Lazy Recruiters

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR.

It has been really pleasing to see some of the older editions of Discuss HR still commanding healthy discussions, so clearly they are hitting the right note.  Needless to say I am hoping this week is no exception, as this week is written by myself! (Ed Scrivener)

Lazy Recruiters

The recruitment approach to communication!

After my previous article, Jobseeker’s must try harder, I promised to write about the other side of the recruitment fence.  When I started writing this I did so in a tongue in cheek vein about the cowboys of the recruitment world.  I was detailing why all the criticism is levelled at recruitment consultants, however, it suddenly occurred to me that the humour of the piece could have easily been lost and I was in danger of committing my own Gerald Ratner moment!  This was rather apt that I felt my communication may be unclear, as when you look at the criticism of recruitment practices, at the core of them all, poor communication appears to be the common theme.

If I were to ask 100 people about their main gripe with recruitment consultants, I would expect 90 of them to state lack of feedback.  Equally, this criticism can also be aimed at hiring organisations.  In general, too many organisations and recruitment agencies alike feel feedback is not an essential part of the recruitment process.  Why is this? I would suggest that not providing feedback to unsuccessful candidates, be it at application or interview stage, is due to them being placed further down a list of priorities as recruiters believe the candidates no longer hold any importance.  It is believed the time spent contacting all the unsuccessful applicants is not an effective use of time.  This is of course an absurd notion!  These recruiters are being very short sighted in a number of ways.  Hiring organisations which have poor recruitment processes damage their brand.  This is especially pertinent when the organisation provides a service or product to consumers.  A poor experience at a recruitment stage is just as damaging to a brand as a poor sales experience in a shop.  Equally, recruitment agencies are damaging their reputation, which as any recruitment consultant will tell you is the most important aspect for being successful.  A candidate who has a poor experience will not refer the agency to acquaintances or, as is especially relevant in the HR industry, will not return to the agency as a client.  In recent years a large number of multi-discipline recruitment agencies have created HR recruitment divisions to try and capitalise on the good will of HR professionals and generate more business.  So, often the key to receiving feedback is to chase for it.  This shouldn’t be a necessary step, but often it is.  Fortunately, you will find many recruitment agencies and organisations do understand the importance of feedback, but the actions of a minority tar the majority.

Lack of feedback is only one issue, the quality of feedback is very much another.  Last year I was recruiting for an organisation for a role  for which I submitted 2 CVs.  The client emailed me to invite 1 candidate to interview but with no mention of the other.  I emailed and called about the other candidate but to no avail.  So I explained to this candidate that I had to presume they were unsuccessful.  I knew this was the 3^rd role she had applied for with the organisation, however, she then explained to me that she had not received any feedback in any of the 3 occasions.  I persisted with the client, leaving messages and emails explaining the lack of feedback.  After a week of chasing, they sent an email explaining “there were closer matches.”  Surely, if someone has had such a bad experience a few minutes could be spared to detail why they felt the person was not suitable?  Needless to say the candidate was not impressed and won’t be using the services of the company.  It probably won’t come as a surprise either that the recruiter no longer works for the company!  Spending the time to detail feedback provides a great sense of goodwill, however, if an organisation is working with a recruitment consultancy this feedback will help refine the search for suitable candidates.  It is no surprise that organisations which work with agencies very closely in a partnership are far more likely to fill their requirements and have improved levels of retention.  Candidates whom I reject at application stage I do so with the offer of detailed feedback.  I am always surprised that only about 15% take up this offer.  You will find some recruiters not willing to provide any feedback, but most will.  Again the key is to ask for it.

The recruiters all went for the same candidate...

Another aspect where poor communication affects the recruitment process is when hiring organisations feel the need to commission multiple recruitment agencies.  I can see the value of using 2 agencies, but when far more are commissioned the lines of communication are dulled immensely.  Often multiple agencies are used out of a misguided notion that it will widen the talent pool, however, it actually decreases noticeably the chances of finding the right person.  The point of using a recruitment agency should be to find the talent that the hiring organisation cannot.  If all they want is an advert response it would be far wiser and cheaper to use an advertising agency instead.  The last multi-agency roll I worked on was 2 years ago and the experience made me stop working on that basis.  The client commissioned in total 16 agencies! (This was also the last time I forgot to ask how many agencies are working on the role)  Due to the numbers involved they could only afford to provide a 5 minute brief per agency and were not open to face to face meetings.  Within days they received a staggering 60 CVs!  They were not asking the agents for any form of description about the candidates (yet one of the main reasons a job seeker to uses an agency is to  sell them to organisations).  It was at this point I decided to withdraw from the process as it was clear the only chance of success was mudslinging.  As it transpired the organisation went to final interview stage 4 times over a period of 5 months before appointing – the successful candidate left after 6 months!  This is an extreme example, however, I would strongly suggest that had the organisation spent the time with 1 agent rather than 16 they would have found the right person in less time who would still be employed.  This should also act as a lesson to job seekers.  Find out how many agencies are recruiting for the role as you wouldn’t want to be 1 of 60!

So in general, if organisations and recruitment agencies improved their lines of communication the recruitment process would be:
·         Cheaper
·         Quicker
·         More effective
·         Improve the brand, employer brand, reputation

This seems to be a no brainer, but is this so startlingly obvious that it will be overlooked? Unfortunately, the simple solutions are often missed and this will be the case for some time to come.


About the author

Ed runs his own business and is an HR recruitment specialist with a passion for social media.  He holds over 8 years industry specific experience and specialises in recruiting for middle to senior management HR positions.  He is also the Group Manager of Human Resources UK.
Blog | Website | Email

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 14^th April and will be written by experienced HR professional Dawn Clarke.