|
|
|
|
|
|
News
David Woods , 16 May 2012
“Lazy recruiters” are damaging the standard of the recruitment profession, causing employers to miss out on the best talent, according to Matthew Jeffery (pictured), head of EMEA talent acquisition and global talent brand at technology firm Autodesk.
Speaking last week at the Kelly OCG Talent Strategy Summit 2012, Jeffery said: "There is a global war for talent and we are competing to hire the best. External providers are losing the plot and not adapting.
"Lazy recruiters are damaging the standard of the profession and are just ticking boxes. Some recruitment leaders are taking an easy life and not challenging the status quo."
Turning to employers attending the conference, he added: "The war for talent is ongoing and we are competing for the best [talent]. We're not just competing we are fighting.
"Not every one is actively looking for a job. In fact 90% of the best candidates are not looking - they could be employees' partners or consumers."
Talking about the evolution of talent strategy in recent years, Jeffery said: "Recruitment is boring. Some employers are hosting Twitter feeds with jobs - but people won't follow this unless employers tell a story. Candidates need to have a 'gut feel' about a brand and an emotional commitment. This comes by a two-way transparent conversation.
"Recruiters need to have a relationship with people to give them an idea of company culture because passive candidates can become active candidates at the touch of a button."
He said employers have to move to make the candidate experience more "snuggly" because candidates will communicate with other potential recruits via social media or personal interaction.
"We need to celebrate the candidate in the recruitment process," he said. "The candidate experience can genuinely be very poor. It's time for a new type of recruiter."
52 comments on this article |
Ken Ling 16 May 2012
I whole-heartedly agree with Mr Jeffery that the ability to source the right candidates for companies is seriously compromised by those recruitment agencies who follow tick box processes to selection. Further, the vast majority of recruitment agencies, and in my opinion it particularly applies to the bigger agencies, they rely solely on job board responses to source applicants. The pond of suitable candidates is far wider than that. Ken Ling, Partnership Recruitment.
Leisa Browne 16 May 2012
I am a specialist in executive search in the ICT / MIS space in Ireland. We set up the business over 7 years ago and HRP are a successful HR Consultancy practice who specialises in a range of HR support services including bespoke professional resourcing. We are not a “recruitment agency”, as HR experts we also support our clients with all their HR/Employment Law issues including contracts of employment, staff handbook, disciplinary and grievance procedure etc as required. We follow a HR based recruitment model; our staff are HR experts who do not have sales targets to meet etc. We work as a Business partner with our clients. Within the Group, my particular area of expertise is resourcing within the ICT space, which is a very specialised discipline. I have developed an unrivalled contacts who are officially “off market” but seek excellent career opportunities. I agree with you that most good candidates are off market, therefore contingent recruitment is no longer a viable option for recruiting talent. As HR experts we have totally reengineered the concept of Recruitment Process Outsourcing (R.P.O.), which offer clients significant savings (over 60% in some cases on traditional agency based fee structures), while stabilising recruitment budgets through out the year as our fee structure is based on a fixed monthly fee.
Jonathan Lewis 16 May 2012
I find myself agreeing here - recruiting at times should mirror sales strategies. Especially as we see younger generations enter the job market there should be an increased emphasis on making the candidate feel desired, special and "unique" - while this may be true for anyone, I find that colleagues in their mid-twenties and younger tend to be more influenced by organizations and people who they perceive as seeing inordinate value in them. Strategies which bolster and acknowledge a candidate's ego will become increasingly effective in the coming years as companies continue to compete for top talent. Similarly, developing relationships with candidates over a long term, finding new contacts and networking at all kinds of professional events while representing the brand or company in a favorable light will always be an important part of recruiting. Passive recruiting should include strategies wherein the recruiter sets a positive example and acts as a "figurehead" for the organization, attracting top talent through their personality and perceived work ethic. Being fun, engaging and professional is a great start down this path.
