The most important stage in the hiring process?

Managing a successful hiring process and maintaining a great ‘candidate experience’ throughout can be a very difficult task.

Unexpected delays, difficult selection decisions and changing expectations from job seekers can create problems at every turn, and whilst an experienced hiring manager should be able to exercise some degree of control over all these aspects, all the hard work can quickly be put at jeopardy right at the very end of the process if the preferred applicant is left in limbo for too long.

Getting sign-off to make a formal offer sometimes takes time and may involve several people who have very busy schedules, but where this is likely to be the case, make this known (to the candidate during final interview or via their recruiter afterwards) and if nothing else, avoid giving unrealistic timescales of when you’re hoping to make a decision.

Here’s what can happen when such a delay occurs:

On the day the applicant has been told a decision will be made: they’ll be on edge all day waiting for the phone to ring and ready to accept. Many will be tired from lack of sleep the night before. They’ll inevitably take a little longer to get their work done, whilst struggling to focus. Most will have their partner/friends/family texting them by lunchtime “Any news???”. By mid-afternoon the seed of doubt might have entered their mind but they’ll remind themselves the day isn’t over and there’s still a couple of hours to go. No need to panic. By 17:30 if there’s still no news they’ll be wondering if maybe someone else has been offered, maybe they shouldn’t have said this or that at interview, maybe they should have studied harder at university?

By the end of day 2, if there’s still no news or satisfactory explanation for the delay, self-preservation will have kicked in. They’ll be considering why it’s not the end of the world anyway – there were some downsides to the position after all and, with hindsight, the commute wasn’t ideal and perhaps things aren’t really so bad in their current position on balance.

By day 3, they’ll be resigned to the fact that they haven’t got the role and they’ll be glad of it. They’ll be annoyed to be left in limbo for so long, disengaged from the business and disappointed that they hadn’t got on with the interviewer as well as they’d believed, or else surely they’d at least have been given some feedback out of courtesy?

And then the offer comes through.

Good luck!

5 tips for interview preparation

1.When preparing for an interview, put yourself in the shoes of the interviewer. Based on your CV what areas would you want to explore further and how might they assess whether you have the competencies required for this position? Come up with some questions and consider what examples you could give.

2. Research the interviewer. It is all very well (and necessary) to research the business you're hoping to join, but what about the interviewer themselves? Do you know their background? Use the tools available to everyone: company website, social media profiles or other contacts of yours who might know them - certainly your recruiter. Knowing more about them might help to identify shared experiences and areas to focus on (e.g. for accountants you might both have qualified in small practice).

3. Check where you're going. If you don't know the route, or are having to rely on public transport to get you there, make sure you're 100% confident you know where they are and how long it will take you to get there. You should ideally aim to arrive at reception around 5 minutes ahead of time (any more than 10 minutes early is just annoying).

4. Make sure you can get away from the office. If you have arranged an interview at lunchtime or after work, it's a good idea to make casual reference to a personal appointment you have to attend (e.g. lunch with a relative or dinner with a friend). This can be communicated informally to avoid suspicion, but will reduce the risk of you being asked to attend a meeting or to work late at short notice. 

5. Avoid rehearsing detailed answers. Preparation is essential to leaving a good impression with an interviewer, but over-preparing your answers to potential questions can be risky. You run the risk of hearing the questions you want to hear, rather than what is being asked, and you're likely to sound robotic in your rehearsed replies. 

Use your Recruiter for interview preparation!

Guest Blog: Daniel Cumberworth @ Balance Recruitment
Daniel is a Senior Recruitment Consultant at Balance Recruitment, having joined the business in 2010. He recruits for permanent, contract and interim accountancy positions for Law Firms, primarily in London.


To many people, the term 'interview preparation' is nothing more than scanning over an employers website the night before to try and remember some key facts about the business.  

I'm not saying that's wrong, but to give you that extra edge in the interview process, why not work collaboratively with your recruiter to give you the best chance of securing the role?

