s one, another will come along.
Things like this happen, and it happened to me once.. I just do my damndest to make sure my candidate has more than one client of mine to interview with..the first client to move quickly and follow through wins.
Maybe the best thing to do is to find out who the final authority is on the whole deal before the "final interview", and not consider anything to be official until that person signs the offer sheet.
the above scenario reminds me of the old story about dealing with the dancing monkey, and not the organ grinder. We should always know who's calling the tune. Maybe this resulted from the recruiter doing an end run around HR, and HR is punishing everyone.. just thinking out loud.
As far as taking "unintended consequences" if my client acts in bad faith, I don't set the stage for those by positioning myself as "working exclusively for the client company"..I make no bones about being a middleman trying to help make an opportunity happen, if it's meant to happen..both sides know how hard i work for them, and as such, they've never held me responsible when one side drops the ball.…
p who might be interested in a position I had..
I called a guy who I knew was an experienced rep, and had spoken with a time or two before..he had even been cool enough to recommend some guys to me...anyway I mention the company name I was recruiting for, and the guy goes OFF..how he wouldn't ever work for such thieves, cads, and bounders.. lots of informed opinions ( mixed with some profanity) on how they treated customers and employees.
so, when he finished, instead of just thanking him for his time and ending the damn call, I asked in my most cheerful robot recruiter voice: "Well, that's fine, that's obviously not for you, would you know anybody who might be a fit"?
Whoops! I realized what I just did, after I said it.. well, you think mr. prospective candidate was pissed off before? I hadn't seen anything yet.. not only was my client a den of vipers, I obviously was in league with the demons myself, AND a bad listener who didn't take what people said seriously enough, or care what sort of meat grinder I was pushing candidates into..even went so far as to say he'd never return my call again, and would tell other reps he knew that I was a used car salesman that couldn't be trusted.
The guy sounded sincere, and he seemed really hurt I went into robot recruiter mode on him..he never did return another call I made to him. And I didn't blame him one bit. it was my fault for mentally and emotionally checking out on the call.
That was the day I learned to "be present and alive in the moment" when I was talking to people.…
on unit/team/architecture about 9 months ago. Before this point, I had access with the decision makers . . . however, Talent Acquisition immediately prohibited any discussions with Hiring Managers outside of their knowledge. Every call had to be 3-way and they had to be copied on all email correspondence (understandable, if you ask me . . to a degree, anyway). My only thought is that the TA employees hired came in with an 'us versus them' mindset in dealing with 3rd Party Recruiters - if you've been doing this a little while, you can tell by the tone and inflection of conversations -- as with all new relationships, it takes time to earn trust.
Anyway, the output/results from implementing a dedicated TA function has went starkly south. Fallouts increased 50%, offers aren't being accepted at the same levels, the recruiting process now has several additional steps that makes the candidates feel as if they're on an assembly line or in a meat grinder, etc. As in any math equation, using more steps to get to the result increases the variability, or 'margin of error'. While I don't have the data in front of me, I can only imagine that the TA function is operating well below direct ROI, and that isn't calculating the opportunity cost associated with fallouts and a lower acceptance rate.
As the Hiring Managers are now calling me complaining about not getting candidates anymore (at least, good ones), I always felt that I could work through the newfound inefficiencies . . . that is, until this morning. As I check the online Vendor Mgmt Systems every week or so (BountyJobs, RecruitAlliance, etc.) to see 'what's going on in the employment space', I came across this Client broadcasting their open positions for the world to see.
I'd like to reach out to RBC to see what the community thinks about this situation. Here are some questions:
a. Have you encountered this yourself?
b. What was your first thought and how did you feel?
c. What did the ensuing conversation with the client sound like?
d. Did you walk away or play the 'wait until they come back around' game?
Looking forward to your thoughts . . .…
ting firm is going to pay a quarter of their fee to a 'VMS' provider, then they're barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with the notion that a company is either a Client or a Source . . . but as in all relationships, you want to salvage and fix what may be broken instead of immediately severing a partnership (or what you *thought* was a partnership) for a few years.
In the end, who can be to blame? Is it the new TA function at the Client? Perhaps, because business results have went south in a big way - I can assure everyone that this was not the original intent.
Could blame fall on the new Sr VP, HR of North American Operations for hiring a Director of TA from a company that has an absolutely terrible employment brand and is known for high turnover and meat-grinder recruiting? Perhaps, because the Director of TA not only brought over his own methodology, but also his Recruiting Mgr and Jr Recruiter from his old company - as you can imagine, now my Client is running into the same problems as the other company. When you hire someone that brings over a team, it is worth the due dilligence to see what results that team is delivering for their current firm.
Could blame fall on the advancement of technology solutions? Not really, at least it's not the tech vendors faults in my opinion. Rather, it's the mindset that Recruiting solutions can only be found through new technologies - nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth . . . but if you go to a tradeshow and 50% of the presenters work for showcased tech firms, what do we expect?
Can blame be passed because of the 'chasm' that exists between External and Internal Recruitment? Perhaps . . . but why? If Internal Recruiting saw TPRs' as partners, this chasm wouldn't exist . . . considering TPRs always operated with high integrity and ethics.
At the end of the day, I find myself circling back to a central point that was learned during the CRM failure/debacle of the mid-2000s, and that is this:
The more you try to remove human interaction from a process that is all about people, first and foremost, the more you work against achieving your desired result. This is as true of Sales Departments that think technology will sell for them (instead of a human being selling to another human being), as well it is true of Recruiting Functions that believe they can fully automate recruiting.
To echo Jim Collins in "Good to Great" . . . technology is an accelerator of competitive advantage, not a creator of competitive advantage. Could this be more true in any space than our own????…