Linda Brenner 16 May 2012
Fixing a problem starts with being honest about what's at the root of it. I think lazy recruiters are a big chunk of the problem that's stewing in the pot - and stir in: unclear roles and responsibilities, undefined goals, complete lack of consequences (good or bad) for results, disinterest in learning about the business and keeping abreast of the evolving strategy, and add a dash of lack of accountability for tangibly improving their own skills on an ongoing basis. That's a nasty brew right there.
Falyn 16 May 2012
I absolutely agree! The recruiting field is a battlefield! Companies are not always up to date on the technologies available to help them. Take jobbook.com for example. This new and exciting tool is "online dating for jobs" the only difference is when a job seeker enters a "relationship" or job their profile remains on the site to continue matching them with opportunities that align with their skills, language, experience, education, and location. The best part is this service is offered to companies at no upfront cost and without long term risk or obligation.
The Giant HR 16 May 2012
It's not all about recruiter, if retained executive search is offered to contingent recruiter, he will never be able to source the right talent from market. Game of recruitment has changed all the way, recruitment has been exceptionally narrowed down in core expertise. now It's all depend on companies what kind of recruiter they are looking for their sourcing. As far as hiring top talent form market contingent recruitment is no longer a viable option.
Margaret Reichert 16 May 2012
I totally agree with this. I started my HR career as a recruiter about 20 years ago, and we were taught to look at the candidate from all perspectives, and how skills could be transferable to many roles. That simply does not happen anymore. I tend to disagree with the statement that 90% of the best employees are currently employed. This past recession focused on downsizing a large number of well experienced, but highly paid employees, who are now unemployed with much needed skills and experience that many of our companies could use as they start rebuilding.
Charmaine Camille Sherlock 16 May 2012
As a candidate what I appreciate is a recruiter who is able to connect the dots and see the whole candidate- including character and competence- after ticking all the boxes. Also to factor in those things that aren't boxes to be ticked but can make or break long-term effectiveness in a role-three of these are: motivation, passion and perspective(business maturity and wisdom that often comes with experience but is identifiable in younger candidates nevertheless by a discerning recruiter). The best recruiters I have meet use their gut and heart as well as their head and get to know their candidates over multiple touchpoints.
Dave Lucas 16 May 2012
I agree with the comment made about choosing the type of recruitment model. I think the root of the problem lies in contingent based recruitment. This is a very high risk business, which means that one has to balance time and effort vs potential returns. We have an excellent process and put in about 5 x the work of our competitors. However we have to compete with CV spammers all day long. This puts us under pressure to shorten our process just to keep up. Perhaps companies should focus on a retained model with the right company. That way we recruiters can spend more time focusing on applying high-powered methodologies to the process, instead of worrying about being beat to the customer by a CV spammer who has done no work.
Nikita Bernstein 16 May 2012
The problem is that compensation is evolving to become more talent-centric and recruiting must evolve to match that. We actually developed a new way to do impact-based compensation at www.fairsetup.com that I would highly suggest you look into if you are interested in this space.
eyleen de brun 16 May 2012
Our Business Model is unique as we offer a bespoke service to all of our clients - we are a HR Outsourced Company specialising in Employment Law and offer all of our clients a full HR Service which does include Recruitment as part of a retained contract. We have grown since we were established in 2004 by 70% as clients are seeking qualified HR professionals who can offer a full service- please visit our web-site www.hrpgroup.ie to find out more about our business. Eyleen de Brun Director HRP Group 43 St Stephens Green Dublin.2. 00 353 1 676 0006
Agency and Corporate Recruiter 16 May 2012
Beep Beep... What's that sound? beep beep bump bump bump. That's the sound of recruiters being thrown under the bus as usual. Recruiters are inefficient (since we're making up random numbers as facts) 95% of the time because they are not given accurate information either from a hiring manager that does not know exactly what he's looking for or from a salesperson who is uneducated and cannot qualify a position correctly. Every single recruiter I know would easily fill even one of the most niche skillset with a few weeks turn around time. IF GIVEN THE CORRECT TOOLS AND INFORMATION. Recruiters aren't the issue, it's the "game" that is the issue. We are dealing with unbelievably high volumes of competition, rate cards, budget cuts, unpredictable lengths of contracts with no type of written garuantee, benefits of a company that may not match a competing company, hiring managers that don't move fast enough, a very competetive hiring market, which all leads to the main point a completely unpredictable and uncontrollable product (CANDIDATES). It's the "game" that is the problem, not the recruiters. Recruiters are only as good as the opportunities that are given to them.
