You Get The Service You Deserve: What Your Recruitment Process Says About You

Recruitment consultants make a pretty easy target for criticism. Poorly briefed, lacking insight, superficial assessment of candidates, poor feedback, difficult to get hold of, won't return calls etc.  These are oft-repeated criticisms of the industry and this list is neither new nor exhaustive. But is it always fair to land all the blame at the feet of the consultant?

I don't want to defend the recruitment industry in general because there is genuinely much to criticize out there. But I remember a former colleague from the publishing industry telling me that customers get the service they deserve. This seems like a pretty valid insight.  Perhaps recruiting clients get the service from their agencies that they, too, deserve?  And what are the consequences in the market?

Consider the following. On a number of occasions I have seen the same job advertised by up to 5 different agencies on the same job board.  I am sure that this has the Procurement people purring with delight but what does the market think? How about this:

• Clients are invariably described as fit, lean, reputable, blue-chip, well-managed or whatever phrase is used to project positive employer brand values.  Where does spray and pray fit into this self-image? 
• The candidate is likely to think that there is a problem with the role if that number of agencies are called on to help fill it.
• If the candidate applies for the role through a number of agencies, they are always told the client name so that the recruiter can 'bag' the candidate.  This is confusing for the candidate and can create problems for the client if one candidate's details are put forward by several agencies. The candidate is also beginning to form an opinion of the ultimate client by this stage.
• These processes are almost invariably carried out on a contingency basis.  The emphasis for the recruiter is to get a CV in front of the client, rather than taking some time to understand the candidate and making sure the right candidate is being put forward.  Candidates are unlikely to feel that they are being effectively represented to the client. 
• The client takes responsibility for assessing CVs, so there is no requirement for the recruiter to exercise any judgement, so there is no real value-add.  The recruiter is still likely to charge a hefty fee for a successful placement, even though the real contribution made might have been no more than to filter CVs. Why spend a lot of money for so little service?
• The process creates confusion, as it always seems difficult to track precisely where a CV is in this process.  The recruiter may have difficulty in getting feedback from the client, particularly when the client has rejected candidates.  Understandably, the recruiter will avoid contact with candidates until advised by the client and that creates frustration all round.

Now clearly, the client will argue that the aim is to recruit a successful candidate, and if a few eggs get broken on the way to making a great omelette, so what? But employer brand values start with the recruitment process. The brand is devalued if 20 people come away with a negative impression of the company, even if a successful recruitment is made. Ask your marketing team. Clearly this isn't the intention, but it is often the result. Unsuccessful candidates may be disappointed, but they don't have to be hostile.

So what can client companies do?

• For many people, their first contact with your company could be through a recruitment process. Make sure that whether you run a psl or an in-house team, initial contact with candidates is professional, courteous, informed and efficient. First impressions count.
• If you manage an agency psl, make sure that you are clear in your mind what value you expect the agency to provide for the fees you are paying them, and communicate this clearly. Reward them accordingly. Hold them accountable for the service they provide against clearly stated performance indicators that encompass qualitative as well as quantitative measures.
• Be aware that the best recruiters do not always work for the biggest firms.
• If you are going to pay recruiters a lot of money, let them do their job properly. Encourage behaviours which will provide you with the best service, not the least worst. Provide them with the tools to do the job.  Take them in to your confidence, keep them in the loop with regard to corporate performance and developments; in short contribute something to the relationship. You will find that good recruiters (yes, there really are some good operators out there) will respond effectively to this.
• Take time to understand the process your chosen agency/agencies will undertake for a campaign.  Your input can avoid duplication and confusion leading to a more streamlined process.
• Give regular feedback through the process.  Explain the reason for any delays.
• Audit your process from the candidate's perspective.  Ask candidates (not just the successful ones) how they found the process.  Apply for a job on your career page and gauge the candidate experience.
• Beware of the law of unintended consequences - see above!

The strength of the recruitment process is dictated by the client.  If the process is poor, it isn't always the recruiter's fault, and the reputation of both client and recruiter suffers.

Don't forget we're human....

I describe myself as an experienced recruitment industry professional, but 'experienced' can be open to a number of interpretations.  If I say that I started life as a researcher in a headhunting company before the internet came along, it probably tells you all you need to know. Not surprisingly, much seems to have changed in that time, but no more so than in the last 5 years.  The development of internet platforms, job boards and the rise of social media have given recruiters access to powerful tools and the sort of depth of information which I would have killed for when I was a researcher. 

Using social networking sites really is a game changer for the recruitment industry and I am far from the first to say so.  But the truth is that there is still much that is familiar about the recruitment landscape in the UK: many of the same names, same practices, same complaints.  What is the difference that social networking has made, and what does it mean for the market?

The biggest change is that the internet has turned candidates into consumers.  Just as the best marketing teams look to understand consumer habits and engage with their target audience, so the best recruiting teams will need to be brand champions, knowing where the best candidates are to be found and undertaking initiatives to engage with them and develop a dialogue with them.

So how will this affect the market?

Press: It should be dead but won't quite lie down.  The public sector cuts should read the last rites.

Job Boards: A mature market now with many of the worst having been weeded out by more discerning users.  They should continue to form a significant part of the recruiting landscape because the concept is simple and easily delivered and clients and candidates know that.  SEO is generally good and can reach out to candidates for specific roles. For all that, useability is still an issue and user experience is still poor on some.  Ongoing profitability must be a concern for all but the biggest as the boards juggle site and customer service improvements with traditionally cheap posting rates.

Those who predict that social media will kill job boards might ask themselves why LinkedIn has its own job board.

Agencies/Consultancies: A huge subject. I can't believe that the market will continue to support the numbers of agencies which it still seems to do, as more recruitment will be taken in-house. Although there will be a smaller number, agencies are not going to disappear from the scene, but they will have to up their game or fall by the wayside.  Many are short-sighted, transactionally-based, and add little value; and disgruntled clients/candidates (they are often the same people over time!) can now make their concerns known in a very public forum.  I don't care how many candidates apply for a job, sending out an 'if you don't hear from us you haven't made it to the shortlist' note is unacceptable.

HR Depts: Clearly the biggest potential winners.  With around 16 million people in the UK using social networks (Source: ONS), and LinkedIn announcing its 4 millionth UK user earlier this year, why wouldn't you be using them?  But puzzlingly there are some who are still reticent. This is a huge opportunity to manage the talent pool and develop an effective employer brand.

The recruitment market is far more dynamic now than the one I joined, but there is one enduring core truth that the flood of available information has tended to hide.  Recruitment is a human transaction. Personality, presence and work style are critical factors in a successful recruitment and these qualities cannot be judged remotely.  2-dimensional, reactive recruitment, sieving electronic responses to adverts place etc, is no substitute for getting out in the market, pressing the flesh, getting some old-fashioned humint on potential candidates.

The internet has provided the tools for a fresh approach to recruitment, but is not the end in itself.  The ability to connect and communicate easily with a large audience is immensely powerful, but it is really only the start. Treat your audience as humans, engage in dialogue with them, try to understand them, provide them with information that is helpful to them, meet some of them - this is where the successful recruiters of the future will reap the benefits of investing in social media now.