Often you will find more than a single agency recruiting for a particular role, and as a candidate you might be contacted a number of times for the same job. Some candidates that by letting multiple agencies represent them for that same job they are increasing their chances of landing the position (in the business this is known as being doubly represented or double repped).
The truth is quite different - by doing this you're actually doing a great deal of harm for your chances.
I guess on the surface there's some logic to this: "wow, if four agencies say I'm the man for the job, I'm certain to get an interview". The problem is what happens behind the scenes. The company is only going to pay one recruitment fee, but you have four agencies that are expecting a fee. And then as you might expect, a shitfight ensues, and you're at the centre of it. One agency will have spoken to you first, another will have submitted your details first, one agency will have gotten a signed authority to represent form and another will say they did an interview with you, and thus did a far more thorough process than the other three. The company then decides it's all to hard to resolve and bins the candidate.
Now that may seem harsh to get caught what seems like agency crossfire, but at best it makes you look naive, and at worst, unethical. Neither is a good look.
It happened to my candidate this week. The guy was desparate as he'd been caught the wrong side of redundancy, and he was bullseye perfect for the role. Got left on the sidelines. What a waste........
Friday, November 4, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Dangers of Management
Below is a excerpt from a whitepaper our consultants wrote on Career Management, and it specifically relates to the dangers of moving into management. Interesting reading in light of the recent market volatility.
Many people see the step into management as a natural career progression, but the reality is (1) not everyone has the skills to be a good manager, and (2) there are a lot more soldiers than there are generals. A lot of people are promoted into managerial roles largely due to their long tenures with companies and great domain knowledge rather than strong management and leadership qualities. When these people needed to compete with other candidates in the marketplace they are often found wanting. This issue is frequently compounded by the fact managers rarely have the time to keep their technical skills up to date and are left unable to step back into a more hands on role.
It is predominantly managers who are initially affected by restructures and redundancies. Very rarely does a company decide “we need more middle management”. And management remains the most fiercely competitive layer of the job market.
We’re not suggesting people avoid moving into management positions, rather that you critically evaluate your strengths and weaknesses before making the jump. It might also be a good idea to do a split role, where you remain hands on while taking on the managerial responsibilities to establish whether this is a space you enjoy and are good at.
If you are on the verge of accepting a new management role, attempt to negotiate some formal training or mentoring program as part of your new package. This will help mitigate some of the risk.
Be warned. I have this conversation with managers quite frequently, and they just don't get it, at least until they've spent a few fruitless months on the job market.....
Many people see the step into management as a natural career progression, but the reality is (1) not everyone has the skills to be a good manager, and (2) there are a lot more soldiers than there are generals. A lot of people are promoted into managerial roles largely due to their long tenures with companies and great domain knowledge rather than strong management and leadership qualities. When these people needed to compete with other candidates in the marketplace they are often found wanting. This issue is frequently compounded by the fact managers rarely have the time to keep their technical skills up to date and are left unable to step back into a more hands on role.
It is predominantly managers who are initially affected by restructures and redundancies. Very rarely does a company decide “we need more middle management”. And management remains the most fiercely competitive layer of the job market.
We’re not suggesting people avoid moving into management positions, rather that you critically evaluate your strengths and weaknesses before making the jump. It might also be a good idea to do a split role, where you remain hands on while taking on the managerial responsibilities to establish whether this is a space you enjoy and are good at.
If you are on the verge of accepting a new management role, attempt to negotiate some formal training or mentoring program as part of your new package. This will help mitigate some of the risk.
Be warned. I have this conversation with managers quite frequently, and they just don't get it, at least until they've spent a few fruitless months on the job market.....
Friday, September 23, 2011
Fake Job Ads
This one is a Whirpool forum special - I doubt you can go 48 hours there without someone claiming recruiters are posting fake job ads on Seek. Now given Seek ads cost quite a lot of money, and recruiters only get paid when they place real people in real jobs, I've always been somewhat mystified by the logic behind this, but let's explore two of the more more frequently cited theories around this:
(1) Agencies want my CV so they can harvest information about my previous employers and also build a database.