Randy Kishun 16 May 2012
The way I look at it, I get paid for CRD (Corporate Recruiting Deficiencies) or being able to fill the void for non-performing HR Business Partners/Corporate Recruiters/Vendors (RPO, VMO/VMS, MSP; whatever they call it these days). There are many recruiters that say they “can do” but when put to the test they are unable to deliver on the 3rd, 6th or 9th day and warrant more time to perform in a traditional 30, 60, 90 day scenario. My take as I “AGREE” with your comment but pin the blame on Employers (equally). Yes, I said “Employers”. Having said that, if Employers were stern to hire the best in-class talent with leadership abilities… Shouldn’t they mirror the same idea “identifying & hiring” a best in-class Recruiter, that can actually reference every one of their job experience, from Hiring Managers to HR Manager and C-Level (With a solid provable timeline of metrics detailing how fast they were able to understand the business, build/reinforce relationships, source strategy, qualify/quantify talent and getting the talent hired). One would expect this much from a seasoned Talent Wrangler/Recruiter, right? Employers, or may I say most employers do not choose that route as their current HR Recruiting Directors, Managers, Lead Recruiters would risk their own FTE jobs bringing in a seasoned “Talent Wrangler/Recruiter”. Or hire the next best Recruiter that fit’s the budget and can get the job done, eventually or to do enough to get by…
Charles Hagan 16 May 2012
Sounds like Mr Jeffrey has just had bad experiences working with the recruiters in his company. If he thinks that "a great candidate experience" is a "new" idea for recruiters then he's out of touch. I'm hoping that his comments are taken out of context... otherwise, it comes across as whining.
Eamonn Coleman 16 May 2012
I have to agree with regard to the candidate experience and one of the comments. To me, recruitment IS sales. As a recruiter your either selling the candidate an opportunity, or you are selling the company as a viable place to be for many "on the fence" candidates. I truly do not believe there are any candidates that are not active, they just need to be sold on an opportunity, for them, that fits their future career/financial/family requirements and thats as it should be.
Linda Blakemore 16 May 2012
I couldn't agree more. This is not a new concept for those of us that come from the world of executive search. We know that to be competitive on behalf of your company or client company, you have to be a pro at selling the culture and unique opportunity you are recruiting for. You have to build long term relationships with talent not just screen candidates as they respond to some posting. As recruiters, we are and should be on the front line of painting the vision of the company to potential talent. It's not just about filling the job with someone that has the right skills. It's about making the right match with a persons career objectives and the vision of the organization. People make or break how good a company is. It's critical to get the slugs that have been occupying many recruiting seats and get the best recruiters you can afford who will represent the company as if they were part owner. There is a broad range of skill set with recruiters as with any other area. If you want to hire the best people, hire the best recruiters and give them the tools they need.
David Hughes 17 May 2012
This guy should stick to what he's good at. The main hurdle Recruiters have when partnering with clients is not being treated like a strategic partner but instead just a vendor who is supplying them with nothing more than a commodity. Clients typically put up walls and keep us at arms length, so we are forced to take a tiny amount of information to decipher and determine who would be the best fit for their organization. The fact that we are even required to provide them with a Guarantee for candidates they deemed a worthy fit will always boggle my mind. The change in recruiting needs to start with the relationship between hiring managers and recruiters and having a mutual respect, open communication and trust that they have eachother's best interest when navigating through the interview process. His notion that Recruiters are lazy and we just sit back and cash the checks is frankly insulting.
