The problem with lazy recruiters
Discuss this article in the ZeroFlaws forums
After the influx of email over the last few days, I feel it's time for a few words on a topic close to my heart - recruitment agencies. Although some may disagree, I've always believed that unless you have a direct, personal contact within a company it's always a good bet to use a recruitment agency when looking for a new role. When they do their job right (and, fortunately, I've been lucky enough to find a few that do) the end result is a happy employer, a happy employee and a recruiter with a nice commission. When they do their job wrong though, it goes very, very wrong.
The problem I've been suffering for a while - and with increasing regularity over the last 2 years - is the all-seeing, all-knowing candidate database. Good recruiters use their candidate database as a starting point for a search; the bad ones use it for the start, end and all points in between. A vacancy arrives at the agency, it's scanned for keywords, and all candidates who might remotely match those keywords get sent a "personalized" email informing them of the opportunity. This results in some truly ridiculous opportunities being sent to totally inappropriate candidates. Here are some of the recent ones I've received (with incriminating details removed); bear in mind I'm a security specialist based in the UK.
You have been identified on our database as a candidate who is potentially suitable for a new position we have registered.
The role is for a Java Software Engineer 30-50k, reference number <deleted>.
Ideally you will have at least 2 years commercial experience in Java and will be willing to take the lead design role within a team,or looking for a hands on developer role. Any experience of JSP, J2EE, Perl, Apache, HTML,XML, SOAP and Oracle would be an advantage but is not essential.
Having absolutely no experience with Java, commercial or otherwise, and not even mentioning it on my CV (which, curiously, I've never sent to this agency) I'm curious as to how this recruiter thinks they are providing a good service to either the employer or myself. A reasonable assumption is that their search system picked up "Apache" on my CV - again, I don't know how they've got hold of it - and decided I'd be "potentially suitable" for a lead design role writing software in a language I've never used.
Next up, the bright lights of Hollywood beckon:
I have an excellent opportunity for one of the largest visual effects and computer animation studios.
The company's movie portfolio includes work on such films as <major title>, <major title, bad acting>, <blockbuster title, good acting> and <kid's movie>. Recent projects include: <bad movie>, <very, very funny movie>, <further list including several Oscar nominees>...
Skills Required: MS in Computer Science or equivalent, 3 years + experience developing tools in C++, Familiar with Maya, Houdini or Shake, Knowledge of Maya API, Excellent Linux skills.
On offer is a salary of £40K-£60K basic + an excellent benefits package and unrivalled career progression for the chosen C++ Software Developer.
Interesting. The reason the search system picked me out for this one is because of my C++ knowledge, none of which was gained as a professional programmer using Maya, Houdini or Shake. There's a slight difference between a career as a security specialist and one as a C++ tools programmer. Had a human actually vetted each candidate before sending the opportunity out, this little issue might have been noticed.
Lastly we have a great example of the single most irritating trait of a poor recruitment agent:
Dear Ian
As we haven't spoken for a few weeks I thought I would drop you a line to see how things are going. Do you have any recruitment requirements at the moment? Terms are still only 15% and contracts as usual can be negotiated. We provide our services for candidates across the UK and Europe.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any recruitment requirements
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards
Very Lazy Recruiter
You might be wondering what's wrong with this email. I have a business, I do recruit contractors for specific projects, and this decent recruiter is just keeping in touch with his customer.
Unfortunately I'm not his customer and I've never spoken to him. He's pulled my name from a Chamber of Commerce business database, fed it into his own database and then told it to send me an email every now and then. I get the exact same email every 3 months from this guy, telling me we haven't spoken "for a few weeks". How do I know he's pulled my details from a public database? Simple: I use a one email address when registering publicly accessible details and give a different one to people I know personally.
All of this might seem a mildly amusing diversion, and it's easy enough to delete these types of email. However this lazy recruiting style is incredibly serious for the agencies, employers and candidates.
Whenever I receive one of these lazy emails I immediately strike the agency off my "will work with" list. That means I won't speak to their recruiters, I won't open their emails and I won't apply for their roles. This means I could potentially be missing out on some great opportunities. As the candidate, it's my loss, but it's a loss I accept on principle: if the recruiter is too lazy to actually validate my CV against the role spec, he's probably too lazy to properly represent me to the potential employer.
I'm not the only one who loses though. I might have been the perfect candidate for the role, and because the recruiter's approach put me off applying, the employer will never get the opportunity to assess and potentially recruit me. The employer has lost the option to even decide whether I fit their need. Remember, they've paid a fee to the recruitment agency to find the best candidate.
The problem doesn't stop there. Assuming I was the best candidate for the role, and the employer would have wanted me, the agency has lost out on commission for a placement. If we take the agency email (above) stating 15% commission as an example, and the £60,000 C++ tools programmer as a potential role, that's just under £10,000 commission the recruitment agent has lost.
Let's be clear. The agencies are paid a massive fee to recruit candidates on behalf of a company. It's their responsibility to do the candidate vetting (is the role suitable for the candidate, is the candidate suitable for the role?), relationship building and negotiation. That's what they're paid for. Lazy recruiters let databases and search engines do their job for them resulting in a poor deal for agency, the employer and the candidate.
One of the major culprits is also one of the biggest agencies - Hays. Thanks to their database I regularly receive invitations to apply for inappropriate roles, the latest one being a UNIX engineer in The Hague. Interesting, but the 7 hour international commute might make me a bit late in the mornings. On the plus side I could use the time to retrain as a UNIX specialist. Hays aren't the only lazy agency but I won't name others, both to save time and reduce the number of incoming libel actions...
It's in everyone's interest to refuse to work with recruiters who insist on sending out job specs without putting the effort in to identify suitable candidates. Everyone except the lazy recruiter, that is.