If that was indeed an agency's aim, it's an amazingly convoluted and expensive way to go about doing it. You can access LinkedIn for free, and get a nigh on infinte stream of information about companies, the technologies they use, the people that work for them, where they tend to hire people from, etc. And for a few hundred bucks you can access an online database such as LinkMe or Career One and access several hundreds of thousands of resumes.
(2) I apply for heaps of roles on Seek and never hear anything back from the agencies. Therefore the ads are fakes.
2 + 2 = 5.
I desparately want my ad response to be great - it's the easiest way to find people. The reality is though the bulk of ad response is from candidates who just aren't up the job. If you got loads of great people applying for jobs, no-one would ever use an agency.
If you're applying for heaps of roles and never heard back from the agencies I would suggest you are either applying for a lot of roles that don't suit your experience and background, are in a very competitive sector of the market or you have a very poor CV. Suitable people with good CVs get called back.
(1) Agencies want my CV so they can harvest information about my previous employers and also build a database.
If that was indeed an agency's aim, it's an amazingly convoluted and expensive way to go about doing it. You can access LinkedIn for free, and get a nigh on infinte stream of information about companies, the technologies they use, the people that work for them, where they tend to hire people from, etc. And for a few hundred bucks you can access an online database such as LinkMe or Career One and access several hundreds of thousands of resumes.
(2) I apply for heaps of roles on Seek and never hear anything back from the agencies. Therefore the ads are fakes.
2 + 2 = 5.
I desparately want my ad response to be great - it's the easiest way to find people. The reality is though the bulk of ad response is from candidates who just aren't up the job. If you got loads of great people applying for jobs, no-one would ever use an agency.
If you're applying for heaps of roles and never heard back from the agencies I would suggest you are either applying for a lot of roles that don't suit your experience and background, are in a very competitive sector of the market or you have a very poor CV. Suitable people with good CVs get called back.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Salary (& Rate) Negotiations
The approach of candidates to salary (& rate) negotiations is probably best described as chaotic. Chaotic and terrible.
Here are some of the more oft seen "strategies", and an explaination why they suck:
(1) Asking for significantly more at the end of the recruitment process. When a recruiter sends your CV, they also include your salary expectations. Companies almost have budgets to work to, and (a) they want to make sure you are in that budget, and (b) want to make sure the person they hire is great value for money. If you ratchet up your salary expectations at the end, you can completely blow their budget or totally throw out the value for money equation - you might be the best Cisco Engineer they've seen for $80K, but are you the best Cisco Engineer on the market for $90K? Probably not.
(2) Keeping things vague, and not placing a figure on what you are seeking. This is a favourite of senior candidates. Almost without fail you get to the end of the the interview process only to discover the candidate and the company are 20-40% apart on salary expectations. This is a real time waster.
(3) Asking for some massively overly inflated salary, with the expectation that you can negotiate back to what you want. It's a silly tactic, because when you get you'll fail the value for money test 10 days out of 10 - people will pass over you for more reasonably priced candidates before you ever get to negotiations. It also dents your credibility when you accept a number that's much lower than what you asked for.
My suggestion? Be honest, realistic, up front and consistant about what you want. Pretty simple really. Building a little bit of fat (say 5%) into your expectations isn't a bad thing, as companies often want to negotiate down at offer stage (in spite of our efforts the educate them otherwise).
Here are some of the more oft seen "strategies", and an explaination why they suck:
(1) Asking for significantly more at the end of the recruitment process. When a recruiter sends your CV, they also include your salary expectations. Companies almost have budgets to work to, and (a) they want to make sure you are in that budget, and (b) want to make sure the person they hire is great value for money. If you ratchet up your salary expectations at the end, you can completely blow their budget or totally throw out the value for money equation - you might be the best Cisco Engineer they've seen for $80K, but are you the best Cisco Engineer on the market for $90K? Probably not.
