Educating Recruiters: The Recruiter’s POV #jobs #career
If you are a recruiter reading this this is not an indictment of your profession, but a guide for your clients.
After my article Educating Recruiters: Gatekeepers to the HR gatekeepers I was not asked to clarify, nor was I put in my place. Julie Holmwood wrote a well augmented piece noting the omission and posted the recruiters point of view.
We [recruiters] get limited opportunities with a client to ‘impress them’. Sending CVs of candidates that can do the job but don’t match the spec mean that our lifespan with that client is likely to be coming to an abrupt end.
This is a serious issue, for our clients. (The recruiter and you have the same clients!) In the short term the client must be convinced that the product must be able to perform the task that the client requires, with in the terms the client has set. This means that a recruiters need to have a good match, but the client is the final judge, so to pass the client’s gatekeeper the client must be a paper match too.
You would be astounded to know how many candidates send brilliant emails stating that they can do specific jobs standing on their head and then attach a CV that doesn’t mention any relevant experience at all.
I’m not easily surprised, but I have been in charge of processing resumes that people send to companies, so I know how bad it can be. This is why it is so important to not just have a generalized resume that you send using the buckshot approach. For each position you apply for a custom resume is as important as a cover letter. And where a resume is broad it is the task of a cover letter to highlight the specificity of the match.
If you have already contacted a company within the last twelve months then there is no way we can represent you with that company. Typically a company’s terms state that candidates belong to an introducer for twelve months. Hence if you introduced yourself to them and we then reintroduced you they would say ‘we already know him’ and would discount you from our submission list. Part of our remit is to speak with candidates about the client as well as the role and re-submitting a candidate they know is another black mark against us and something we are typically briefed by the client not to do. Of course, there are always candidates that don’t tell us. In my experience it doesn’t do the candidate any favours and they are still discounted from our submissions.
This is a matter of contract law, and although this is a point of note for the recruiter a candidate should ignore this in my opinion. (Sorry Julie!) When a candidate is refused by a customer this could be for a completely different reason, it could just be that he/she is not a good match for the position. Case in point is when I was asked by a management recruiters to be a candidate for a consultant Business Analyst for a large Dutch ISP, the ISP felt I didn’t have the marketing experience for the position. Two months later when they needed a consultant role to advise the Business Analyst the HR department didn’t make an issue of the fact that I had applied previously for a different role.
Should a candidate continue to directly approach Company A time and again for different positions that they feel they are qualified to do. If they want to work for Company A then yes, absolutely.
Should a recruiter submit the above candidate when they are already known to the company because they made an application a few weeks ago, either directly or via another recruiter, no. We are briefed by the client in the majority of cases not to do this and it is bad recruitment practice. In many cases if the recruiter ignores this and re-submits a candidate that is known to the client they will not be allowed to make any charge.
I think this can be a win-win-win process for clients, candidates and recruiters but all parties have to believe that everyone is working for the greater good. When the candidate sees the recruiter as their enemy that they need to conquer to get to the good job they are probably not starting from the right place!
Read more articles on Human Resources…
I need to note here is that the recruiter is NOT the enemy! The recruiter is a service provider, I may not always agree with the way they provide the service, yet I respect the service they provide. I am a true geek hacker, and social engineering is part of my portfolio.
Your opinion is most welcome!
Published with permission of Julie Holmwood