Max Underhill 17 May 2012
I agree with a number of the comments especially that; a) recruitment needs a "make-over" b) that recruitment needs to be an integrated component of the human capital management continuum (not a isolated function)and c) recruit for the organisations future needs not yesterday or even today (as they are likely to be with us for 3+ years). In human capital management approaches that utilise outcome - based competencies the role design established the detailed specification of the HR asset required (now and in future), provides a precise size and value, how the expectations will be measured (performance measures) and a quantifiable comparison of the application and interviewee against the role definition and size + value. The process also identifies the competency gap analysis for a development plan that can be incorporated into letter of offer. The recruitment process and associated tools are as important for assessments of existing employees for "training needs analysis", succession planning, maintaining changing role competence etc. Therefore where does recruitment start and stop - I am saying it is an integrated part of a continuum of HRM and if we are inhouse or external recruiters we must remember we are; a) part of this continuum and b) more than just getting people it must be the right people for the organisation's needs often 2 to 3 years from now.
Paul McCormick 17 May 2012
Yet another cliched series of cliches "war on talent", "fighting" . . . blah, blah,blah. What is so significantly different about this hiring time in our economic history than any other? Has anyone ever looked to hire the worst people? Apparently not everyone is actively looking for a job! None of this is news. A weak article I'm afraid with no examples to substantiate, tired, tepid, outdated claims. Recruiters are in the service industry for both candidates and clients. That's the only real message you need. Oh and . . . work really, really hard.
Gayle Stichbury - Director 17 May 2012
Our sole purpose for setting up Future Proof Staffing NZ Ltd was to Challenge the Status Quo and provoide an exceptional cost effective service ( in all areas of Employment). It has been a journey of great joy and life changing moments for many. We respect quality practices and constantly challenge our industry to improve, engage and inspire. We believe - Aspire to inspire before you expire. Its always ABOUT PEOPLE. Regards Gayle Stichbury, Director Future Proof Staffing NZ ltd
Dhruval 17 May 2012
Being a recruiter, I am agreed with Mr. Jeffery, Recruitment is not @ all a rocket science. Recruitment you can't take is a option but if you take is a career then it is a huge field where you can communicate & handle different kind of people. As a recruiter should ready to learn different ways & should ready to adopt new things in field. I am ready to learn new technology.
Venkat Iyer 17 May 2012
I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment. As a consultant, I see clients settling for way below normal, in the interest of what is called quick TAT. They accept 40% fits of candidates not even sounded out properly for the roles at hand, and this mutual agreement between clients opting for a poor normal and consultants opting for least effort closures has only dipped the quality of talent that organizations get. It is time to change the paradigm. Set high standards of delivery and for god's sake don't lock out the best candidates fitted for wrong roles in you e-enabled recruitment software! You will only commit hara-kiri. Any consultant who does not give 5 perfect fit CVs for a role should be thrown out, irrespective of how many CVs they are capable of churning.
Jenny Ho 17 May 2012
we all need to work together in the process.Including some of the HR or hiring managers involved in the interviews. I do a lot of recruiting within the chemical and O&G space and it is equally challenging to search for talents. And yes most of them are not actively seeking new jobs. Whenever i present a good CV (after much candidate follow up and persuasion), these interviewers will treat them like a commodity thinking it is easy for recruiters to surface another candidate. I am not saying we need to put these candidates on a pedestal but at least they must be aware of the present talent landscape... These candidates are not dying for you to hire them...
Tony Beckwith 17 May 2012
Great article. The days of farming a CV bank and simply shovelling them out are long gone. Most employers have encountered the great, the good, the bad and the ugly over the years. There are still those who try to trade CVs, have limited knowledge of their candidates and a poor understanding of the employers real needs. This adds no value. I received a CV only this week from a recruitment 'consultant' I didn't know, for a candidate with no match for our business. Credibility - zero! It would have been better recived if the candidate had simply contacted us through LinkedIn direct. There are also great recruiters who mix the traditional skills with the emerging SM tools, take the time to listen to the client, carefully assess and prepare candidates etc. But the world is changing, so are employers expectations. Social media is making it easier and cheaper to access candidates, including those who aren't looking. So it becomes harder to justify a 15% fee unless you are really adding value and truly taking the task away from the employer, presenting great solutions. No doubt it is time for a new type of recruitment.