Recruitment Consultants will have built up a business relationship with line managers and HR contacts over a period of time, and should therefore be best equipped to provide you with an insight into their personalities, and what to expect at interview.  Often line managers will use similar technical and scenario based questions in every interview, therefore getting this advice up front from your recruiter can really put you ahead of the pack.

In the days leading up to the interview, it's worth having a good think about your current role (i.e. key achievements, core responsibilities, difficulties overcome etc) and jot some ideas down on a piece of paper. Don't be afraid to pick up the phone and call your recruiter to discuss this, it's part of their job. 

Whether it's a case of not knowing what achievements will be relevant for this interview, or maybe there's a specific competency based interview question that you've struggled with in the past, run it past your recruiter.  They encounter these scenarios on a daily basis and should be able to assist.

The better prepared you are for the interview, the more confident you will feel. This will become clear in the interview and you will have a better chance securing your next career move.

Naturally, a good recruiter will volunteer this information and arrange a time to have this discussion, but if not, make sure to chase them up and make a note to use a different recruiter in future!

Social Recruiting - let's get some perspective...

Although I like to think of myself as a modern day recruiter, and one who embraces the world of social media (both personally and professionally), I can’t help thinking that there is a huge amount of information and advice for recruiters online that will only help a very small proportion of the industry, and actually have a detrimental effect on the performance of others.

I hold a dual role at Balance Recruitment. I’m an owner/Director of the business and I am therefore jointly responsible for the promotion of our brand, our culture and for ensuring we achieve and maintain a positive reputation with all those we come in to contact with. I also carry out a full 360 recruiter role, representing a niche client base, sourcing candidates and managing all the really easy stuff (ahem) that goes in between.

Whilst wearing both hats, I feel it’s vital to keep abreast of new networks/tools/techniques to utilise the internet for the benefit of the business, but I also need to guard against investment of time in networks that just aren’t ever likely to yield returns. But this is where there’s a problem, because with each new social network online, there seems to be a blog somewhere telling recruiters that they should be using it or risk getting left behind.

So on the one hand, agency and search recruiters are working hard to stay ahead of the competition from in-house recruiters and RPO’s, whilst at the same time they’re being told that they should also be spending an untold amount of time on the development of peripheral social branding even just to keep up?

As I see it, too many recruitment or business focussed social media experts place the readers of their blogs in a position of being behind the curve, without considering how generic and non-targeted the advice they’re providing to a broad recruitment industry audience actually is. So whilst it may well be fair (I assume!) to admonish a specialist online marketing & design recruitment business for not having a Pinterest or Instagram presence, does this also mean an IT recruiter should be scouring the internet for stylish photos of server storage racks too?

Sure, some of the social networks are clearly beneficial to recruiters, whilst others may have great success for specific sectors and career disciplines (online, creative and marketing usually), but there are plenty for which, I suspect, the majority of recruiters will never really see enough return from the investment of time they put in.

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. 

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.

Procurement Guest Blog: Apples with Apples

A guest blog today from my colleague Craig Williams. Craig is a Senior Consultant within Balance Recruitment, joining us last year to set up our Procurement Division. He’s had a very hectic and successful start to life at Balance, which is covered here in his first guest blog:

Apples with Apples

Having returned from a sabbatical overseas last year – which saw me taking a cargo ship from London to Buenos Aires and from there, travelling through South America and then over to SE Asia (this time flying!) I returned to London ready to re-enter the niche recruitment sector of Procurement & Supply Chain and joined Balance to set up the division, complimenting their existing presence within accountancy & finance.

A year down the line and these are my thoughts so far…

Having once been told that Procurement, from a recruitment point of view, is relatively straight-forward and having spent a number of years recruiting for senior accounting positions in London, I was looking forward to the challenge of exploring this new and important business area, a business function rapidly coming to the fore due to the straitened times we are currently experiencing throughout the globe.

