Recruiter Pet Peeves (2)

I haven’t ‘peeved’ in a while, though some of my regular readers may think I’m peeving all the time!

I’ll try to keep this as general as possible, not point any fingers or tick anyone off, but there are just some aspects about recruiting, recruiters, candidates and companies that get me a little crazy.

Number one – I do love to hear companies are using search firms to fulfill their greatest talent needs. Always a little disappointed when  it isn’t my search firm, but nonetheless glad to see companies investing in their greatest asset. What I can’t understand is why a company, whose HR department is perfectly capable of running ads on job posting sites, and probably has or is, would engage an agency to do just the same? If that’s what they wanted to do, wouldn’t they attempt to save that big fat fee and run the ad exclusively by themselves? I have recently seen the client company and the agency run the same ad  (and word for word) back to back on some posting sites (how embarrassing).  And multiple agencies running the same ad for the same job. Now there’s a winning combo for a successful placement. How does that actually work? Who claims the resumes first? How does a potential candidate read the situation? Doesn’t the agency know that if the company claims they have received the resume already, they are fee out of luck? Why does the client company want to risk being in the middle of an agency battle over candidates? In other words, what’s the point? Doesn’t an employer engage an agency to bring a value added addition to the search process that they either don’t have the time or resources for? Aren’t recruiters paid to recruit? Obviously we all use our social media networks for recruiting and networking purposes, but to resort to ad postings for direct hire jobs your client is paying you for and using themselves? C’mon, really?! And Hiring Managers, WHY are you using these agencies? Cheaper fees? And what possible sense does that make when you are getting less than you pay for? And if you’re paying full fee, well – need I say more?

Number two (a) – Clients or candidates who go dark. Any experienced search professional knows that when the communication dries up, something is wrong. As a client strategy, it sucks. The recruiter is only as effective as the current information she/he has.  There are many reasons why client companies or candidates disconnect, but I’ll just address my personal qualms on this one. In either case, I’ve probably just invested a significant amount of my time with either party. Gaining trust (or so I thought), gathering information, presenting, following up, negotiating etc. When the communication well goes dry I am left to assume the worst, make my best guess and sometimes punt for time. The recruiter is the link between parties. We deliver the message, create the flow. We are the extension of the client and the candidate. Whatever the circumstances or decision, bear in mind the recruiter has invested time to develop the relationship and to best serve both parties. Communicate and be honest. Whatever the circumstances, answer or result, follow through on the process and be respectful to all parties involved. Your actions are a direct reflection of your professionalism.

(b) – On the other side of the equation, it is equally disgraceful when a recruiter goes dark on a candidate or client.  A candidate, who has invested his/her time and interest, deserves feedback for where they are in the process. A client, the same. No excuses. And if I’ve failed in this regard, someone email me, OK?

Number three – Outright lying. As in, we filled it – and you didn’t. No recruiters – and there are. No opening – and there is. It’s a small business world. We hear things. Don’t make me get out my voodoo mojo doll, OK?

We’re all adults here (or working on it). In the real world, we expect a certain amount of caginess, deception and sidestepping. With so many avenues of information, we all must be very careful where and on whom we tread. Recruiters, candidates and clients included.