For years, I have wondered why a good client would suddenly turn on a recruiter who they had been working with for years. There was no explanation given for the company's unnecessary and sleazy behavior.
A few years ago, I placed someone at a major ad agency. It was an agency I had done successful business with for years. As you might know, most recruiters guarantee
their candidates for 90 days (an absurd but necessary thing). About sixty or seventy days in to the job,
the human resources director called me to tell me it was not working out, but she
was non-specific. I told her I would get
to work on the replacement. The HR
person told me to hold up, that they were trying to make it work, but that she would get back to me before 90 days.
At about the 90 day mark, I called and she told me that they
were still trying to work it out. About a
month later, I called again. I would have been willing to find another
candidate, even though we were now into the fourth or fifth month, because this
was a good client. She again told me that they
were not ready yet. I once again asked what
the issue was but the HR person merely told me that it just wasn’t a good match
– which hardly gives me direction to re-start the search.
At that point, I simply forgot about it since, obviously,
they could not have been that
dissatisfied.
After about a year, and many other placements at the same ad
agency, the HR director called and asked me to replace the candidate. He was still working there but they had put
him on another account. I replied that
she had to be kidding, it was about a year.
Her response to me was that she informed me before the 90th
day that they were unhappy and therefore I was responsible to replace the
candidate. I told her that I could no
longer honor the agreement since it had been too long and the candidate was
still employed by them. (My contracts
are very clear that they only cover a candidate leaving a company.)
What followed was a torrent of cursing and insults in order
to try to get me to replace the candidate at no charge to the company. I
explained that a placement made on contingency was essentially a double guarantee. First, the recruiter does not get paid for
any work and time unless and until they place someone, despite, perhaps, hours of
work. Second, a recruiter has to hold
his or her breath hoping that the company and the managers who the candidate
works for are nice enough that the candidate stays (mostly, that isn’t a
problem). In this case the candidate was
still there and I should not be responsible to replace him.
I lost the account until the HR person left the company about a year later.
Hey Paul … Since you’ve always claimed to represent the best interests of both “The Client” AND “The Candidate”, I’m surprised that you didn’t just call the guy you “placed” to let him know he was in trouble; gain some insights; and help him fix it? HR obviously wasn’t very forthcoming, so what would you have to lose? I already know the answer, but just curious to see what you’ll say.
ReplyDeleteRecruiters know a lot, both good and bad, about their clients and candidates. Breaking the bond of trust should be unthinkable. And until you just wrote it, it never crossed my mind.
DeletePaul, If I were the client, I would not be happy if the recruiter spoke to the candidate and told them that their position was in trouble. It breaks the confidence and confidentiality with the client and jeopardizes the entire relationship - between recruiter and client, and client and candidate.
DeleteAs there could be various reasons why the client may not want this information revealed. For example, the company could be trying to decide if this was a bad hire, bad fit or if there is a different internal issue that they are trying to work out because this candidate is a good hire/fit and needs to report to someone else.
Now that's not to say that the recruiter can't call to "check in" with the candidate to get their perspective on how things are going, without breaking any confidences with the client.
Thanks, Hillary. Well said.
Deletethe recruiter works for the company. of course good recruiters try to help the candidate. but if the company confides in the recruiter that they have a problem with the candidate, most recruiters will not tell the candidate. if the candidate confides in the recruiter that they have a problem with the company, most recruiters will tell the company. why? because the company pays the bills. it's impossible to treat two related parties the best when only one of them is paying you, and this is but one example of the conflicts of interest in any relationship which has the same difficult math.
ReplyDeleteWrong. A recruiter does work for the company. But he/she has to do a good job for the candidate. That requires a good deal of confidentiality. On the few occasions when the candidate has had a problem with the company, I have never and would never discuss it with the company unless the candidste asked me to. I would cancel the candidate on how to handle the situation. Sometimes if the problem is a very bad boss,I will call human resources to determine what they know about the situation without being specific. With these actions, I can often resolve the situation.
DeleteWrong. A recruiter does work for the company. But he/she has to do a good job for the candidate. That requires a good deal of confidentiality. On the few occasions when the candidate has had a problem with the company, I have never and would never discuss it with the company unless the candidste asked me to. I would cancel the candidate on how to handle the situation. Sometimes if the problem is a very bad boss,I will call human resources to determine what they know about the situation without being specific. With these actions, I can often resolve the situation.
Delete