I had the benefit of already knowing a fairly large network of well regarded procurement professionals personally and through my connections in finance, all of whom were more than happy to talk through what they do – the knowledge share would cost me a glass of wine or two, though being a fan of good wine I felt that was a good exchange! One friend, when summarising what Procurement professionals actually do, rather succinctly commented that ‘…in a nutshell we compare apples with apples and we buy stuff…’.

Having dealt with finance for so long, a market well furnished with specialist recruitment consultants, I was pleasantly surprised to find that procurement professionals were much more open to spending time with me discussing their profession – being recognised as a potential supplier to an organisation certainly helped open doors during my initial few months and I quickly found myself working on several mandates for a well-known technology business. I was quickly able to fill three out of five of the roles given to me - a great boost to my confidence whilst developing my understanding of this new sector.

However, many of the roles I have subsequently been working on have been challenging and far from straight-forward! A high profile IT Category Manager position I was instructed on late last year required an extremely rare beast, though through persistent searching and networking with existing contacts, I was able to track down the elusive individual my client was hoping to find, and placed them in to an interesting ongoing interim assignment. There’s no better way to build strong relationships with clients than by placing these difficult to fill roles that other recruiters have long given up on.

Before long I was running several mandates, working with new and existing Balance Recruitment clients; for example an Interim HR/Professional Services Category Managers for a global media business – the remit being to shape their global contingent workforce, a great opportunity for the right person who would essentially be in the spotlight – not just here in London but also within their New York headquarters. I’ve also had the opportunity to partner with Global law firms, large engineering businesses and transport organisations all bringing fresh challenges and increasing my knowledge of the Procurement profession day by day. During each piece of recruitment I’ve met with some amazing practitioners along the way, building a large network of professionals across a variety of industries.

So it’s “so far so good” and I’m thoroughly enjoying my role establishing Balance as high quality recruiter for Procurement staff.

Apple anyone?

Yahoo and the flexible working debate...

Since publishing my last blog on flexible working, the topic has hit the headlines in a big way with debate raging amongst the business community on the pros & cons of working from home. I’d love to say it was my blog that triggered all this, but I suspect it may have had slightly more to do with the leaked internal memo from an HR representative at Yahoo, informing their staff that the business was putting an end to all “work from home arrangements”.  

The tone of the memo suggests that flexible working isn't working at Yahoo, and the move was to encourage greater collaboration between staff by working side by side – literally.

This bold move, driven by CEO, Marissa Mayer, has been widely criticised as being a backwards step, with accusations that Mayer is “out of touch” with the modern working demographic (not helped by reports that she paid to have a personal nursery built adjacent to her offices in order to be closer to her son).

There have subsequently been numerous blogs and articles quoting unnamed members of Yahoo staff who've said that people have indeed been abusing the system and that the move is a necessary change in culture to help weed out the slackers who are holding the business back.

(Photo by Chiot's Run)

So what will be the outcome of this change at Yahoo? There may well be an improvement in output from some of those who have slacked off when unsupervised, but are these really employees you’d want to retain in a business? If they’re just plain lazy, presumably they’ll now just take their foot off the gas at the first opportunity anyway; when their manager is away, for example. Or on lunch. Or in meetings. Are they really going to be monitored around the clock?

And what about those employees who are currently productive when working from home? Will they be even more productive in the workplace? Or will they just resent the change in circumstance and look elsewhere, to join a business that trusts them enough to allow them to retain their current working arrangements? That could signal a mass exodus of talent if so, and when hiring to replace these individuals, Yahoo is unlikely to appeal to those looking for a degree of flexibility on work/life balance.

To me, a blanket ban on working from home seems a step too far. Flexible working is a privilege that requires trust between employer and employee, but managed properly it can and will work for most businesses. It may mean getting everyone together for face to face meetings on a regular basis, and there may be limitations on the percentage of time individuals can spend away from the office, but there is usually a balance that can work for all parties. And if someone just can’t motivate themselves to work from home, they should be given the opportunity to work in the office or to find work elsewhere. Why let them spoil the system for everyone else?

