When I was in transition, I spoke with plenty of recruiters. Most of them had a job description in hand and would look for a mirror image of that job description on a resume. It was easy to see that if there was one bullet on the job description that wasn't listed on the resume, the conversation stopped. I want to know why recruiters treat intelligent people like they're incapable of learning? Learning is ongoing for professional people and let's face it, the Internet provides an amazing springboard for research.
Every position cannot be all-inclusive to every company and recruiters and hiring managers should understand that an intelligent person can learn new areas of their jobs if it's a requirement. If recruiters have a strong candidate, they should make an effort to build a relationship with the candidate so they can make a professional assessment about their current competencies as well as the candidate's innate abilities to take initiative and want to learn more. There are, what I like to call, "Steady Eddies
" who are great employees; however, they're not going to be superstars. Not everyone can be a superstar and that's okay too, but that's a topic for another day. In addition, hiring managers and companies need to stop expecting recruiters to wave a magic wand and find their perfect candidate. The perfect candidate is non-existent!
In closing, it would be peachy if recruiters and hiring managers would understand that people aren't perfect and companies aren't perfect. There will always be a hole or a void somewhere on the resume and it's a matter of determining the priority of that skills void. Talk to the candidate and let them share their work and personal experiences with you. Stop using the recruiting process to rule out candidates and start using it to court them. When a candidate knows you want to learn more about them, they'll be less nervous when they speak to you and inclined to share their experiences candidly. Maybe then candidates will stop being on the defensive with recruiters and recruiters will stop accusing candidates of lying.
This is human nature folks, don't overcomplicate it. Thoughts?
Sometimes we have the flexibility with a position to put forth a candidate who may not have all the bells, sirens and whistles a client expects, sometimes we don't. When a client signs on with a recruiter to pay a 20 to 40K fee they expect and demand that we deliver a candidate who does not require much training/learning or down time before they can take over full responsibility for a position.
Sometimes there are quirks to a position that only the recruiter knows and may not be able to share with a candidate. ie; client says, "We have tried two people in this position who did not have all the background for this spot but we thought with a bit of training they could get up to speed." It didnt' work we don't want to do that again." In the past few years companies have been working lean and mean so many do not have the latitude to take a risk with a new employee who does not have all the bells, sirens and whistles. Some of that will change with the market.
Unfortunately the frustration for most recruiters is the same as that of the candidate. We do look for reasons to hire based on the job requirements. As the first line of screening we filter out candidates then when we submit to our clients they look for reasons not to hire as the second line of screening
before the resume ever gets to the person making the final decision. We can try and sell attitude all day long but 90% of the time clients do not pay recruiters big fees for great people with great attitudes if they don't have most of the bells, sirens and whistles. Sometimes a candidate without a lot of the requrements gets hired because of smarts and attitude but normally not through a recruiter who has been charged with finding a superstar in order to justify our existance.
Frustrating for all concerned but a fact. We too wish it were not so.
I agree Kimberly. If recruiting was as simple as the toy baby's fit shapes into, we'd have all happy clients and candidates.
I know I did not have all the qualifications for the job I am doing now, but the passion and personality were there along with a good amount of the technical experience. However, in the time I have been here I have learned a great deal more and still my employer is happy with my work. Did I fit the description entirely? No, but it still worked out in the end.
This is a hot topic of mine and I love the way you placed it at the forefront of this forum. Transitional skills are very important and must be reviewed when discussing future positions where a professional might be a strong match. If someone matches 100%, trust me they are not the right person. Professionals do not want lateral moves but advancement. Find someone that has 80% of what is needed, the core of the role while offering them 20% of ancillary skills to learn. This generates strong interest in the role and company, plus keeps retention high.
When companies want a checklist and recruiters screen people out via a list of questions, the company is doing no good for itself. It places itself in a challenging position to find the perfect person while not looking towards the future, an oppossing view of the candidate. Job Seekers look at opportunity, not just the job at hand. They want growth and the capability of learning new skills. Companies that seek a checklist are seeking the wrong thing, they are seeking a part in a machine. Companies that seek value in their employees are looking for skills, soft and technical, ones that can be developed and provide long term advacement.
True professional recruiters or negotiators must be in a position to court both the company and candidate, providing a win-win and educating the client on why hiring someone with most of the skills and a desire to learn is better than hiring the best person on paper.