I still remember the term Placement Services from the 1990s – recruitment services where you posted your resume and, if you were lucky, got called for an interview at least once. Of course, there were some who, because of their names or influential relatives, got called in more frequently. The phrase was changed to Head Hunting (where they claimed to head hunt the candidate you pointed out or referred), before it became Executive Search, and then Mandated Executive Search to whatever it is known today.
During my career, I have done my fair share of recruitments with extremely little success via such agencies, even those that were run by MNCs or by friends who are otherwise extremely reliable.
Most of these agencies have a database, common of course, given our propensity to circulate CVs for better jobs. Depending upon the person conducting the search, and in case your name is shortlisted and selected, they get paid. For them, you could be anybody; they still make their 8.33% – 20%. All of them claim to have a unique database, a selective approach, and successful placements at CxO levels even if they supply to BPOs. On closer scrutiny, you discover that someone they placed 8-12 years ago has (only) now reached the senior level, or once in a while, a CxO level.
To be fair, there are some recruitment agencies who stick to mandate search in specific industries or levels, are discreet and also have great relationship skills, but these can be counted on one hand.
I could quote too many such instances, and listing them would be like writing a book. But in the recent past I've had some experiences (that I describe below), which reaffirm my belief that recruitment is just a brokering business, no better than insurance, stock and maybe even housing.
Episode 1: In a slew of desperate calls, I was contacted by a recruiter from one such agency, asking me for my 'detailed' CV as a reference towards someone's job application at a leading company, with hardly any information on the position this person had applied for. When I asked for them, the recruiter did supply the basic details. I assured her that, for the industry concerned, a name would be sufficient, and sent her a brief profile of myself. She still continued to insist on a detailed CV for a couple of days, before all went quiet.
About a month later, when I called up the agency to find out what had happened to the position, I was told that they were still evaluating. During this period, I had met the chairman of the company that the person had applied to at a social event. He said that they were following up on the position, and had asked the recruitment agency to send over some resumes, but the company would not mandate a search. This, from one of the top five branded executive search firms!
Episode 2: I have become extremely paranoid about accepting LinkedIn invitations. However, someone I know and respect introduced me to a couple of people and I accepted their invites. The next thing I know, they ask me to refer them to my connections for jobs, or if I was recruiting since they were looking to change their jobs.
Episode 3: This is the latest incident (what happened yesterday) and it actually prompted me to write this and vent my ire. A close friend was on the lookout for Territory Sales Managers (TSMs), which are incidentally one of the easiest positions to locate on job sites. Since his HR manager was on maternity leave, he decided to try three or four executive search agencies himself. He briefed them about his requirements and was assured by each that they have a ready database. After 17 days, he received only seven resumes between the three of them. Nobody turned up on the day of the interview, and the agency, when contacted about it, was too busy to respond.
Now, my friends on Twitter
1) Told me that 17 days was too less a time for a turn around – But for a TSM in the price bracket of 20-25K?
2) Offered the references of a couple of other friends who ran executive search agencies, but were unwilling to guarantee a positive outcome
3) Blamed the candidates – Fair enough, but all seven? From three different agencies?
There will always be candidates who will keep job-hopping and never appear for interviews, and companies do keep tabs on such individuals (or the HR person does, mostly by memory). There will always be companies that will have weird demands, pay late or change terms etc., but that happens with all businesses.
But for a recruitment agency that harps on service, how difficult is it today:
1) To organise data constructively, given the cheap technology available?
2) To categorise candidates and companies, and blacklist as necessary?
3) Charge a premium and provide consistently excellent service?
4) To split fees like the housing brokers do?
I believe this situation is because of an abundance of both manpower and agencies, and a lowering of work ethics and integrity. Other industries like advertising have taken measures to raise their service standards to respectable levels by shaking out the ethically challenged elements, and the recruitment services industry needs to do the same.
If an agency does not conduct a proper search for the best candidate for a particular position, it becomes plain and straight brokerage. But even that would be the wrong term to use in this situation, given that these agencies are unable to provide fast turnarounds like house brokers do.
Mindcaster, people watcher, entrepreneur by attitude, employee by choice. Blogs at anaggh.com and tweets at @anaggh
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}