Thinking back on my still active recruitment career, I am puzzled by a
number of things which constantly occur both with candidates and with hiring
companies. I thought I would share this list
with my readers. These are in no
particular order.
1)
Why companies tell recruiters that they are in
a hurry, but obviously are not
All too often, I have received panicked calls
from clients begging me to work over
the weekend to find someone. After
working over the weekend and finding appropriate candidates, when I call or
email on Monday or Tuesday, the client doesn’t respond until Friday. And when they do respond, it may take a week
or two to set up the first round of interviews.
Huh?
2)
Candidates
who don’t tell their recruiters that they have accepted an offer
Every
recruiter knows this one: you interview
a candidate and call them a week later (or a month or six months, doesn’t
matter) with an opportunity only to find out that they have already accepted a
job and did not tell you. It is rude and it makes for a lot of wasted time.
3)
Clients who
give assignments and then don’t return recruiter’s calls or emails
Weird,
right? Happens all the time. It has even
happened to me once on a retained search after I have been paid.
4)
Candidates
who don’t return calls
People who
say they are desperate to leave their jobs and when they are called with an
opportunity, simply don’t call back.
When a recruiter calls, the call should always be returned – you never
know if it will make you rich or famous.
I have actually had candidates tell me that they are on a business trip
and couldn’t call. No excuse, still rude.
5)
Candidates
and clients who cut recruiters out of the negotiating process
One
assumes it is because there is some lack of trust, but if you don’t trust your
recruiters, don’t use them. So often, after
the fact, I have seen offer letters which are just plain bad and not what the
candidate was told, but the candidate didn’t know to show it to me or to tell me about the offer. Very often, I have had clients who would not
send me a copy of an offer letter, telling me it was between them and the
candidate. Figure that out.
6)
Clients who
will not give job information to their recruiters
So often
clients will not give specific information on a job search; instead, they provide a generic job description. In advertising and marketing, sometimes they
will not tell me what the product is or why the job is open or what the issues
are. How can a recruiter be effective
with no information? And again, trust.
7)
Clients who
will not give recruiters accurate feedback after an interview
Talking in generalities, which often happens,
like, “Not a match,” or, “Not a good fit.” doesn’t help them move the search forward. I always
say to reluctant clients that if they tell me, “too tall, too short, too thin,
too fat,” it provides good direction for the search. And not being able to give feedback to the candidate is unfair and, frankly, unprofessional of the company.
8)
Candidates
who don’t or won’t give recruiters complete information on their jobs
It is
important for recruiters to know about the jobs they place people in. It not only helps for future searches, but in
many cases, an effective recruiter can give the company necessary feedback and
resolve problems. If a person does not like a job or it is not what was originally described, it is important that their recruiter know.
9)
Recruiters
who are not involved with the process
Years ago,
when I was an account person, I had a recruiter introduce me to a company. He told me to make an appointment and gave no
further information. In fact, he told me
to call him if and when I got an offer, but was not interested in any
feedback. That means the recruiter is only doing a small part of his or her job. I don't understand why companies accept that kind of behavior from their recruiters..
10) Candidates and clients who grade recruiters
on the number of send-outs
Especially
now, with the internet, the quality of interviews far out-weighs the
quantity. I have always sent a limited
number of people. I once had a client
tell me they wouldn’t use me because I sent too few candidates. I have had candidates tell me the same thing
(my response is the same to both: how many of those jobs did you get offered or
how many of those people did you hire?).
I will never just send bodies to up my odds and I don't understand why companies tolerate that from their suppliers.
11) Clients
who give salary requirements and then offer candidates jobs that are either at
the bottom end or below
I have
been trying to figure this out for years. The candidate who is making $160k and
interviewing on a job that was specked at $160-175k who is offered $150 or
$160k. And then the client is surprised
that the candidate turns the job down.
Good list. Number 10 especially! As a hiring manager I am annoyed when I receive volume over quality.
ReplyDeleteIt happens for two possible reasons: First, HR (or the hiring manager) has not given good specs or does not understand the job or they are using recruiters who don't understand the company, the job or the specs, so they just send.
DeleteIn the end it’s all about “casting”. Male or female; married or single; younger or older; tall or short; Armani or Target; great looking or ordinary; golf and tennis or bowling; Del Frisco or Olive Garden. Not to forget, employed or unemployed. The list goes on. Because in the recruiting business, perception is reality (until it’s not).
ReplyDeleteOne thing I think is a more recent factor to your list is the demise of HR, which I know you have written about. Now it's much likely that the onus is on the account/strategy/creative team leaders to interface with recruiters, write the specs and JD, schedule the interviewing, and perform the negotiations. That's of course in addition their regular responsibilities leading increasingly lean teams. So agencies wind up handling recruiting in between meetings and after hours, and therefore aren't committing full and due time or attention.
ReplyDeleteHarry, I can only tell you that when recruiters were dealing directly with account groups - back in the 1980s and before - recruiting was faster and easier on both sides. It was all based on relationships and they made for much more efficient recruiting.
Delete