(2) Keeping things vague, and not placing a figure on what you are seeking. This is a favourite of senior candidates. Almost without fail you get to the end of the the interview process only to discover the candidate and the company are 20-40% apart on salary expectations. This is a real time waster.
(3) Asking for some massively overly inflated salary, with the expectation that you can negotiate back to what you want. It's a silly tactic, because when you get you'll fail the value for money test 10 days out of 10 - people will pass over you for more reasonably priced candidates before you ever get to negotiations. It also dents your credibility when you accept a number that's much lower than what you asked for.
My suggestion? Be honest, realistic, up front and consistant about what you want. Pretty simple really. Building a little bit of fat (say 5%) into your expectations isn't a bad thing, as companies often want to negotiate down at offer stage (in spite of our efforts the educate them otherwise).
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Typical Recruitment Fees
In my last post (Recuitment's Iceburg), I was justifying the fees a recruitment agency makes. I guess then it makes sense the to outline what sort of fees agencies tend to charge.
Jobs can broadly be cut into two types - permanent and contract. The fee stucture is quite different for the two.
Let's start with permanent. Permanent fees are typically a single, one off fee based on a percentage of the successful candidate's annual salary package. The actual percentage can vary significantly on a range of factors - the seniority of the role (more senior roles command a higher percentage), the number of other agencies that are working the same role in competition, how difficult the positions are to fill and the volume of roles that a client gives an agency. A typical "rack rate" fee for contingent permanent recruitment is around the 20% mark. So for someone who is placed at a $60000 package, that means the agency fee would be $12000.
Contract fees are calculated somewhat differently. Rather than paying a one off fee to the agency, the agency puts their margin over and above the rate that the contractor is recieving, and therefore the agency thus derives a stream of commision while the contractor works for that company. Factors such as the amount of competition, the volume of roles, etc again influence the size of that margin, though the duration of the contract also comes into play - obviously an agency will derive a lot more commision from a 12 month contract than a 1 week contract, and that is typically factored into the margin.
Again, a standard rack rate for for contingent contract recruitment runs around the 20% mark. The calculations are a little more complex though, as payroll tax also needs to be factored into the rate as well. Here's how the calculations play out for someone on $60/hr:
Rate to contractor = $60/hr
Payroll Tax (5.45% in NSW) = $3.27/hr
Agency Margin (20%) = $15.82/hr
Total Charge rate = $79.09/hr
So over the course of a 3 month contract, an agency would make approximately $7500 from that placement.
You sometimes see claims of recruitment agencies making five or even ten times what the contractor getting. I think one of four things is happening in those situations:
(1) they are confusing consultancies and recruitment agencies. Consultancies charge their people out at those sort of multiples as they are responsible for deliverables, whereas recruitment agencies are not.
(2) they are citing an example from the early 1990s when recruitment was in its infancy, and there was an element of the wild west about the industry. These days competition is ferocious, and companies want transparency. No-one is going to be paying way over the odds.
(3) It's a very short term deal, so the recruiter can justify charging a higher margin to make decent money on the deal
(4) they are just making it up.
No doubt there will though be people who are reading this who will think these fees are ridiculously high. Sometime soon I'll write a separate article justifying agency fees, but I will leave you with two key points.
Jobs can broadly be cut into two types - permanent and contract. The fee stucture is quite different for the two.
Let's start with permanent. Permanent fees are typically a single, one off fee based on a percentage of the successful candidate's annual salary package. The actual percentage can vary significantly on a range of factors - the seniority of the role (more senior roles command a higher percentage), the number of other agencies that are working the same role in competition, how difficult the positions are to fill and the volume of roles that a client gives an agency. A typical "rack rate" fee for contingent permanent recruitment is around the 20% mark. So for someone who is placed at a $60000 package, that means the agency fee would be $12000.
