Career Cube Blog

Four years ago VisionQuest began with an ebook that I wrote to de-mystify recruiters. Essentially, it pulls the curtain back on them, tells you how to get noticed by one, how to work with one, and most importantly, how to tell a good one from a bad one. It morphed into more than that though - so even if you’re not working with a recruiter, there’s a ton of helpful info in there on interviewing, resigning, all of that.

But I’m not writing this with the intent to plug the book - even though that’s what it looks like. I’m writing it to tell you about how a bad recruiter can really screw things up.

My boyfriend is looking to make a change. He’s a high-level tax guy. He’s a recruiter’s dream, because he has everything a company could want: public, private, international, specific (and not very common) government regulations and all sorts of other stuff. Plus he’s been with his current company for ten years. That’s about as specific as I dare get.

So this recruiter calls him and from the small amount of information provided, it sounds like exactly what Steve is looking for. He checks in with me on questions and prep and everything else he wants to make sure he covers, gets back with the recruiter, finds out additional pertinent information, and they set up a phone interview.

As soon as the phone interview is finished, the company wants to set up an in-person interview so that Steve can meet a few others. That takes place less than a week later. A very good sign.

He’s psyched when he returns. Chemistry was great, philosophy perfect, area of the state is wonderful and not much more expensive than where we live….all in all it sounds like a great fit for both parties. And then things stall….just before going straight down hill.

The recruiter isn’t calling the company. Read that? He’s not. calling. the company. He’s waiting for them to call him. Steve, using verbage from me, gets on the phone with the recruiter and impresses upon him the importance of calling the company and why, which the recruiter finally does, with no response. So the recruiter waits some more.

At this point, it’s clear that some snag has developed. The recruiter should know what’s going on, but he clearly does not. What’s more, he doesn’t seem willing to attempt to find out. Obviously, he’s not in control of the situation. Why? Because he didn’t set himself up from the beginning as being important to the process. He’s not a partner or a consultant with the client company, he’s a convenience, as in a “resume sender.” (3/27 note: lately, I’ve come to call them “puppy dogs.”

I mention to Steve that my guess is that his recruiter either doesn’t charge more than 15% or he drops his fees to get the job. His method of working seems to indicate his only advantage to a company is access to resumes, or not only would they be including him, they’d be looking to him as a partner in the decision process of the next step - whatever that turns out to be.

Steve calls the recruiter - again with verbage from me (I say that not to brag, but to take responsiblity for Steve’s communication with the person). Not only does the recruiter not have post-interview feedback on Steve, but he doesn’t know the time frame, the process, how many candidates have been interviewed, where Steve is in the line up, or any of the other information he should know. And c’mon! These are basic questions that I asked as a recruiter, and now teach my clients to ask (with some differences).

So we wait. We knew the next step was for the executive decision maker (EDM) to fly in from the corporate office and meet with …..whomever or however many candidates are finalists. And that’s what we finally get the word on - he’s flying in.

Here’s where I blew a gasket. Apparently one of the finance/accounting people contacted a tax person he used to work with who, as it turns out, was looking. The company interviewed him. Obviously they liked him, but since the recruiter didn’t ask anything about this person’s background, who knows what it was. Please note: this candidate was an internal referral. He was not through the recruiter. That means if this guy is hired, the recruiter does not earn a fee because I’m dead sure this guy is contingency (and this position should be handled by a retained firm).

Anyway, we learn that the EDM is coming in, but only to interview this one person. Apparently Steve was their top choice until this guy entered into the process, so they decided that the decision maker would come in and interview only the one person - the referred guy. And if the decision maker didn’t like this other person, then he’d come back in to interview Steve and a second candidate they liked almost as much. This is the decision they told the recruiter, and I guess the recruiter simply agreed and never proferred an alternative scenario. (Hence my term “puppy dog.”)

Why was I so furious? Well, that Steve got blown out of the picture is only a small part of it. What that recruiter should have done - because after all, not only does it make sense and is the wisest counsel to the client company, but it’s a matter of his fee - is sell why the decision maker should interview all three of the candidates while he’s in town. Or even, because again, it’s his fee and his candidate, even the top two candidates (Steve and this referred person). There’s strategy to that, but since I’m not training recruiters, it’s irrelevant.

You can make a case for the top two - or the top three, either way - not only from convenience but from the power of choice and time usage and how that’s all of benefit to the EDM - because he’s taking the time and expense to fly in. How do I know this recruiter didn’t do all that? Because Steve asked him if he suggested it. And the recruiter said, “No, because that was their decision.”

Recruiting is about sales: sales to the candidate and sales to the company. It’s not about unethical sales, or making a match that isn’t a match just to get a fee. It’s not about steering a candidate wrong or telling either party incorrect information. But it is certainly about knowing what’s going on and doing what you can to ensure the process unfolds in the most logical and beneficial way relative to what’s taking place and those involved.

What do consultants do? They’re paid to give advice and to alter paths to make things work better and to bring their experience to the table so that their client company benefits. They sell. They sell their services and expertise to close the deal. And when they’ve been hired, they often have to keep selling - basically convincing their client to do whatever the conslutant is recommending the company do for the reason the company hired them.

They keep selling because it’s change and most people/companies/whatever are averse to change. So “sales” becomes the same as helping someone to understand or guiding them to a more effective or beneficial way or assisting them in seeing things from a different perspective. It’s not cramming something down someone’s throat

Maybe you say, “What’s wrong with them interviewing the others later?” Because A) it doesn’t make sense, B) it removes the choice, and C) he may not pick someone he’s met, but he’s sure NOT going to pick someone he HASN’T met. The odds in favor of the recruiter and the candidate go up if they’re in the process. If they aren’t, their odds are pretty much zero. In the meantime, the EDM has a choice. He has options. He can compare. Psychologically, having two or three options is always a benefit to the buyer - even if you’re buying sun tan lotions at Target.

Consequently, both candidates and companies suffer. Candidates don’t receive all the information and lose options that might have worked out for them and companies who just want a resume sender aren’t likely to include the recruiter in much of what’s taking place. So they aren’t getting the benefit of a consultant’s expertise. But if that consultant doesn’t have the expertise, he doesn’t have anything to sell as a benefit to the client, even if he understood the irony of it. At that rate, no wonder candidates figure it’s just as easy to answer an ad in the newspaper.

A good recruiter is a gold mine of information and opportunities that don’t make it into the public eye. A good recruiter will advise you, counsel you, go to bat for you, straighten out miscommunications, present a different point of view, suggest, strategize, and keep you in the loop…..because they know how to keep themselves in the loop. If you’re contacted by a recruiter, you might ask them how involved in the process they are or if they primarily send resumes. Watch your tone of voice so you don’t sound challenging or give the “right” answer away.

Don’t bother asking them how long they’ve been a recruiter - that doesn’t indicate anything. Believe it or not, this guy has been one for about 15 years. What you want to know is how much they know about the position. If all they know is a job description and salary (and they shouldn’t tell you the salary), but very little about the personality or history of the position or company, nothing about the process, the time frame, and other factors you’d expect them to know, that’s your clue they’re mediocre at best. Proceed at your own risk.

Popularity: 18% [?]