Flexible working - why it should be embraced

As a business owner myself, I can fully understand why the term ‘flexible working’ doesn't sit all that comfortably when raised by a prospective employee during an interview process.

Do they just want more annual leave than our current benefits package allows? Or are they planning to work from home where they might have the TV on in the background or have a cat fighting for their attention by strolling across the keyboard? 

Whatever the immediate thoughts might be, for a lot of firms and managers, they’re often negative and focus on the lack of control over productivity levels. These are of course completely valid concerns and to be fully open to flexible working, a firm will need to carry out thorough reviews on any negative impact changes could bring and to also assess what levels of flexibility they can accommodate. Dismissing it out of hand however could be equally as negative in the long run. 

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) recently carried out a Flexible Working Commission, and came to the conclusion that, although the UK already has a far more flexible workforce than our European neighbours, there is still huge opportunity to be gained from further embracing flexible working options. 

The attraction and retention of top talent will be significantly enhanced if employees have more scope to influence their work/life balance without having to move jobs to secure it. The UK is facing an emerging talent crisis and, as the ‘war for talent’ intensifies, the opportunity is there for early adopters of flexible working to steal a march on their competition.

Employee productivity levels can also be positively improved. A large scale pilot scheme by telecoms giant O2 earlier this year reportedly concluded that by offering staff the opportunity to work from home they were able to significantly improve productivity. Staff were better rested from cutting out commuting time each day and were generally happier with more time to spend with their families or to pursue leisure activities.

A common misconception is that the requirement for flexible working is almost exclusively influenced by childcare logistics. Although this is and always has been a factor, the demand is being driven by the lifestyle choices of many different groups, and does not always involve a reduction in total hours worked.

So what challenges would flexible working bring for your business? There are plenty of businesses already embracing it and others that are actively looking at how they can make it work for them. Is your firm one of them or do you feel it’s not for you? Please share your comments below.

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. 

Is January a good time to search for a new job?

There’s a simple answer to this question: Yes

However, there’s also a longer answer which is: Yes, and so is February, March, April etc… through to (and including) December

Common belief is that the best time of year to be looking for a new job is after the New Year, when people have resolutions to uphold and the job market kicks off after a lull. ‘New Year, New Career’ is a corny cliché that will be trumpeted by recruiters up and down the land in January. I’d agree that this is definitely a good time to look, but in reality, with the exception of the week either side of Christmas, I don’t believe there’s ever really a bad time to be looking.

There will be some disciplines and industries that have well defined seasonal peaks and troughs, but if you work in a core business support or operational function such as Accounting, Marketing, HR, IT or suchlike, the majority of employers manage to keep you busy all year round, and therefore if you decide to find a new job elsewhere, to immigrate or retire, they’re going to need to replace you fairly quickly.

In a niche market, certain roles will from time to time have unpredictable surges of activity in the job market. For example, if just two or three Chief Legal Cashier vacancies arise in close proximity, this area will likely see a flurry of activity for a few months whilst people move around the industry leaving vacancies behind them. This could happen at any time during the year.

Generally, if you have reached the point where you feel you need to start looking for new opportunities, right then is your best time to start the search, regardless of what month we are in. Your ideal next job can arise at any given time, but if you’re not looking because you’re waiting for a perceived busy period, you might never even know about it.  Even better still is to establish contact with an experienced recruiter who knows your specialist area and who can help to identify your next step on the career ladder even before you've started to look.

Do you agree, or do your experiences suggest otherwise? Please share your comments below. 

What to do if recruiters don't seem to be helping you?

Firstly, I want to start this blog by stressing that it’s in every recruiter’s interest to help a job seeker secure new employment. If there is a reasonable chance they can help, they will certainly try to do so. 