Contract fees are calculated somewhat differently. Rather than paying a one off fee to the agency, the agency puts their margin over and above the rate that the contractor is recieving, and therefore the agency thus derives a stream of commision while the contractor works for that company. Factors such as the amount of competition, the volume of roles, etc again influence the size of that margin, though the duration of the contract also comes into play - obviously an agency will derive a lot more commision from a 12 month contract than a 1 week contract, and that is typically factored into the margin.
Again, a standard rack rate for for contingent contract recruitment runs around the 20% mark. The calculations are a little more complex though, as payroll tax also needs to be factored into the rate as well. Here's how the calculations play out for someone on $60/hr:
Rate to contractor = $60/hr
Payroll Tax (5.45% in NSW) = $3.27/hr
Agency Margin (20%) = $15.82/hr
Total Charge rate = $79.09/hr
So over the course of a 3 month contract, an agency would make approximately $7500 from that placement.
You sometimes see claims of recruitment agencies making five or even ten times what the contractor getting. I think one of four things is happening in those situations:
(1) they are confusing consultancies and recruitment agencies. Consultancies charge their people out at those sort of multiples as they are responsible for deliverables, whereas recruitment agencies are not.
(2) they are citing an example from the early 1990s when recruitment was in its infancy, and there was an element of the wild west about the industry. These days competition is ferocious, and companies want transparency. No-one is going to be paying way over the odds.
(3) It's a very short term deal, so the recruiter can justify charging a higher margin to make decent money on the deal
(4) they are just making it up.
No doubt there will though be people who are reading this who will think these fees are ridiculously high. Sometime soon I'll write a separate article justifying agency fees, but I will leave you with two key points.
- The numbers quoted here are rack rates. Larger organisations will use their buying power to negotiate rates that are 30 or even 40% cheaper
- All the fees here hinge on successfully placing the person. If you don't make the placement, you don't make a cent
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Recruitment's Iceburg
Another regular source of recruitment related annoyance for candidates are the fees a recruitment agency charges. I've often seen comments along the line of:
"All they did was email my CV to the company and set up a couple of interviews and they get to charge 10 grand. What a f##king joke!".
The problem here is the candidate tends though to view the recruitment process solely through the prism of their own experience. From the perspective of a successful candidate, an agency probably didn't appear to do a great deal throughout the process. The reason for that is the candidate doesn't get to see the entire recruitment process, rather a small proportion of the recruitment process. It's a bit like thinking all there is to an iceberg is the bit sticking out above the water.
So what are the parts of the recruitment iceberg that a candidate may not see?
The recruitment process is also very fragile. At any stage a company can change what they are looking for, a candidate can accept another offer and you pretty much go back to square one, without getting a cent for your efforts.
It's also worth noting that agencies certainly don't fill every role they work -far from it. Often you will find yourself competing against other agencies and internal recruitment teams, and if you don't find the successful candidate, you don't get paid. Same deal if a role gets withdrawn or placed on hold.
"All they did was email my CV to the company and set up a couple of interviews and they get to charge 10 grand. What a f##king joke!".
The problem here is the candidate tends though to view the recruitment process solely through the prism of their own experience. From the perspective of a successful candidate, an agency probably didn't appear to do a great deal throughout the process. The reason for that is the candidate doesn't get to see the entire recruitment process, rather a small proportion of the recruitment process. It's a bit like thinking all there is to an iceberg is the bit sticking out above the water.
So what are the parts of the recruitment iceberg that a candidate may not see?
- Creating a candidate pool. This will typically incorporate searching our own database, LinkedIn, online databases such as LinkMe, writing ads for the job boards, asking our own contacts for referals, etc etc.
- Reviewing the CVs those searches yield. For any given role it's not uncommon to review as many as 300+ CVs
- Contacting and phone screening the long list, checking availiability, interest & suitability. 50+ calls would be the norm.
