You're not qualified
Most recruiters by nature aren’t trying to offend people as they go about the job of recruiting candidates for their client customers. However our quest to find the perfect person leads us to find many more really talented “close but no cigar” candidates that after showcasing our opportunity to and gaining their sincere interest we must now let them know that they just aren’t a good fit (insert reason here).
Of course, some people take this better than others, but generically speaking I’ve been finding that executives take it worst of all, and I’m beginning to understand why. These are people who are at the top of their respective organizations, have been given challenge and opportunity throughout their career and have succeeded at every turn. So in their mind there aren’t many positions that they aren’t capable of doing.
This is, of course, both a blessing and a curse. As I’ve been recently recruiting for a Director level role my client has expressed many requirements (ranging from size & scope of organization & role to industry, salary and many others) and in my world (Retained Search) the one with the gold makes the rules, and the client has the gold. So I have very little ability to shift the role or function unless it’s just highly unrealistic (prior lunar landing experience is always a toughie).
So understand that when you speak with a recruiter we are just as hopeful that you’re the perfect match as you are and we’ll work in your behalf to make sure your relevant experience is showcased. However, when push comes to shove if the client wants a skill or experience that you don’t possess, no matter how wrongheaded you think they are for requiring it, don’t expect to get the interview.
TheVoiceOfIT
in How to Work with Headhunters, Market Conditions, War Stories, Management
|
8 Comments
Reader Comments (8)
Yes, that's what it all boils down to.
However, there's a side the recruiter doesn't see because he can't see it. There are two types of gold; recruiters only have the perspective to see one kind.
There is the kind of gold to which one becomes entitled by <i>creating</i> it. There may be a contract behind it, which must be met to the letter in order for the coins to be dispensed, but there's a spirit behind the letter as well. I declare a bounty on groundhogs, ten dollars a pelt, you bring me a pelt and I pay you ten dollars because I know there's one groundhog that won't be chewing up my lawn anymore. Or...a hundred bucks for a barrel of oil. That's a barrel someone else won't have. There's real wealth behind it.
The recruiting industry seems to me to be in danger of drowning in the "phony" kind of gold, the kind passed out when the letter of the contract is all that matters, and is altogether removed from the spirit -- no real wealth generated when someone jumps through the right hoops. In the case of the subject at hand: What real wealth is created when we cook up nonsensical requirements for open requisitions? Say for simplicity's sake I don't want an engineer, I want a typist. You find me a guy who can type 350 words a minute and is experienced in Microsoft Word for Office 2003, 2000, 1997, 1995 as well as WordPerfect, WordStar, Bank Street Writer, Electric Pencil, vi, notepad, Wordpad, ConTEXT, PC-Write, etc. etc. etc.
And then at the eleventh hour I say "Oooh! Inital requirement: Must have worked with MS-Word 2007!"
What wealth gets created there?
I've just kicked out one promising candidate; and the field of qualified ones that remain, I've just narrowed down from 100 to about 3. All of whom have crappy work ethics and attitudes, and now I can't do anything about that because of my own arcane, nonsensical, tool-obsessed requirements. Which do impose new standards. But don't create new wealth.
So I think your "gold" analogy breaks down. If I hire a plumber or a car mechanic, sure I might have the gold but I'm not going to steamroll over the guy when he says "that's not a smart way to do it" -- I'm going to listen to what he says. That's the relationship clients should have with their recruiters.
And why do I say that's necessary? Because IT professionals are starving? Not so much that -- because the client's needs are going unmet.
My frustration was that candidates get upset with me when we both know full well they are capable, just not qualified to the companies parameters, and therefore won't be of interest to the company. the same company who is paying my fee(the gold in question) and therefore get to stipulate what the candidate needs to have for experience (the rules).
And I'm not castigating you for this; it's completely true. My counterpoint can be best summed up as -- you know what? Nobody else is responsible either. What happens when nobody has responsibility for something: The job ends up not getting done.
And so skilled IT people can't get jobs -- at the same time as, the needs are going unsatisfied and the positions are going unfilled (or filled inadequately by people who can't actually do the work).
I know you're following the rules, the question is what is accomplished when you follow those rules. And the answer is that when lackluster results are realized it isn't your fault. But it isn't anyone else's fault either, and so the IT-skills market will remain highly dysfunctional.
Welcome to IT, one of the few traded commodities in which there's a shortage, at the same time as those who are providing the traded commodity, can't find any takers. How do we get in this situation with this one commodity? By trading it incompetently. It isn't YOUR incompetence, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
I appreciate your spirit and while I agree with almost all of what you say (and please check out our blogs on the IT labor shortage for further info related to this matter) I will say that we do tell our companies the realities of the market and explain how they may have unrealistic expectations of the market. Unfortunately, the target tends to rarely move in any significant way and therefore many qualified IT Pro's do become quite frustrated with the process and the players in the process.
