Recruiters are often labelled as middlemen. I actually think it's an apt description and am quite comfortable with it, though it's often used by many in quite a caustic, derogatory tone. They feel we don't add value. Bit strange given our clients opt to use our services and willingly pay our fees....
Anyway I came across this pic on LinkedIn, and I think it makes an excellent point: you don't have to deliver the end service to add value. Uber, AirBnB, eBay, Facebook - all are simply facilitators, intermediaries, or yes, middlemen, but few would dispute they aren't immensely valuable businesses (and many have the share prices to prove it)
So right now, it's an age of middlemen. And the introductions Recruiters make have immense value.
Pimps. Blood Suckers. Ambulance Chasers. Scum. Some of the words I've heard used to describe Recruiters by those within Australian industry.
Often though I've found that hostility or hatred is underpinned by misconceptions about how the recruitment industry works......
Often though I've found that hostility or hatred is underpinned by misconceptions about how the recruitment industry works......
Monday, May 18, 2015
Friday, March 20, 2015
Best Candidate vs Best on paper
Interesting conundrum this one. Do you sent the candidate that you feel is the best fit for your client's role or the one you think looks best on paper?
It's an issue because may employers go out to two or three agencies (or in the cast of some Government Departments, well over 10). So they are going to create an interview shortlist from all the agency shortlists (typically capped at 3 candiates/agency). And as much as we might wax lyrical about the qualities of Mr Best Fit, they often end up on the cutting room floor at that interview shortlisting, and and never actually get to interview.
You're better off sending Ms Best on Paper. At least they get to interview.
The irony is the best candidates often don't have the perfect CVs. They've been more willing to jump roles (looking for new challenges), be that bit more daring and entrepreneurial, and perhaps have steered clear of the big end of town (finding the environments overly structured). Net result being their CV often looks jumpy, without a simple & clean career trajectory, and lacks that big shop experience.
The best clients/employers though only partner with one agency, so as a recruiter you can get on the phone to the manager and explain why they should meet Mr Best Fit. The recruitment panel structure (where a company works with multiple agencies) works well in theory, but is death for Mr Best Fit's chances. Shame but true.
It's an issue because may employers go out to two or three agencies (or in the cast of some Government Departments, well over 10). So they are going to create an interview shortlist from all the agency shortlists (typically capped at 3 candiates/agency). And as much as we might wax lyrical about the qualities of Mr Best Fit, they often end up on the cutting room floor at that interview shortlisting, and and never actually get to interview.
You're better off sending Ms Best on Paper. At least they get to interview.
The irony is the best candidates often don't have the perfect CVs. They've been more willing to jump roles (looking for new challenges), be that bit more daring and entrepreneurial, and perhaps have steered clear of the big end of town (finding the environments overly structured). Net result being their CV often looks jumpy, without a simple & clean career trajectory, and lacks that big shop experience.
The best clients/employers though only partner with one agency, so as a recruiter you can get on the phone to the manager and explain why they should meet Mr Best Fit. The recruitment panel structure (where a company works with multiple agencies) works well in theory, but is death for Mr Best Fit's chances. Shame but true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
