Recruiters on trial: six arguments for the defence

18 June 2010

4 minute read

Recruiters on trial: six arguments for the defence

Recruiters have copped a fair amount (ok, loads) of flack from eFinancialCareers readers recently. Here are some highlights...

"Integrity and honesty are not words to be used by a recruiter."

"Headhunters will use all sorts of brain-washing techniques to make the candidate accept the offer."

"Recruitment agents are at the bottom of the barrel with real estate agents. Most lack any knowledge of the industries they work in, and spend most of their time 'catching up' with people and having 'coffees' to justify their existence."

How is the industry responding? Here's a summary of its main arguments, some of them sensible, others perhaps a tad too defensive. Have a read and let us know your thoughts below.

1) Recruiters are good and bad - just like bankers

The case for the defence is not that all recruiters are excellent or that the profession couldn't do with more oversight. It's simply that recruitment is no worse than any other industry. Recruiters don't blame their banking candidates for causing the financial crisis, so neither should bankers slag off all recruiters for any problems in their sector. Highly-educated, well-paid (and often ruthless) bankers should easily be able to decide whether a recruiter is decent or not, and if he/she isn't, there are plenty of other agents to choose from.

2) Sorry, but going direct is often a dud

The rallying call for post-GFC job seekers is not to get savvier when working with recruiters, but to cut them out completely and apply directly to employers. Recruiters reply that banks in Asia Pacific have notoriously underdeveloped hiring teams compared with the US and Europe, so good luck with your direct applications guys.

Your agent has a much better relationship with the bank - often developed over several years - than you do, meaning that it's in your interests to use a well-connected middleman. And if you don't like the system, there's not much you can do to change it. Any move towards more direct sourcing is likely to be slow and sporadic, with banks using it only for certain roles at certain times.

3) Recruiters are free

Yes, recruiters are contracted to banks, but they help candidates too. Moreover, they don't charge you a cent for their services and you can discard them at your whim. Your agent usually provides (free) career advice, talks to employers, arranges interviews, and guides you through the selection process (again, for free).

But all this can backfire on the recruiter if you receive a counter offer and stay in your job for a lousy pay rise and a vague promise of promotion. Commitment from recruiter to you: considerable in terms of time lost and effort unrewarded. Commitment from you to recruiter: nothing. If the candidate-recruiter relationship is unequal, perhaps it's actually the candidate who has the upper hand?

4) They can offer long-term career gain

Who you gonna call when you are considering quitting your company? Your boss? The HR director? A new recruiter? None of the above actually. If you successfully used an agent in the past, it's in both of your interests to keep in touch and use each other to secure your next job. This is the consultant-as-long-term-career-coach defence, and it makes sense if you get along well and trust each other.

5) Maybe it's you

Not heard back about your application? It could be lost, it could be an admin error, but the lack of response is probably because you weren't up to the job. Like any professional, recruitment consultants need to stay profitable to stay in a job and they simply lack the time to follow up fully with candidates who don't have relevant experience.

6) Blame the bank

The bank choose not to hire you, not the recruiter. Get over it.

Click here

to subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

AUTHORSimon Mortlock

Content Manager

Pl
Plato
13 July 2010
"the only way these guys stay in jobs is that the entire industry is full of people similarly incompetent".
Go figure. Recruitment like any business is successful only when it creates and maintains a strong profit margin.
In recruitment terms this only happens when recruiters place
high quality candidates into jobs the candidates want
(and dont drop out after 5 minutes causing a reimbursement of any fee). If everyone in recruitment was 'incompetent' no one would survive in the industry as each business would fold. Basic economics.
Slightly concerning that Phillipe in his Sales job for a tier-one IB has such little understanding of how business actually works.
Reply
Ar
Aristotle
30 June 2010
Bit bored of the tireless and unfair scapegoating of recruiters on this site. Bob puts it nicely above. Ultimately we offer a free and in most cases ethical service to Candidates and this should be highlighted.
While I empathise that it is difficult for candidates to find appropriate work opportunities in this relatively small and highly competitive market, it has to be pointed out that as recruiters we have strict mandates from our clients and have to work closely to this selection criteria. We will always try to expand this criteria in consultation with our clients to give candidates and ourselves the best chance of finding the right person.
There may be some recruiters who might not display appropriate ethics but you should be able to determine if the person you are sitting opposite at interview is truly professional and has your career interests at heart. It comes down to agreeing on a clear and transparent strategy with appropriate discretion.
Phillipe - I suspect that if your sales skills were actually as strong as you would have us believe that you would have been able to secure your own gig without first meeting recruiters for 'coffees' and market intelligence.
Reply
hu
humoured
26 June 2010
I find it hilarious the number of people working in banking (Phillipe?!!) agressively attacking recruitment professionals for poor or unethical conduct. WHY DONT YOU TAKE A LOOK A BIT CLOSER TO HOME!! Take a simple count of the number of people in your own profession serving jail terms/been disqualified from operating/been fined/misrepresented dud products to retail investors/super funds/mum and dad investors/Australian councils etc etc and you will realise how hipocritical your complaining is. If Leeson, Maddoff, Kerviel (need i go on!?) ran recruitment businesses you might have something to complain about. But then again you dont see a bunch of recruiters turning up to a banking event to vent their anger at a financial system that is impossible to avoid using (ever tried to get your wage in cash, or not put your money in super?)
Reply
Bo
Bob
25 June 2010
From a recruiter: Our services are free to candidates; the percentage recruiters get comes from the employer and is NOT taken out of your salary. Example: A specialised analyst gets paid $100K by Bank A, the recruiter gets paid 20% = $20K fee. If Bank A pays $80K and took the fee for the recruitment out of your salary then the Analyst would go to Bank B who pays $100K as that's the market rate. If you are not getting the salary you want then re-evaluate your salary expectations. Recruiters get paid for strong candidates so if you are unsuccessful with recruiters you should go direct as employers are not prepared to pay recruiters for average candidates. A good recruiter is the one who finds a good candidate and that candidate will get a great free service because a good candidate is a very valuable commodity. When not getting a job it is likely that you have not got the experience needed for the job, you interview badly, you have a poor resume or a bad reputation in your industry.
Reply
Ph
Phillipe
25 June 2010
Tom, I haven't been passed over for any jobs and am currently employed at a top tier investment bank in a front office sales role. My point is merely that I have had my time wasted by recruiters wanting to have coffees etc. who are merely building their client book without any mandates from employers. If I meet with a client it is to try and do some business, not for the purpose of updating the database with contact details.
Reply