On the engineering side, the friction you are encountering is cultural. The standard recruiter's response to this violates a number of rules by which engineers have to live every day. One of these rules is that you aren't supposed to hide a project-level failure behind protestations that you did YOUR JOB following the proper steps. What would happen if the server team used that excuse, in a giant telecommunications company like AT&T. Or in a power company. Or in any company where important functionality rests on 100% availability of a server farm, frame relay, or any resource maintained by engineers.
Another luxury the standard recruiter answer uses, which is denied to engineers, is to take the passive approach with what somebody "wants." Engineers see themselves as re-defining their own jobs, and the jobs of their peers, with every little thing they do. And so an engineer who passively offers up whatever's demanded, even when the demand is wrong, injecting none of his opinion at all into the process is going to be quite frowned-upon by his colleagues and rightly so. If an experienced desktop support technician keeps coming to you for basic things he ought to know how to do, and you're an architectural-level systems engineer, it's a disservice to your peers to continue to encourage that because you're re-defining their jobs downward.
That is how the recruiting industry needs to be re-defined. The clients make unreasonable demands that have little to do with fulfilling the job that actually has to be done -- you guys don't see it as your job to straighten 'em out on it, and you end up hurting us. Big. I mean, to the point where you can work your whole life in this business, generate a big ol' stack of positive references, and still end up handing out grocery carts at Wal-Mart.
As recruiter we attempt to work with candidates to educate them on the market and make recommendations that will benefit their careers, but just like managers that "want what they want" candidates also don't necessarily make any changes to their current path based on our recommendations, and of course we can't make them.
As is the case with all things in life, a moderate approach is best.
Ever go to an online dating site and specify EXACTLY what you want? Like right after a bad break-up...go through the search engine and carve out an exquisite sculpture that is the precise opposite of your ex-girlfriend. What does it do. It comes back and says "There are zero (0) members fitting your description living within 50 miles of you." And then, suddenly, 5'5" with cute freckles and brown eyes and loves action movies and mountain climbing, must have boat, must must must, aren't all quite so important anymore.
That's a process of learning to live with reality. That's what lies ahead of the client who demands "must have experience with Microsoft FlooJam v3.a(1) ziggyfoxtrotbeta."
I get the impression sometimes that a criteria that makes the difference between pulling up 500 qualified candidates, versus pulling up 1 or 2 that both have crappy worth ethics and all the common sense the Good Lord gave a rotten turnip, will simply pass by the recruiters without comment. If it really is that bad, then I think you'd agree with me this is an inappropriate definition of the recruiter's job. The recruiter should assist the client. If they're in a position to know "Hey, this requirement means that no qualified candidates will be found an the whole process of filling this position will turn into a joke"...they should at least SAY something. That's a different thing entirely from forcing the hiring manager to do something. It's simply giving reasoned advice based on the knowledge you have about what kind of talent supply exists to fill the vacancy. And that's what you're there to do.
Now what's written above is a retread. What follows is something I haven't mentioned until now, and it's something I think you're forgetting about here.
Your response to these concerns boils down to, essentially, a statement that you're not the guy to talk to about this, that you don't have the authority to solve the problem (and by implication, lack the authority to even begin to make a dent in it).
The process is set up to guarantee that people in my position, have nobody else we can talk to about it.
Also, other than qualified applicants who have gone through the frustrating process of finding a position through this busted process -- nobody's going to figure out something's broken. Think about it. Position goes unfilled, or the process of filling it turns into a complete train wreck, or a candidate IS found but too many compromises have to be made in "staple" areas (understanding of and respect for deadlines, problem-solving skills, knowledge of industry, etc.). Who gets in trouble? You don't. The hiring manager doesn't. Maybe the successful candidate does, if he fails at enough projects...that blame doesn't go back to the process of locating him in the first place.
No, we get little clues that something is busted when we read in trade magazines that there is a "skills shortage" and then the experts start arguing about whether there really is one or not. Which is exactly what's happening.
So I understand and respect that you don't have the ability to make decisions for your client, and for what it's worth I think your observation about executives being frustrated with the "Your Not Qualified" thing is dead-on. Maybe I'm one of those. (Perhaps a more diplomatic and soothing adjective is called-for.)
But I know exactly what's broken -- from my perspective, anyway: The conversation between you and the client? It's a monologue. It should be a dialog.
Now if you're not the guy to inform about that, where, other than the round-file, do I take this observation?
Please don't think that all is lost, and I certainly recommend that you continue to make your point because there are people that do want the best and understand it isn't determined by the laundry list of technical experience, but by what's between the ears.
I know that I certainly continue to have this dialog with my clients and quite frankly they wouldn't be my clients if they didn't understand and in appropriate situations heed my advice to be more flexible in their hiring stance.
So please keep us informed on the battles you wage against the narrow vision that some companies have of technical professionals and we'll do our best to move them forward on our end.