There are however plenty of instances where a recruiter feels they are unable to assist. This could be for a number of reasons; some perfectly logical, and some based on the recruiters own instincts. 

They may for example concentrate on permanent vacancies and struggle to secure interviews for individuals with a series of temporary placements over a number of years (logical). Or they may just feel they have met with several other individuals with similar experience who they feel would be more likely to be of interest to their clients (instinct).

So what do you do when you find yourself in a position where the recruiters who hold the vacancies you are interested in don’t seem able to able or willing to help you? 

Firstly, you need to assess whether it’s just the market conditions that are the hold up (perfectly likely over the last few years). If not, you need to get some honest feedback from them. It may be that you’re being unrealistic in the opportunities you are applying for (lacking suitable skills & experience, being overqualified, being too expensive etc), or it may be for reasons an inexperienced recruiter is a little uncomfortable raising with you (e.g. poor grammar on written communications with them, concern over interpersonal skills, your approach, etc). Try to find out the issue and in some circumstances, be willing to take on constructive feedback.

Whatever it may be, it’s never personal and can be invaluable feedback to take on board. Remember that a recruiter has every incentive to place you with their clients and will want to do so if they can. If you can take their feedback and use it, it’s likely to have a positive impact on your career prospects.

It may mean having to reassess your career expectations, even if only for the short term. If several recruiters have fed back to you that you don’t have the level or type of experience required for the move you want to make, they could be on to something. In this circumstance, can they give some advice on how to address this or keep you posted on stepping stone opportunities that can get you there? 

If you find that you’re still banging your head against a brick wall and getting nowhere with your job search through recruiters, you may experience more success applying for roles directly with employers. Work out which firms you’d like to work for and add the ‘Careers’ page of their website in to a ‘job search’ folder on your internet browser. Check the sites weekly to see if any new suitable positions have become available. 

A bit of networking (real life and social) could also strike gold. Speak to your network of contacts and former colleagues to ensure they know you’re looking for a move. Make sure you have a professional online profile, by setting up an account on LinkedIn and update it frequently.

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.

Career progression or just more money?

When discussing a jobseekers motivations for looking for a move, two of the most common reasons I hear are career progression and for a payrise. The two are closely linked, with the first generally taking care of the latter, but too often they are confused as one and the same thing.

In many circumstances it seems that a jobseekers idea of career progression correlates to earnings and earnings alone. Understandable that this is seen as a positive move, but if you’re really looking for career progression, the salary of your next position shouldn’t really come in to the equation. Naturally, very few of us are prepared to take a drop in salary, but when considering your career earning potential, the salary you earn over the next 12 months will have little to no bearing on what you might be earning in a few years time. It’s the work itself that will make the difference.

If you want to significantly increase your earning potential, be patient and don’t focus on what your monthly income will be over the coming year. Think about what your earnings will be over the next 5-10 years. A position paying £3k more than another has the short term appeal of the higher salary, but as a stepping stone will the position itself help you climb to the next step up in your career faster than the other? Of course it could, and if so – result! If not however, the role with the lower salary but better development could be the sensible option.

Consider a Sliding Doors situation. On one universe you take the role paying £3k more and 5 years down the line you’re doing the same job as you are now and are again looking for a step up in your career. Meanwhile in the parallel universe the other you, who took the lower paying role, has already gained 5 years experience in a more senior position, developing their skills and experience accordingly. Chances are they’ll have already overtaken your earnings and now they also start looking for a new job, but in this scenario they’re looking for a job two steps higher up the ladder than you are. If they stay on their toes they’ll remain the higher earner right through till retirement and their overall career earnings will dwarf yours.   

Of course, it’s not always as clear cut as in this example, and it’s not every day we find ourselves with two job offers on the table. However, the same logic should be applied if after resigning your current employer tries to persuade you to stay by matching the salary on offer elsewhere. A short-term win perhaps, but how will staying affect the long-term path of your career?

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.