Faysal Khelifa 17 May 2012
I totally agree with you on this. Many recruitment agencies are damaging the recruitment process, they advertise anonymouse jobs that do not even excist. I have applied for hundreds of work since April and none of the recruitment consultant had replied to me yet. Ignorant, liars they are and if you are friend or friend of friend no need of any interviews or qualifications, you will be placed for a job not any job but you could be a school leaver becoming team leader or manager, not just that but you could end up as a team leader in an industry which is not even your backround. Big companies like Barclay Wealth getting rid of their employee by making them redundant so they can shift the work to India because is cheaper and the chermans can then take more piss by taking milliones of our tax money as a bonus.
Mehdi Barzegari 17 May 2012
I congratulate Matthew for having the courage to tell it how it is. I used to work in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device sales and started my own 'Talent Search' company less than 6 months ago. The reason for this was because I was sick and tired of dealing with recruiters that had no idea about the industry, the companies and the roles they were recruiting for. A high percentage of recruiters get into the industry for the wrong reasons, believing there millions of dollars to be made! If this is why you are in this business then you will never succeed.
sushma 17 May 2012
I could'nt agree more. The reason for such a state is a huge communication gap between the HR department and the other departments. Today though the process has become automated,it is not being properly processed. The internal HR associate do not move to the shop floor or have a proper understanding of the requirement. A brief note is shared with the recruiter who in turn uses the key word, shares the profiles even before speaking to the candidate due the the competitive scenario. Today one has to look for the right attitude of the candidate instead of the present assignment being held.Best Regards Sushma
Daniel 17 May 2012
I agree 100% The only good news with this article is that those of us who already work in the suggested fashion are able to shine quite easily. Our firm ( eHire, LLC. ) focuses on "Relationship Based Recruiting" and we mean it... The candidate experience is paramount if a company is to acquire the best talent. No question.
Nick miller 18 May 2012
Matt Jeffrey comes across as a control freak. His agenda is to tell his employers that he is the best recruitment solution available. Within his own closed shop he can mange down the expectations of his own hiring managers and at the same time convince them that there is nothing different or better out there. If recruitment agencies were indeed useless and lazy the market would get rid of them.
Alconcalcia 20 May 2012
In the modern recruitment world it is all too easy for anyone to fire out a cut & pasted job description onto 100 job boards and a few social networks and sit back and wait for the response, which, when it comes is awful, both in terms of quality and quantity (far too many irrelevant ones or just not enough good ones). Putting myself in the position of a potential candidate i would hope at the very least to see a well written job post that sell the organisation and the role to me and is not littered with grammatical errors or devoid of any sell whatsoever, and yet that is so often the case. If not a great big list of bullet points pinched from the client's job description, it's an ad that starts "Our client are looking.." (guaranteed to see me stop reading straightaway) or one full of spelling mistakes and typographical errors. In short, technology is great, but it's not about the numbers, it's about targeted advertising with a powerful message. You can post something for Facebook's 800m members to see, but a)99.999% of them won't be relevant to the role you're advertising for and b) the remaining percentage won't give your job post a second glance if it is dull, boring, semi-literate and bereft of any kind of message that appeals to the reader's emotions. And sadly, that is all too often the case these days. The web is littered with badly written ads that tell the candidate loud and clear that the recruiter can't know what they're doing and thus immediately engenders a total lack of trust in that recruiters ability to look after that person's career aspirations. And, what must potential clients think when they read some of the dross that is out there purporting to be a job ad. In short, if you're a recruiter that fires out rubbish onto the web, you're telling candidates and clients alike that you haven't a clue about what you;re doing and accordingly you'll reap what you sow.
shaun 21 May 2012
Candidate experience is pretty aweful to be fair and communication is very poor. To the recruiters that are moaning about not having enough info maybe it's because nobody trusts you with it. You need to stop using dirty del boy tactics and underhand tricks to get your leads and info and do proper legitimate business. Rather than trying source for jobs you've got no authority to be recruiting for.
