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.

A linkedin scare story not to be scared by....

Having only posted about linkedin yesterday, encouraging all to use the site, I thought I'd share my thoughts on an article I've just read which may cause some scare-stories regardless of the outcome of this tribunal.

(to read the article, please click on the title of this blog post)

It all seems extremely bizarre to me and if his claims are proven to be true I can only see this ending with the individual walking away with a hefty pay out!

The most important thing to note is that this is a first in the UK, and it wouldn't surprise me if it also turns out to be the last.

When I signed up to Linkedin the default settings stated that I am interested in being approached about 'career opportunities' (as well as various other reasons for which I'd be open to be contacted) and I've never seen any reason to change them. I'm sure the same applies to the vast majority of users on the site also.

I'm not in the least bit interested in new opportunities, but I've left the default settings as they are because, to be frank, I don't think anyone pays a blind bit of notice to them. Unticking the box certainly won't stop a headhunter from making a call.

The individual in this circumstance could just as easily have posted his actual CV on to a job board if he was genuinely looking for a move, and he'd have had every right to do so without having to fear for his job security...

Are you LinkedIn?

Debates about LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter seem to form the majority of online discussions on social media platforms – LinkedIn discussions and polls focussed on LinkedIn itself are some form of bizarre internet mirror, it seems – and so I’m cringing at the thought of asking this seemingly banal question so early into my blogging career

However – I do have a purpose, and hopefully can offer some useful advice to those who aren’t in a sales-based role and may therefore not yet have realised what benefit it can bring to them personally.

With so many recruiters using LinkedIn to find people with specific experience, it’s worth asking yourself if you could be found if your dream role happened to arise when you're not actively looking for it.

Sometimes the best opportunities come along when you’re least expecting them to, and for this reason it’s worth making sure that you have a profile online that provides a summary of your career history and experience. The more people you connect with, the easier you can be found, especially when connected to your colleagues and peers at other firms.

The UK now has more than four million users on LinkedIn and that figure is rising rapidly. I don’t know how many recruiters make up that figure – anyone else know? – but they are very highly represented in comparison to other career professionals (no sniggering!). And the reason they are on LinkedIn is, largely, to find potential candidates they might otherwise not reach.

It’s worth noting that LinkedIn is no CV database, and adding a profile won’t therefore invite a barrage of calls from recruiters. There are of course many other features and benefits that you might find useful, and should you not wish to be found for the time being, you can always amend your privacy settings.

So, if you already have a LinkedIn profile, are you confident it will flag you up for that dream job? Does it reflect your experience and are you connected with enough of the right people? If you’re yet to get involved, you can be sure that your peers already are, so maybe now is the time....

Happy New Year

First day back in the office today, and how lovely it was to venture out of my front door at 06:45 to heavy wind and rain!

Despite the weather and the continuing economic gloom being forecast in the news however, it's hard not to feel optimistic about the year ahead when first getting back in to the office after the Christmas break.

Here's to a very happy, busy and successful 2012 for all!