- Face to face interviewing the short list. In some cases this can still be upward of 10 people
- Submitting our best candidates to the hiring manager/HR team, along with a 3-4 paragraph executive summary that addresses the key selection criteria
- Facilitating the interviews, keeping in mind that we may still have as many as 4 candidates still under consideration at this stage
- Reference checking
- Managing the offer process. This by the way is far from trivial. The number of times either clients try to negotiate down or candidates try to negotiate up is mind boggling. And counteroffers are also rife.
- Trying up all loose ends - chasing up paperwork, organising start dates, etc
The recruitment process is also very fragile. At any stage a company can change what they are looking for, a candidate can accept another offer and you pretty much go back to square one, without getting a cent for your efforts.
It's also worth noting that agencies certainly don't fill every role they work -far from it. Often you will find yourself competing against other agencies and internal recruitment teams, and if you don't find the successful candidate, you don't get paid. Same deal if a role gets withdrawn or placed on hold.
Friday, August 5, 2011
IT Recruiters - why aren't they technical?
Anyone who read my short bio below (and for those that can't be bothered, here's my LinkedIn profile) will have noticed that I don't have any formal training or certification in IT. Indeed this is true of most IT Recruiters, and this is typically something that mystifies candidates. How we we effectively recruit IT roles if we don't have a deep understanding of the technology?
There are four key points I'd like to make addressing this question:
(1) IT recruitment is first and foremost a sales role, not an IT role. You spend a huge proportion of your day selling your services to clients, selling opportunities to candidates, and candidates back to hiring managers. If your heart lies in technology rather than sales, recuitment is not going to suit you.
(2) Candidates tend to be obsessed with technical skill, where are employers are more concerned about soft skills. Just about all of my clients tell me they would much rather hire the person that is 9 out of 10 for cultural fit and 5 out of 10 technically rather that the person who is 5 out of 10 for cultural fit and 9 out of 10 technically. Hence we put our focus into getting the person who is a great fit personality wise rather than someone who is a technical guru.
It's also worth noting that much like beauty, technical skill is in the eye of the beholder.
(3) IT is extremely broad. The nature of the roles I am recruiting change massively week to week - Java Developers, Helpdeskers, Business Analysts, Change Managers, Unix Engineers, Project Managers, SAP functional consultants, CIOs, ITIL specialists, etc etc etc. Even if I went out and got a certification such as a CCNA, 95% of the time it would have little to no relevance to the role I'm trying to recruit. And not having the opportunity to apply my skills means any technical nouse would rot on the vine, so to speak.
(4) Most decent IT recruiters do develop quite a good high level understanding of IT. You do need to be able to have a sensible discussion about technology.
To be honest I think a lot of candidates like playing the "Recruiters aren't technical" card when they aren't getting a lot of traction out in the market and want someone to blame. I will though expand on that in another post.
There are four key points I'd like to make addressing this question:
(1) IT recruitment is first and foremost a sales role, not an IT role. You spend a huge proportion of your day selling your services to clients, selling opportunities to candidates, and candidates back to hiring managers. If your heart lies in technology rather than sales, recuitment is not going to suit you.
(2) Candidates tend to be obsessed with technical skill, where are employers are more concerned about soft skills. Just about all of my clients tell me they would much rather hire the person that is 9 out of 10 for cultural fit and 5 out of 10 technically rather that the person who is 5 out of 10 for cultural fit and 9 out of 10 technically. Hence we put our focus into getting the person who is a great fit personality wise rather than someone who is a technical guru.
It's also worth noting that much like beauty, technical skill is in the eye of the beholder.
(3) IT is extremely broad. The nature of the roles I am recruiting change massively week to week - Java Developers, Helpdeskers, Business Analysts, Change Managers, Unix Engineers, Project Managers, SAP functional consultants, CIOs, ITIL specialists, etc etc etc. Even if I went out and got a certification such as a CCNA, 95% of the time it would have little to no relevance to the role I'm trying to recruit. And not having the opportunity to apply my skills means any technical nouse would rot on the vine, so to speak.
(4) Most decent IT recruiters do develop quite a good high level understanding of IT. You do need to be able to have a sensible discussion about technology.