Matthew Jeffery 23 May 2012
Hi all. Sorry for the delay in coming back on this article. Some great debate on here. Interesting seeing some of the arguments. Obviously some come from the vested interests like the recruitment agencies & job boards, (focused on preserving the status quo and making money). Remember debate is good and may help some re-adjust their model and prosper/survive in the future. Have to agree with several of the comments on here about agency fees. In the past, I have said some of the fees charged are the equivalent to legalized criminality. Reflecting on that a search agency. On average the fee structure is 30% of basic salary, (some include OTE and guaranteed bonus). This spilt down into 3rds. 1st third for starting the project. 2nd third for delivery of the shortlist. Last 3rd on placement. So the bulk of the fee is at placement ie 2/3rds, (hence why we hear of so many complaints of agencies not completing the search. Maybe they are not incentivized as the bulk of the fee already taken). But delving down. Remember when the search agency pitched. They claimed the best knowledge and the best contacts for that search. So question. If they have that ultimate database why do they then take 5 weeks to deliver a shortlist? Kinda contradictory And in the definition of the target companies, the client effectively does that or agrees to it. So, when that shortlist is delivered. Leap on LinkedIn and see how many names are on there. All of them I bet. Great job by the researcher back at the search agency, (more often than not a graduate on £25,000). BUT of course the Agency pre-screens and assesses/interviews them, (the add value). So then, why do we distrust them as we interview again from our recruitment side before managers do. A model so full of contradictions and out of date. The more of us that challenge the better for our profession and reputation. And let’s be honest, Recruitment has a poor external reputation. Recruitment often perceived as the poorer cousin of HR. We have a low bar to entry. In HR, professionals generally need a CIPD to even get interviewed. In recruitment, we have no such thing. Because of the lure of money, especially in the boom times, we had a sea of individuals who came in and played cv roulette and profited. No skill, just resume shifting. As the market tightens and more ways to reach candidates is possible, driven by technology, our profession will up skill. Sourcing, branding, using social media etc etc, requires more thought and creativity. Many of the lazy recruiters will be bypassed or have to upskill. Recruitment Leaders are included in this lazy recruiter bracket. Many are now relying on hiring Consultants and Futurologists to help them in their strategy & decision making. Wow. The ideas & strategy are out there. Read it, go to conferences, join ERE, CLC, Recruiting Roundtables…..don’t pay thousands to a consultant. Take a good look at many of these so called experts. Minimal experience and they re-state existing ideas. The simple way of looking at some of these consultants is that it is like being lectured on the art of great love making by a virgin. In terms of ideas Kumar, Google Recruitment 3.0 The Future of Recruiting or Recruitment 4.0: Crowdsourcing, Gamification, Recruitment as a Profit Centre. Both are on ERE Media. Thanks all for reading the article :)
Matthew Sagar 25 May 2012
Just wanted to add my voice to the many supporting Matthew's position. In his reply he reiterates that as recruiters we all need to keep focused on improving and raising the bar. I for one relish the challenge of making the direct hire process head and shoulders above any service offered by consultants. Of course we all recognise the need for some partnerships with quality agencies but with energy and focus and certainly no laziness I believe employees and employers alike can only benefit. Good to hear your "voice" again Matthew :-)
Justino Mora 25 May 2012
It is not a problem of Lazy Recruiters. It a problem of a Company that does not command a 90% Percentile Strategy. If you do not pay the market, then you can not count on the Recruiter to make the Miracle. For such a job you would require a Mandrake Recruiter.
