The bulk of recruitment is done on a contingent basis. That means if you don't place a candidate, you don't get paid. Which is pretty brutal when you think about it - you can spend a solid two weeks on some searches, so to not get paid a cent for that work is harsh. By far the worst cases are when a company decides to withdraw a role - it's one thing to be beaten out by another agency, but there's that real sense of futility when a job gets pulled. You can do everything right and still get stiffed.
Now this isn't a "oh woe is me" moment. I accept contingent business is how recruitment works. That no-placement-no-fee structure does though make one focus all their efforts almost exclusively on doing everything to find and engage the best people that are in the market. And this is probably why customer service from recruiters for many candidates falls down the cracks.
It's probably the single biggest complaints candidates have about recruiters - they sent their CV, or left a voicemail, and they never heard a thing back (other than the obligatory automated response). I understand that would indeed be frustrating, but if you're not right for the role, it's incredibly hard for us to justify spending the time ringing up to tell people they aren't right. It doesn't help us find the right person.
You could argue this is a short sighted approach, and that if we gave candidates a better customer experience that would pay dividends long term. Sadly I don't think that's actually true - in my experience a large percentage of candidates actually get p##sed off when told they aren't right for a job.
So spending a lot of time calling unsuitable people doesn't help you fill roles and nor does it do anything for your reputation.
One expression I've coined for recruiters is "Used Developer Salespeople". The biggest issue I've had with dealing with recruiters is trust. There have only been a few that I can say I trust, and even then not very far. (Much like any salesman) While you correctly state that notifying candidates when they aren't successful doesn't help fill the role, not bothering to do it actually leaves candidates to question whether you even put them forward in the first place. I know that in many cases (such as gov't roles) recruiters are limited to put 3-5 of their "top" candidates forward for roles. It's impossible to prove without breaching wire-tapping rules or actually coming across an ethical recruiter: (Any Deep Throats out there?:) but I don't think it's that far-fetched to believe that a recruiter might get that 6th reasonably strong candidate enquiry about a role they've already put their 5 forward on and tell them they'll be put forward just to deny a competing recruiter a candidate to put forward. I know in the 7 years I've been dealing with recruiters for positions, even when applying for roles that are several days old I've never once been told "sorry, we've already put our maximum number of applicants forward." And suspicions grow when you apply for "perfect match" roles, having over 16 years exp. with an excellent track record and you don't even get an interview... :/
ReplyDeleteSometimes I'm mystified why candidates I've submitted don't get interviews - great histories, bucket loads of certs, and they don't get invited in. Often though when you get to the bottom of things like that, it tends to be something subtle in the CV that hasn't made it's way into the job spec - experience with a new technology they have just implemented is a good example.
ReplyDeleteIn the circumstance you outline, personally I'd be talking to the manager and saying something like "I've got this great 6th guy you might want to see...."
I will though admit I have seen people "taken out of the market" before.