und is relevant to the position if the resume isnt that clear) are a waste of time. Better to have the intro coming from someone else! I also think lots of speculative CVs is not the way to do it - they should be targeted and the intro made through a recruiter or buddy
ng in the first place. In it, we're very clear that unless a member of my team has briefed them on a specific role, and they have signed a PepsiCo Supplier Agreement, that any CVs or profiles sent into the business are considered speculative, and that we won't be held liable for any fees should we go on to hire that candidate in the future.
But it does still happen occasionally - so we take the same kind of approach as Gary. We also contact the candidate to explain that the agency in question isn't actually an approved PepsiCo supplier. What disturbs me is that 80% of the time, the candidate has no idea their details have been submitted or are being "shopped about". The other 20% of the time, they tell us that the agency had claimed to have an existing relationship with us. If the candidate chooses to engage with us directly at that point, we're quite relaxed about it.
A few months ago, we received a blind CV and I immediately recognised the candidate as someone I know. The information was 18 months out of date. The candidate had actually started working in his "dream job" about 3 months previously. He definitely wasn't on the job market, and when I called him to ask if he knew Agency X was sending out his out-of-date CV - to people in his own network - he hit the roof. And rightly so, I think.
There are lots of good agency folk out there. But their voices are drowned out by the huge number of "cowboys". The UK market desperately needs higher standards, and candidates, consultants and in-house teams all have a part to play to make that happen.
d swamp the board. The trouble then is it gets out of hand because every other recruiter feels they have to post every five seconds to keep their job on page one.
If I post, it's 'cos I have a real job. And I post it once. If candidates can't be bothered to read page two of a thread, then they have no business putting "a diligent and thorough individual" on their CV.
Also, I often find a quick message to the group moderator before I post does no harm. The fact that you actually thought to approach them rather than going off half-cocked can give you kudos before you even start the conversation.…
ad something in common with them, but on the contrary I haven’t. I have found them shallow, obsessed with how much they bill and a little bit arrogant and dismissive.
Funnily enough they all work for large Recruitment Consultancies that swamp the market place with their brands and speculative CVs and no doubt gloat about the fees they have “screwed” out of their clients in loud voices in noisy bars.
No wonder therefore that it is easy to find tweet after tweet from in house recruiters moaning about recruitment consultants and blog after blog from various industry experts excited by technology that could spell the end for Third Party Recruiters.
Anyone got any suggestions about what we do as an industry to counter this vocal minority ruining our reputation or is it something we are just going to have to live with?
Added by Jon Terry at 5:31pm on September 25, 2011
Team by going to an Exec or Senior Manager. When it happens the agency is barred from dealing with the company again.
In many companies where Specialist Recruitment Teams exist there is usually a level of process and agreed-to policy that governs how suppliers are selected and evaluated. In these circumstances a PSL typically exists which cannot be overruled on a whim; we would need procurement and legal departments getting involved before we could engage. An Exec may try and influence us but we would simply walk them through the policy, why it exists, who sanctioned it, why we work with certain suppliers and the risk to our business in using a non-approved speculative supplier that adds no relative value. If they push the issue I would certainly want to know why they were so interested in that agency that it would require us to go outside of policy and request all the authorisations needed, especially when we might have respected and approved suppliers working with us. Thankfully the Execs in my current company and in my former company do tend to refer any such approaches to us. They really haven’t got the time to deal with it in any other way.
I do find it disturbing that you think this type of disrespectful behaviour is acceptable and will do anyone any long term favours. Would it not be better to spend more of your time and energy building relationships so that you can offer a credible recruitment service than trying to undermine those responsible for managing the process in a company and just trying to sell a single deal? It seems that you are more interested in a sale than you are in providing a long terms sustained quality service. …
hat...discussing. Of course there are going to be differing opinions and I welcome yours.
However, I I will have to ask if you read the post?? It very quickly went away from entry level candidates and in fact, I don't blame them. I blame people like you and me that raised them.
Also, you said yourself that companies outsource to make an extra penny on the stock. So, in order to do that, they have to improve their standing in Wall Streets eyes, right? That means, cut expenses without decrease revenue, acquisition, winning a large piece of business, blah, blah, blah. Simply outsourcing does not increase the stock price. The impact that outsourcing makes on the books would. And what is the number one reason to outsource? Right, cutting expenses. And what is the top expense for most companies? Right, employee costs. Therefore, using the concept of deduction could lead to the statement of Greedy Americans are partly to blame for outsourcing.
Erik Davids said:
This has to be the most inane post I've ever read on this site.
Are you in sales? If so, maybe you should think about getting out of it. I make a habit of placing entry level IT candidates and have never run across this attitude. Companies outsource to make an extra penny on the stock dollar, not because of "Greedy" entry level candidates entering the market.