Anthony Teague 07 Jun 2012
The first thing I did with this article was to send this to my corporate office. I know this will get sent to the masses and it should. I come in daily, do my job with one major intention, outside of making a living of course, but to try and change the way recruiters are seen in the eyes of outsiders! We are not used car sales person, we are selling contracts for souls for crying out loud, we are recruiters with a purpose. We are supposed to earn large fees not hope to god we make a placement to get by "one more time". I want to offer a service, through fostered relationships. I want to bring the top talent, to the top client and build a relationship based on the soul reason alone, that yes, I found the "ONE" that you DID NOT! Spot on Mathew Jeffrey! Maybe you will open the eyes to some of the corporate recruiting agencies out there and we can thin the heard. Keep those who do what a recruiter is supposed to and let the stagnant larvae go!
t-liscious 07 Jun 2012
...a recruiter doesn't own the entire process. Whether it's the recruiter, or the hiring manager, or the interviewers, or even the travel agent or front desk person - candidate experience runs the gamut, and the recruiter simply cannot control it all. A good 90% of the interviewers at most company have no idea what they're doing. They treat all candidates, active or passive, alike. No matter how many times you tell them, "this person doesn't need us, so make them want us," or coach them on selling the opportunity, or looking holistically at a candidate who brings more than just bullet points on a resume... the recruiter simply cannot control it all. But I agree that there are far more channels out there now than there were even 3-5 years ago for reaching out to talent that otherwise would have been harder and harder to find thanks to social media outlets and the like.
Ann Nelson 07 Jun 2012
I agree with Matthew Jeffrey. After reading the comments regarding Matthew's opinion, it is clear as recruiters, we all have different ideas on the recruiting process. As for me, I work with the established process at the company I am recruiting for, AND if the Manager in recruiting welcomes new and better ways to recruit then I speak up and offer my strategy which ends up breaking barriers.
Stella Kirkman 08 Jun 2012
Well said! Matthew Jeffrey's insight and vision for the future of recruitment practices & raising the bar in their efforts to find and "celebrate" qualified personnel while meeting the committment and expectations of both employers and prospective employees was poignant, right on target, and needed to be heard in my opinion. I agree, as a job seeker, one cannot replace the effect, experience, and impression made with the transparent and physical one-on-one interview experience vs tossing your resume out into E-space! As a former Staffer, coming from the old school, I have always believed the online recruitment and job application process has become an impersonal venture for both job candidates and employer. The online environment has caused recruitment practices to become complacent and mundane, leaving candidates to feel 'out at sea' with the thousands of others seeking same type of work or targeting specific industries and employers, all for the sake of online convenience and cutting costs.....which has also forced society to find the quick and convenient way of doing things while shirking responsibility for quality and value in much that we do. It is time for "a new type of recruitment" (Jeffrey,2012) to improve the candidate experience which will likely assist & motivate their efforts and tenacity in marketing and selling themselves so they stand out in the online environment. I also believe it is crucial to fit in with company culture in order to be successful and an asset to ones employer. However, an online recruiter needs to ensure choosing the right fit & candidate for the job the first time, which saves time and money for all concerned. I beleive this is more difficult to do compared to being able to judge character and job qualifications in a physical interfacing of one-on-one during the interview process. This article has sparked my imagination to consider how this can be accomplished with the appropriate solutions for improving online recruitment practices to improve & promote effective job seeker experiences, build trustworthy relationships between employer and employee while promoting confidence in the recruitment effort. With today's uncertain economic climate, these are qualities needed in recruitment practices to foster hopefullness and prosperity for viable employment opportunities.
Skip 08 Jun 2012
These complaints have been made as long as someone focusing on income not talent or professional skills is allowed. And the minute that changes they will go on to sell insurance or herbal remedies. And they affect the perception of a profession, particularly in those clients who have only their experience with them to evaluate. The key is that's not your immediate challenge. Serving your client in the best most complete research and alignment of personalities with culture and requisite content IS your primary added value proposition.
Jessica Ann Michael 08 Jun 2012
I have come across recruiters who work for reputable search firms that are unethical whereby they interview a candidate for a position and when the candidate is not hired by their client and when they do have another client that has the same requirement, they just forward the candidate's profile to that client without getting the consent of the candidate first or even discussing the client and the opportunity at hand. The candidate probably doesn't want to work for this client for some reason and is totally unaware that his/her CV is being sent all over the place without their consent. There are also recruiters who just have a short introduction with the candidate about the job and don't even bother to meet up with the candidate before presenting their profiles to the client. If it's an outstation candidate, then you can always go on Skype to do the interview and you have seen the candidate face-to-face.