To be honest I think a lot of candidates like playing the "Recruiters aren't technical" card when they aren't getting a lot of traction out in the market and want someone to blame. I will though expand on that in another post.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
So who is The Hated Recruiter?
My name is Greg Pankhurst, and I'm an Account Manager and Co-owner of a rapidly growing Recruitment Company called Balance Recruitment. Balance has specialist IT and Finance divisions, though my own personal history is exclusively on the IT side.
Balance is not my first stop in IT recruitment. I spent over 3 years with Candle ICT, one of the big names of the IT recruitment sector.
Between my time with the two organisations, I feel like I've developed an excellent handle on the Australian IT recruitment industry. I've filled roles from CIO level down to helpdeskers and have worked accounts ranging from industry heavweights like Westpac through to small fledgling startups making their first hire. Development, infrastucture, contract, permanent -you name it, I've probably done it.
I am though a compartively late starter in recruitment. I actually started my career has a Biochemist, having done a PhD at the University of Sydney, and spent 5 years doing post docs with the Heart Research Institute and St Vincents Hospital. Perhaps not the standard background for the typical IT recruiter, but then again, I'm not sure such a thing exists.
Balance is not my first stop in IT recruitment. I spent over 3 years with Candle ICT, one of the big names of the IT recruitment sector.
Between my time with the two organisations, I feel like I've developed an excellent handle on the Australian IT recruitment industry. I've filled roles from CIO level down to helpdeskers and have worked accounts ranging from industry heavweights like Westpac through to small fledgling startups making their first hire. Development, infrastucture, contract, permanent -you name it, I've probably done it.
I am though a compartively late starter in recruitment. I actually started my career has a Biochemist, having done a PhD at the University of Sydney, and spent 5 years doing post docs with the Heart Research Institute and St Vincents Hospital. Perhaps not the standard background for the typical IT recruiter, but then again, I'm not sure such a thing exists.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Welcome to The Hated Recruiter
I've spent the past several months lurking and posting on the jobs forum at Whirlpool. Now for those of you unfamilar with Whirlpool, it's probably Australia's leading internet and technology discussion boards, with some 400000+ users and 1000000+ threads. And one of the more active forums is the jobs forum. People discuss resume formats, interview strategies, debate the merits (or otherwise) of different employers, and discuss the general goings on within the Australian IT industry as they impact on recruitment. As an IT Recruiter, it's quite an interesting community to be involved in.
Two things stand out to me from my time spent on Whirlpool:
(1) IT Recruiters are widely disliked, and
(2) There are a huge number of misconceptions about how the IT Recruitment Industry works.
The first point doesn't shock me - I remember when I was first looking to start out in recruitment I was frequnetly told that this was not the most respected of careers. I am though somewhat surprised by the depth and vehemence of that dislike from some individuals, and also the bredth of that dislike.
The second point though is perhaps the more interesting one, and I can't help but feel that a number of the misconceptions that surround the industry fuel the contempt that exists for my chosen profession.
So this blog has been created with the idea of trying to address some of those misconceptions and perhaps better explain how the recruitment industry works. If nothing else it might allay the frustrations of some of the regulars on Whirpool, though perhaps I'm being naive.......
Two things stand out to me from my time spent on Whirlpool:
(1) IT Recruiters are widely disliked, and
(2) There are a huge number of misconceptions about how the IT Recruitment Industry works.
The first point doesn't shock me - I remember when I was first looking to start out in recruitment I was frequnetly told that this was not the most respected of careers. I am though somewhat surprised by the depth and vehemence of that dislike from some individuals, and also the bredth of that dislike.
The second point though is perhaps the more interesting one, and I can't help but feel that a number of the misconceptions that surround the industry fuel the contempt that exists for my chosen profession.
So this blog has been created with the idea of trying to address some of those misconceptions and perhaps better explain how the recruitment industry works. If nothing else it might allay the frustrations of some of the regulars on Whirpool, though perhaps I'm being naive.......
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)