you can make decent returns in recruitment and not work in the best interest of your clients OR candidates!
No I don’t know that. Recruitment firms get paid on successful placements. They can’t force ‘square pegs into round holes’.You know full well that you can make decent returns in recruitment and not work in the best interest of your clients OR candidates!
Successful placements happen when a worker accepts a job with a client. That only happens if BOTH are happy.
I could name half a dozen well known IT recruiters from the early 2000s who were financially successful but had awful reputations.
bad company said:
Yet the industry continues to grow with more agencies opening (a lot of those won’t be around long).
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.recruitment-int...
Yes, the industry is experiencing growth, simply because for several years now, it's been promoted as a quick way to earn decent money.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.recruitment-int...
In other words, rather than attracting people who have a genuine interest in human relations and recruitment, it's attracted the 'get rich quick' types with ZERO interest in the profession (and I use the term profession lightly...).
Like I've said in these debates previously, there are the genuine people out there who aim to find the best candidate for the business they are recruiting for - and likewise - they also have good knowledge of the profession they are recruiting for.
However there are many, many recruiters out there who specialise in keyword matching of CV to job spec, and this is where the industry falls down.
Badda said:
So any practice that’s used to get a placement is justified because a successful placement means you’re good at your job? That is simply not true and thought processes and arrogance like that are the scourge of the industry.
I could name half a dozen well known IT recruiters from the early 2000s who were financially successful but had awful reputations.
What practices you’ve seen used to get placements are unjustified? I’d like to understand exactly what you’re referring to.I could name half a dozen well known IT recruiters from the early 2000s who were financially successful but had awful reputations.
Perhaps you could explain how a recruiter with an awful reputation made money? He had to have made good placements to do so.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff