Interview myths - never talk negatively about your previous employer

It’s a commonly held belief that you should not talk negatively about previous employers/managers when interviewing.

Why?

If you’ve been working overtime to clear up the mess left behind by shoddy processes and a temperamental boss who doesn’t know what they’re doing, why should you fall in line and be expected to come up with some other reason for wanting to move on?

Maybe your boss has his or her favourites in the team, who they’d prefer to give the interesting work and promotions to, and this isn’t based on merit, but on who accompanies them to the pub most often to listen to their tales of business dominance.

So what should you do if you find yourself in this situation and you’re asked at interview why you’re looking for a move?

Tell the truth! 

It may be negative, and you would probably be wise not to go in to granular detail about all the goings-on, but if you can explain the key reason/s without getting personal and put any examples in to the context of how they have a negative impact on work performance or on your career development, then these are perfectly valid reasons and therefore a prospective employer should have no reason to cause alarm.

Exercising some discretion is of course advised, but it’s far better to be open and honest than to conjure up some alternative reason, which may come across as vague and lead them to assume (rightly) that there’s something you’re not telling them. 

Have you found yourself in this situation? How did you deal with it if so?

How to follow-up after an interview

Creating a good impression to a potential new employer can be a stressful process. We all know the importance of first impressions, but the do’s and don’ts of leaving a lasting impression are not quite so clear.

So when you’ve attended an interview and come away knowing that you will be devastated if you don’t secure the role, it’s natural to start worrying about whether there’s more you could have done during the meeting and if there’s something else you can do now to increase your chances.

Maybe I should have said this? Maybe I shouldn’t have said that? Perhaps I should connect with her on LinkedIn and stress again how keen I am? Or maybe send an email?

Now, when you’ve arranged the interview directly with the employer (with no third party/recruiter involved) this may well be wise. It should in fact have been actively encouraged by the employer. They need to know if the role appeals to you and whether you would like to progress to the next stage if invited.

However, if you’ve been introduced to the employer by a recruiter, they have intentionally appointed a third party to help with the process and will anticipate feedback to be collected and passed through via the appointed recruiter. Very rarely in this circumstance will it be encouraged or expected to make contact directly. Contrary to some advice I’ve read online!

This needn’t take away the level of influence you can still have on the process however. Firstly, be quick in debriefing your recruiter on how the interview went. The quicker you can provide feedback to them, the quicker they can pass this through to their client, which will be appreciated. It’s also important to be specific in what appealed to you about the opportunity and how and where you feel your experience/skills will be well utilised.

It may also be worthwhile putting together a carefully composed email to your recruiter as a follow-up, expressing your interest in the position. Discuss it with them and see if they feel it could help for them to forward the email on themselves. This won’t come across as pushy as sending it direct, but will still give you the opportunity to get your message through.

The dangers of one stage interview processes

For recruiters, recruitment processes with just one stage of interviewing can be very appealing. Less time spent arranging interviews, and generally a quick process to manage with fewer decision makers for the applicant to please/upset. In most cases however, this is a false economy.

It may be convenient for an employer to reduce the time spent interviewing during busy periods or for urgent hiring requirements, and in some instances, such as when it’s for an interim assignment it’s also convenient and anticipated by the potential employee. But in other cases, these one stage processes often do not provide the opportunity for potential candidates to build up enough of a connection to the employer or hiring manager.

Recent recruitment industry surveys in the UK have shown that whilst demand for staff is on the increase, the availability of candidates is decreasing, which inevitably means that jobseekers who are actively interviewing will have more options to consider. Whilst on the one hand it’s important to move quickly in order to secure high calibre candidates, if the focus is all on speed of hire, the candidate engagement process will be compromised, which could lead to offers being rejected as candidates join competitor businesses.

For the instances when time is at a premium, adding in a 15 minute telephone interview to the recruitment process can make all the difference, even if only for the preferred applicant. It adds another layer of selection in to the process, giving the candidate confidence that they’re being selected on merit, not just availability, and crucially it allows them time to reflect on the opportunity after their first meeting, so they can follow up with any questions or raise any potential concerns they might have. The chances of them accepting any offer would undoubtedly increase and potentially save the employer having to go back to the drawing board.

Do you agree, or you do feel one interview should be sufficient to identify and attract the right candidate to your business? Please add your thoughts below. 

Financial Recruitment Continues to Make Gains (Guest Blog)

A guest blog from James McCaffrey - with a number of years of accounting experience, James now focusses on recruitment and the financial jobs market, writing for Total Jobs.

As recently documented in the latest edition of Balance Recruitment’s Quarterly Update, financial recruitment is continuing to make gains. The latest update also pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of vacancies in the financial sector, coinciding with a demand for more staff – especially those with backgrounds as Analysts or within Billing, Revenue, and financial reporting.

In a recent Google Hangout for Total Jobs, Tom Newcombe, a leading journalist for HR magazine also agreed that growth was taking place in the financial sector, pointing to figures from PWC which highlighted that by 2020, there could be an additional 200,000 financial jobs vacancies which could contribute to a 3% growth in GDP- but only if the financial sector can improve regulation.

These figures hold relevance for the wider financial industry too, as the recession has forced businesses to increase their focus on due diligence, accuracy and transparency- and in recognising the importance of sufficient monitoring; the financial sector, and indeed the financial departments across all industries have made a demonstrable commitment to tidying up processes across the board. It’s this commitment that is reflected not only in the increased number of vacancies, but also in the roles that are currently high in demand. In the same session, Jane Clarke, Head of Campus Recruitment at Barclays Bank, also noted that over the next year, the biggest intake of new graduates would be in the fields of compliance and legal capabilities, roles centred on analysis, monitoring and managing processes efficiently.

There have long been calls for more transparency in business, especially when it comes to balancing the books and reporting on performance – now that more businesses are making a commitment to delivering on transparency, they are starting to recognise the vital importance of hiring teams of skilled people who can deliver the processes, monitoring and accurate reporting that will go into making sure that finances are in order and that balance sheets add up.

When businesses can present themselves to the public, stakeholders and potential investors, as well as potential staff that they are committed to honesty and thorough processes, it helps to boost the reputation of company, making it more attractive for business opportunities and skilled jobseekers – the figures reflect the truism that investing more in staff makes sense for all areas of business. Jane also pointed out that graduates who had been studying during the worst phases of the recession were keen to ensure that they found work in companies that were seen to have honest practices – in as much as companies of all sizes have re-evaluated their recruiting criteria since the worst days of the crisis, jobseekers are also showing a desire to work for a company which has a will to organise its finances and processes too. 

#AskBalance - Career Advice for accountancy and finance

Back in April, we started a new 'ask the expert'-style feature at Balance Recruitment - #AskBalance

First up as our resident expert was Tony Vickers. Tony heads up our accounting division recruiting in to Commerce & Industry. He has this year been crowned 'Best Permanent Consultant' at the Global Recruiters Awards, and 'Recruiter of the Year' in the Recruiter Awards for Excellence.

See below one of the questions answered by Tony, and click here to see the full feature. 


I'm a qualified accountant looking for my first role in industry.  What are my options?

Completing your accountancy training in practice is a solid grounding for a move into industry.  Whether you qualify as an ACCA or ACA or in a small, mid tier or top 4 practice; there are plenty of options for you.  The most common move for someone at a newly qualified level would be to take a role either in internal audit, group finance or financial accounting.  It is less common for newly qualified accountants to take a first step into a commercial/analytical role which tend come once you have cut your teeth in industry in a more traditional accounting role.  Generally those FTSE 250 businesses tend to favor people with a ‘top 4’ background however this is not always the case with those training in a smaller firm tending to gain a greater breadth of experience which is valued.

Salary Expectations - how do you know what to aim for?

Having recently compiled data from across the UK for a salary survey we conducted in our Legal Accounts division (results to be published on our website in July if you’re interested!), it got me thinking about how it will affect people’s expectations of their worth. And by “worth”, I’m talking specifically about the basic salary they are paid by their employer to do the job they do.

A common mistake I see people making is relying purely on one source of information and believing that to be sufficient evidence. I do hope that our salary survey will prove to be a useful, accurate measure for employers and employees alike, but it should only be viewed as guidance. For example: the level of responsibility and day to day duties of a Management Accountant can differ widely from one firm to another, so going by a job title on a salary survey alone is not sufficient.

Another source of information that often misleads us is job vacancies. An individual might read through a job advert, mentally tick off all the duties and reach the conclusion they should therefore expect to be paid the top end of the salary bracket. Securing interviews for these positions will provide even stronger evidence that this is achievable. Of course, on some occasions this will indeed be the case, but if you’re only reaching interview stages and not securing offers, it may suggest otherwise.  

As a recruiter working in a very niche market for many years, I like to think I have a pretty accurate view of what is an achievable salary expectation from those I meet with, and when conducting interviews with jobseekers, it’s an important part of the registration process to ensure that expectations are realistic, which from time to time does involve bursting a few balloons.

Naturally, I don’t expect everyone to take my views as gospel (I’d like it, but I don’t expect it), but you can generally rely on experienced recruiters to have a good understanding of what would constitute a reasonable expectation. It’s sensible to look out for relevant salary surveys and vacancy adverts to see what might be achievable, but be wary of placing too high an emphasis on them as you might find you’re pricing yourself out of being considered for good opportunities.

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of recruitment these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one. We’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, may feel undervalued and misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand.

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen  earlier rather than later in the process.

• If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

Ask Balance

Do you have any questions you'd like answered in relation to recruitment, interviews or a career in accountancy?

We've launched an 'Ask Balance' feature over on the Balance Recruitment website this week, and my colleague Tony Vickers is first up in the chair. Tony has been recruiting for finance and accountancy staff in London for over 10 years, working with some of the worlds best known brands across a variety of sectors. 

He has been shortlisted for the 'Agency Recruiter of the Year' Award at this years Recruiter Awards for Excellence, and is eager to take your questions. 

Get involved here: #AskBalance

Job Boards and the battle for quantity over quality...

With the threat of social media networks moving in on their territory, job boards have had to work a little harder recently to convince their clients (e.g. recruiters and direct employers) that their services are still as valuable as ever and that their well established business models can withstand the threat posed by LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

This is most notably evident through the significant increase on advertising spend to increase the number of job seekers registering on their sites. The campaigns seem to be working, with a number of job boards boasting record traffic statistics.

So what does this mean for the clients who advertise vacancies on their sites? Does it improve their chances of finding the best candidates? Possibly. Does it mean they will receive more applications? Certainly. Does it mean they’ll spend more time filtering out irrelevant applicants? Definitely. Quantity is assured, quality isn’t.

One job board even seems to actively promote the ‘spray and pray’ method of searching for work in their TV campaign, implying that a wholesale change in career profession is achieved as simply as sending your CV off for something that catches your interest!

Ask any recruiter what they dislike about using job boards and they’ll all tell you the same thing; too many irrelevant applications. Job board users can send their CV’s to countless vacancies in no time, regardless if they do not have the experience requested in the vacancy advert.  Very few recruiters will tell you they just want even more applications.

There is also a logical argument to say that this focus on volume has a negative impact on the job seekers who use the job boards in the manner intended. Relevant applicants will inevitably get overlooked from time to time when their CV’s are buried in amongst hundreds of irrelevant applications.

So what do I think job boards could do to improve their services? Here are a few suggestions:

·         If a job seeker is applying for a very wide range of different role types, at salary levels that indicate a reasonable level of previous experience might required, send a ‘yellow card’ email, asking them to be more realistic with their applications, or face restrictions on the number of applications they can make.

·         Limit the number of applications job seekers can make daily. This might be a bit extreme, but it would encourage job seekers to spend more time reading through adverts to see if they have a realistic chance of being considered.

·         Universal use of filtering questions. Some job boards have this feature, but couldn’t they all allow the advertisers to pose some yes/no experience questions that filter out unsuccessful applicants?

·         Require more information to be entered manually by the job seeker for each application (to reduce spamming). Adding a layer of process in to the application process will take more effort on the job seekers part. Perhaps allow the vacancy advertiser the option to add a specific question field, relating to the advert (e.g. ‘please describe your involvement in a systems upgrade project’).

So when I receive a promotional email from a job board telling me that their new TV advertising campaign is about to start, I now find my finger pressing the delete button before I’ve reached the end of the first sentence.

What do you think of the above suggestions? Would they improve service for you as a recruiter/hiring manager? Or would they be too restrictive as a job seeker? Or have you got any better suggestions? Please comment below…

LinkedIn's Endorsements feature - users will decide its fate...

I’ve read a number of articles/blogs recently discussing the pros and cons of the Endorsements feature on Linkedin, so I thought I’d throw my opinion in to the ring.

The theory behind its introduction makes sense to me. It’s a quick and easy way to publicly verify the skills and expertise of a contact you’ve worked with or done business with. Not as personal and informative as a written recommendation, but still a testimonial of sorts and one we’re all grateful to receive when it’s from someone we know.

One of the major problems is how the feature is promoted on the site. Linkedin have made it too quick and easy to endorse multiple contacts with one mouse click when prompted.  This significantly dilutes the credibility of the function and actively encourages users to endorse their connections for skills and expertise they may not possess.

Another big argument from the doubters is that they’re receiving endorsements from people they’ve never even met or had business dealings with. In the article:  Why I Think LinkedIn Endorsements Will Be Dead By The End Of The Year the author states that he’s had five endorsements that very day from complete strangers, and as a result feels the feature is doomed to fail.

This is where there seems to be some misguided criticism of the feature in my opinion. Only first tier connections can endorse you, so if you don’t want to give strangers the ability to endorse you, don’t connect with them in the first place. Linkedin can’t be held accountable for being unable to distinguish between your real life connections and the open networkers you connect with on the site to build a bigger network. *I’ve literally just had a notification of an endorsement come through as I typed this (I promise!), and guess what – it’s from a stranger with ‘LION’ in their surname. I assume they’re just hoping for a reciprocal endorsement back, but it’s not going to happen.

So how can it be improved? It’s quite simple – by improving it ourselves. If everyone takes the initiative and some time out to endorse their real life contacts for the specific skills you know they possess, a much more accurate picture of an individuals expertise will eventually be reflected in the data.

The same goes for any site you use with user generated reviews and endorsements. Do you read the reviews on Amazon, ebay and TripAdvisor before making purchases/reservations for example? If you use it, get involved too. Contribute your reviews and experiences also and make it even better for everyone. The same applies to Linkedin Recommendations and Endorsements.

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of hiring these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one, but it happens and we’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

 If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, can feel undervalued and at worst, misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand. 

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• ·         If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen now than later in the process. 

• ·         If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed as soon as this becomes clear. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

The urgency compromise in Recruitment/Hiring

Having had over 10 years experience of working within recruitment, I can safely say that timing is everything when it comes to a firm successfully managing a hiring process.  Unfortunately I need to add that the majority of firms fail to recognise this and demand urgency when it’s not required and then expect patience when they should be acting quickly.

The outcome can greatly impact the calibre of candidates that are put forward for vacancies by recruiters, and can lead to employers missing out on talent they were hoping to secure.

On many occasions I have been instructed with a vacancy on a Wednesday or Thursday and have been told that the hiring manager is hoping to have CV’s through by the weekend. A shortlist has been sent to the hiring manager within this timescale, but then there has been no feedback on the CV’s until later the following week, or even longer in some cases.

This to me is wasted time. If the hiring manager is prepared to wait a week before reviewing CV’s and arranging interviews, they could have allowed the recruiter another week to spend time finding the best available candidates for their shortlist. Admittedly a good recruiter will already have an existing database of jobseekers and will be able to react quickly, but a good recruiter should also be able to go to the market to find new talent who may be even closer to the requirements of the role and produce a definitive shortlist at the end of this process.

A good proportion of the vacancies we have filled within my business have been with applicants who were not actively looking for their next move at the time. Having been approached and briefed about a suitable role however, they have considered the opportunity, met with us to discuss it in more detail and have gone ahead with an application. This process can rarely happen within 24-48 hours and rushing to receive CV’s will therefore rule out the largest potential candidate market available; those who aren’t actively looking (yet!).

There is also a high chance of missing out on candidates altogether when encouraging recruiters to send through only readily available applicants and then taking too long before reviewing CV’s. These candidates are likely to be very active in their job search and, even if they are still available a week or two down the line, they may not want to arrange further interviews if they’re already progressing to final stages elsewhere. This can put a supposedly “urgent” process back to the drawing board two to three weeks after it started.

The recruitment process rarely runs completely smoothly as there are too many variables affecting the outcome and causing delays. The whole process is generally a task that needs to be completed in addition to the hiring manager’s already busy workload. It’s therefore extremely important to put in place a realistic timetable for the recruitment process, and if you want to attract the best talent for your firm it may be worth allowing a little more time for a thorough search to be carried out before asking to review CV’s from a recruiter.

If you've enjoyed this blog, please do share any comments/views/experiences you've had in relation to this topic below. 

When applying for vacancies - be specific

One of the most common complaints of jobseekers is that they don’t get feedback from job applications. Whilst for recruiters, one of their biggest complaints is the volume of irrelevant applications they receive from job adverts.

The two go hand in hand. The more applications recruiters have to sift through, the less time they can devote to replying to all the unsuccessful or irrelevant applicants. Meanwhile a jobseeker, disheartened by a lack of response, may step up the number of applications they send out, in the hope it will increase their chances of progression to interview.

The danger of deploying a scatter-gun approach to job applications is that it can undermine your prospect of securing the positions you’re actually most interested in. A recruiter, through memory or application tracking software, will generally be aware of multiple applications made by the same individual, and if these are for roles covering different responsibilities across a range of salaries there will, at best, be confusion over where your strengths lie, or at worst they’ll assume you consider yourself a ‘jack of all trades and master of none’. Recruiters rarely get instructed to find these!

A better approach would be to only apply for those roles you’re most interested and suitable for based on the requirements detailed in the job advert. If you’re not then hearing back from the recruiter who is advertising these roles, give them a call to have a chat about your job search and see if they can assist.

Still not quite shorts and t-shirts weather yet, but at least it looked like it on the way in to work this morning (just ignore the coats!).

Salary Surveys: pay close attention!

It’s the time of year again when HR departments are busily analysing market salary data and employees are discovering whether they will be happy or frustrated when learning of their annual pay reviews.

For employers it’s crucial that they have an informed understanding of what constitutes ‘market rate’ salaries for all the various positions they employ within their business. Equally it’s just as important that individuals know their market value relevant to their responsibilities, qualifications and experience.

That’s not to say that salary surveys provide an individual with proof that they are ‘worth’ a certain salary. But they do give guidance on what a future employer might expect them to be earning, which can be of huge importance. Rightly or wrongly (in my view: wrongly!), a fair proportion of prospective employers will consider an individual’s current salary when considering what they feel is a fair offer to attract someone. If they’re already well below market rate, they might be happy to take any payrise even though it is still below the market average.

Therefore, if you find yourself being paid a salary lower than your peers, you may well find that this sticks with you for the duration of your career (unless you do something to address it), which can amount to a considerable sum – more than you might be consciously willing to forego in favour of good team morale, convenient location and stability.

Of course, I wouldn’t advocate marching in to your line manager and demanding a pay rise but, if you haven’t already, it may be sensible to raise this as a topic for conversation during appraisals/reviews at an appropriate time. If you come to the realisation (or are informed) that your current employer knowingly pays at the lower end of the market, you should really consider the potential long term difference in earnings rather than just the next 12 months and based on this decide whether it’s an amount you’re happy to sacrifice or whether you might want to start looking to increase your salary elsewhere.

I’m currently conducting a salary survey in association with the Institute of Legal Finance & Management (http://www.ilfm.org.uk/) for the niche area I recruit for – accounting staff working for law firms. If you’re working within this area, please click the link and participate!

Are you missing out on talent as a result of the recession?

The recession has affected recruitment in many different ways. It has also had a huge impact on the career decisions made by individuals over the last few years, and if you don’t take this in to consideration when reviewing job applications, you could be missing out on genuine talent.

We’ve noted a few occasions recently where high calibre applicants have been overlooked for reasons that say more about market conditions lately than the individuals themselves, and this is where opportunities are missed.

With widespread redundancies, recruitment freezes and budget constraints on hiring over the last few years, it has been a very difficult period for many who’ve been directly affected by cut backs.  Even for those who’ve remained safe in their employment, it’s not been a particularly opportune time to make significant career advancements.

Those unfortunate enough to be made redundant during this period have generally not had the luxury to patiently pick and choose their next move, as they have been up against a lot of competition for very few vacancies. Meanwhile bills still have to be paid. The result is that some career decisions and moves have been made which in a better economic climate might not have happened.

There has also been notable trend over this period for employers to hire staff on fixed term contracts rather than making permanent appointments. Those already on long term temporary or rolling contract agreements have had little chance of becoming permanent, and many have been let go as a first measure of cutbacks. Maintaining career stability has simply not been possible for those in this circumstance.

We’re therefore now reaching a point where these factors need to be taken in to serious consideration when reviewing job applications. Some factors which may have raised concerns back in 2007 may now be more understandable today. Moves that might not have made sense pre-recession, should now be viewed in a different light, and individuals who may appear to have a patchy or “jumpy” CV over the last few years, aren’t necessarily unreliable or flighty – they may have just had to secure interim positions quickly due to financial commitments and a shortage of permanent opportunities available.

Are these factors taken in to consideration when you’re reviewing job applications? Or have you been affected personally by the recession and feel your career prospects have taken a knock as a result? Please add any relevant comments below.

CV's can't talk back - so why not discuss any question marks with the consultants who sent them?

When using recruiters, if you are prepared to instruct them to assist with a role and represent your firm to market, you should have faith in their ability to find suitable talent and to identify the closest match to your requirements, regardless of whether on a retained or contingency basis.

I’m not suggesting that recruiters never get it wrong (and why continue to use those who often do?), but the best hiring managers and HR Coordinators will take time to seek advice from them on why you should meet with those they’ve recommended, and to challenge any concerns they might have when reviewing a CV.

The best talent won’t necessarily have the best looking CV, so relying on the document alone is ignoring the experience and judgement of a recruiter who will have rejected countless of other applicants they’ve met in person, ahead of the shortlist they have ultimately sent through. If your faith in a recruiter’s recommendations results in interviewing irrelevant candidates, you will at least have identified that this is a recruiter you shouldn’t be working with in future.

The problem may be that too many recruiters have been instructed or that those who have are sending far too many CV’s, so some ruthless filtering has to be applied to narrow down the shortlist, but that’s a blog for another day.

I’ve recently been asked by a new client to assist with filling a vacancy that has already been on the market for a close to two months. My first thought has to be to consider whether this is going to be a wise investment of my time? If it’s taken so long already and nobody has been found, is there actually anybody out there who can do this job, or is the client being unrealistic in their expectations?

Having completed my due diligence with the HR Coordinator on the position, it was clearly a good opportunity, paying market rate salary and with reasonable expectations on the experience required. I asked why it had proved to be so difficult to fill, and was told the line manager had rejected CV’s due them lacking relevant industry experience, or for having too unstable a career history.

Perfect, I thought! I know an excellent candidate who has 6 years legal sector experience with the same firm who would love this job and would be able to hit the ground running. Unfortunately however, his CV was also rejected at introduction stage by the line manager. There was no discussion about the candidate before the rejection, and no opportunity to talk through the reasons why with the line manager whose decision wasn’t challenged by the HR Coordinator, just a straight ‘no’ based on the CV alone.

If I wanted to, I could pose several questions about an individual’s experience, ambitions and drive from reviewing a CV, but unfortunately paper doesn’t talk and without meeting or speaking to that individual those questions remain unanswered. I can make assumptions of course, but is this really a good way to judge someone’s worth? I think not. Had a recruiter who’d met the individual sent their CV to me, the very least I would do is speak to them to find out a little more.

It transpires that nearly every CV submitted had been rejected at introduction stage for a whole host of different reasons by the line manager who had no direct contact with recruiters and didn’t wish to hear explanations/responses to his concerns.

The consequence: a vacancy which takes months to fill despite high calibre talent being available and a series of recruiters feeling their time and effort has been wasted and would be better spent in future focussing on competitor businesses.

Talent retention via extended notice periods. Surely there's a better way....?

Today, I thought I’d share some frustrations I have with the misuse of extended notice periods by some employers, and the ill-feeling it generates, which can only be counter-productive in the long run.

It’s commonly accepted that those in management, highly paid, or specialist knowledge roles will need to sign an employment contract that requires the individual to serve a three month notice period. The reasons are justifiable, and rarely cause any problems for the individual when they come to leave, as future employers would generally expect to have to wait three months to secure the services of someone at an equivalent level.

The problem is when an individual is in a position or at a career level where it is extremely rare for someone to have a notice period any longer than one month. In these circumstances, the individual will face genuine problems securing their next move and will effectively be stuck with the following options:

·         Option 1: To accept the reality of seeing good opportunities pass them by whilst they try to find an employer who considers them to be so perfect for an opportunity that they’re happy to wait a full two months longer for them to start than they would for the next best applicant.

·         Option 2: To resign before securing their next position in the hope that they will be offered something suitable within the last 5-6 weeks of their notice period.

·         Option 3: To not honour their full notice period and risk leaving their current firm under a cloud after a month.

None of the options are attractive, and all of them are to the detriment of the individual’s future career. Option 1 will inevitably mean missing out on good opportunities, which will lead to compromise on the range of opportunities they would consider. Option 2 is throwing the dice; hoping that a suitable opportunity will arise within a specific timeframe and therefore also encouraging compromise. Option 3 could well lead to real problems further down the line, and would clearly damage relationships that have taken long to build.

The reasons for these unusually long notice periods that I’ve encountered is generally due to them having been introduced during negotiations between an employer and employee when the employer is attempting to retain them with a counter offer, or whilst appeasing a restless employee who feels undervalued, with a slight change in job title and a payrise.

It will of course only happen to individuals that an employer particularly wants to retain, and can seem at the time to be a tit-for-tat compromise during negotiations. Ultimately however, the introduction of an extended notice period is not going to encourage someone to stay with a firm if they want to leave, it just makes it difficult for them to do so and limits the career options available to them. Surely there are more positive ways to retain talent within an organisation? If not, wouldn’t it just be better to wave goodbye to a star performer on good terms rather than chaining them down whilst they grow resentful?

The recruitment process, and how it reflects on your business....

It seems a lifetime ago now, but back in the glory years before the recession, there was a lengthy period when the legal accounts sector was considered to be very much a “candidate driven” jobs market. An above average jobseeker would have their pick of the jobs, and employers would have to act fast to secure them.

This turned on its head during 2008-2010 as the number of vacancies on the market dwindled and those employers who were hiring had the luxury of taking their time to scour the market safe in the knowledge that they didn’t have much competition for candidates. Whereas it used to take on average 3-4 weeks from issuing a job description to sending out an offer letter, during and post recession the average has risen to anywhere between 4-8 weeks.

The jobs market today is very different from the lows of 2009/10 however. Admittedly it hasn’t recovered to anywhere near 2007 levels and looks unlikely to do so for at least a couple of years (and that’s probably being optimistic), but there is now enough movement out there for jobseekers to have some choice and to be put off if they’re left hanging in the balance for too long.

We’ve experienced first-hand a number of processes lately where we’ve been instructed to recruit for a vacancy and have duly submitted CV’s, but the trail has then gone cold for as long as 2-3 weeks before interviews have been requested. Of course, there can be a number of causes behind this, especially during the summer months and at the end of the year during the holiday seasons. However, regardless of the reason for the delay, it does send out a negative message to the applicant. Either that they are not really considered desirable to the firm, or that the firm is disorganised.

Similar delays have even happened following interviews, sending an even stronger message to the candidate that they are not considered desirable enough to get them back in straight away. Of course, sometimes this is because the client is indeed hoping to find someone they consider a closer match to the role, but this hasn’t always been the case, and increasingly these employers are losing out on high calibre applicants who have either gone elsewhere during a delay or have pulled out of the process feeling that they are clearly not a “must see” for the next stage of interview.

If your firm has kept applicants hanging in the balance for extended periods lately; whether it be due to a line manager procrastinating over the review of CV’s, interviewers going on holiday, or simply having started the hiring process a couple of weeks too early, the end result is a negative image of the firm being sent to all those applicants who have been submitted (and who they talk to), and possibly losing out on the best talent available. 

Please don't tolerate cowboy recruiters!

The recruitment industry is currently trying to raise its game internally through introducing qualifications to ensure higher standards of ethics, service and compliance. Positive steps, however I believe there is a lot that can be achieved externally with employers and jobseekers asking more from the recruitment consultants they are dealing with, and not accepting unethical behaviour.

Take for example a situation I’ve experienced this week:

Having been briefed on an opportunity by a client, I approached a candidate to discuss the position and subsequently gained her permission to submit an application. In the period between this conversation and submitting the CV, Consultant X, who had also been briefed on the role, sent her CV through without approaching her.

The client quickly responded to Consultant X with an interview request. On learning that the candidate had already discussed the role with another recruiter, Consultant X used the carrot of an already secured interview request to persuade the candidate to go along with his application.

On receiving the CV submission via Balance, the client advised they’d already received the CV and that they operate a ‘first past the post’ system widely adopted by employers and accepted by recruiters, but with the expectation that the consultant will have first discussed the vacancy with the jobseeker.

On this occasion, Consultant X had not qualified if the candidate would even be interested in the role. Nor could he have known if the candidate had already made an application. Then there is the more alarming issue of confidentiality. Would Consultant X want his CV freely sent around the recruitment market if he was looking for a new job? I very much doubt it.

In this scenario the client did exactly the right thing on subsequently learning of the timeline of events, and contacted Consultant X to reiterate their minimum expectations from recruitment suppliers. Consultant X had little option other than to stand aside and allow the representation to go via Balance.

To me this is not a victory however. The correct CV submission was ultimately accepted, but only after the employer, jobseeker and I had to waste time undoing the tangle of another recruiter’s poor standards. He ended up with egg on his face, but at the same time left us all with a fresh example of the recruitment industry housing cowboys who don’t follow the most basic of industry standards.

This situation will only ever cease to exist if both employers and jobseekers refuse to continue to work with recruiters who adopt these practises. Employers can enforce better standards from their suppliers by spelling out these minimum expectations prior to agreeing to work with them, and investigating any subsequent duplicate applications if they occur. It’s not always the fault of recruiters, as unfortunately some jobseekers will mistakenly believe that hedging their bets and knowingly instructing two recruiters to submit applications will increase their chances of interview, however if you do have a recruitment supplier sending you CVs without first speaking to candidates, please do yourselves, job seekers and the recruitment industry a favour by taking your business elsewhere.