Nick miller 08 Jun 2012
Let us firstly be clear about Matthew jeffrey's own agenda. Firstly he is a middle manager within a good but not huge organisation. He is hardly a great entrepreneur or businessman in his own right. as with most middle managers he is more concerned about his own job than anything else. His job is to fill roles at autodesk whilst at the same time convincing autodesk that he is the best solution to solving their hiring needs. The last thing Matthew Jeffrey wants is for his position to be undermined by anyone who shows that they can do it better. The only real threat is recruitment agencies which is why he dedicates so much effort to convincing not only himself but his own bosses that recruitment agencies are useless. That way he is better able to control any internal discontent from within autodesk ("I am as good as it gets") I just wonder how long autodesk will tolerate this indulgence before realising that his time would be better spent doing what recruitment agencies do best which is getting on the phone and talking to candidates.
RK 08 Jun 2012
I think Jeffery and his team are lazy and pointing out/comparing their style of work with other companies and scolding his team in-directly.....if recruiters are lazy....how are the companies closing the open positions with them...and coming about new trends recruiters concentrate on active profiles first and passive...to do cold calling and wasting the time on the passive candidates is time consuming...recruitment style/strategies differs in country to country continent to continent to company to company to skill to skill...do not compare your company workforce with other recruiters and do not de grade your company standards....
Wendy Carey 08 Jun 2012
Thank you for the great comments. I firmly believe that candidates are the most important people in recruitment and we are there to serve them not the other way around. The quicker people wake up to this the better. I have just ran a graduate programme for a company where I have managed to secure our full compliment of top talent because I managed the candidates carefully and with respect. We even managed to get candidates that the big players had also offered and they picked us because we treated them like people instead of a transaction.
Craig Mincher 08 Jun 2012
I am currently a consultant within the automotive industry which is seeing vast skill shortages due to the surge in manufacturing. Recruiters do need to target passive candidates that are employed to ensure the top talent available is sent to your client and simply looking for those out of work will often lead to poor results. There needs to be a change in attitude on both sides to work in partnership. Clients often view recruiters begrudgingly due to the experience they have been given by bad recruiters. And recruiters often view clients as a way to earn money that day or week and go around a clients recruitment procees which will speed the process up but often has irreversible consequences and gives your client very little satisfaction or trust in your business. What is often forgot is that forging a trust based relationship will be far more financially beneficial than a series of "quick fills". However when skills are short, clients need to be much more efficient in their recruitment process to ensure they do not lose out on possible assets to their organisation. The attitude needs to change on the recruiters side to embrace the new attitudes and processes of the 21st century. Recruitment managers, who have often been highly successful consultants often have difficulty in adapting to modern recruitment and in turn can affect the clients and candidates experience. The fact that a client is a customer of your business is often lost within the recruitment industry and a good modern recruiter will put this at the forefront of their mind to ensure a long lasting relationship is formed.
Margaret Reichert 08 Jun 2012
I agree completely! I started my HR career as a recruiter in New York City in the 90's and we did things very differently. Part of my role was to develop a relationship with both the company and the applicant. If the skills were not there 100%, it was my responsibility to figure out how the skills that the candidate did have would transfer into the organization that would result in best fit, and meeting organizational goals. That's not what I am seeing now.
Mike Richardson 08 Jun 2012
How about employers' HR departments ditching the tick-box approach? Nothing more exasperating than HR rejecting a candidate that one absolutely knows to be right for the company and the role, simply on the basis of matching words on a CV to words on their list. Bypass the automatons and speak to the hiring manager and the world can be a different place. We now only tend to deal with SMEs, where there is the energy and the authority and desire to get the job done, dealing directly with the decision makers.
MA Business & Leisure Limited © Copyright 2013, All Rights Reserved
