Wednesday Wisdom: Why don't recruiters get it?

Dear Claudia,

I lost my management job 8 months ago, and haven’t been able to find a new one yet. Oh, I’ve been busy: 837 jobs applied for (yes, I counted), and direct conversations with 259 recruiters and 138 HR people (I counted those too). In all of that, only two interviews – and I was second runner up for both. I’ve worked with a career coach, rebuilt my resume, created an online “personal brand,” and attended more networking events than I care to remember. The payoff? Recruiters and HR people who see me as overqualified and getting desperate. The fact is that I need a job, and as time goes by I’m less picky about what it is. Why is that so hard for recruiters to accept?

Down but not Out Yet

Dear DBNOY,

There’s an old joke about a man who discovered a beautiful woman sitting alone in a bar. After some flirting he asked if she would ever consider to sleep with a stranger for a million dollars; she laughed and said “It’s possible.” Then he asked if she would consider it for $10. Looking shocked, she said “What kind of a woman do you think I am?” The man smiled and replied, “Well, we’ve already established that. Now we’re talking price.”

There are times in every career when a job pays the rent, and times when it feeds your soul. It sounds like you need a paycheck right now, and there’s nothing wrong in saying so – and if you’re the kind of person who makes lemonade when life hands you lemons, you’ll most likely take this next job and turn it into a great opportunity as well.

Recruiters are matchmakers who piece together a highly complex set of expectations between hiring managers and job seekers; and when you consider the fact that they are paid by companies and not candidates, it’s easy to see how they can be perceived by jobseekers as gatekeepers who can't see potential or think beyond key words on a resume.

But here’s a newsflash: the recruiter’s primary job is to understand the business need and provide the hiring manager targeted candidates who can meet that need. In its simplest format, this means finding people with the right skills and experience – but there’s always more to it than that. If stability is important to the manager, the recruiter needs someone who won’t get bored in the job and move on when the economy improves. If there are lots of thinkers in the business, he needs people who can roll up their sleeves and do the work. Matching the tangible and intangible factors of the job is difficult, and one of the best reasons why good recruiters make the big bucks.

I think your options in this situation are pretty clear, my friend. If you’re looking for a job right now, look for recruiters who represent entry level opportunities. Expect to earn less than you were formerly paid, and to do work that is much more tactical. If you’re looking for your next career move, hang in there. Keep working with your career coach to fine tune your marketing and interviewing efforts, and don't give up; the job will eventually come. I wish you well in your efforts!

**

In my day job, I’m the Head of Products for Improved Experience, where we help employers use feedback to measure and manage competitive advantage in hiring and retention. Learn more about us here.

Do you have a question you'd like answered in this weekly forum? Drop me a line!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on April 15, 2009 at 9:58am

Claudia, have this person send me their resume.

BTW, this question could also have been written by an out-of-work recruiter... ;)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on April 16, 2009 at 7:25am

Remember this? I pity the fool who ever tries this with me - can you begin to imagine what my blog post will say?

Rayanne said:

Is this person over 45? Too much experience usually means too old.
The Price of Experience....

Words I have heard myself...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claudia Faust on April 16, 2009 at 8:28am

Rayanne and Steve, two very excellent links on the topic of age discrimination. So I'm curious to know where you think the root of the problem comes from -- is it the culture of the business, or the preferences of the hiring manager, or an inability to influence on the part of the recruiter?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on April 16, 2009 at 8:43am

M-E-D-I-A

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claudia Faust on April 16, 2009 at 8:52am

So you're saying that a hiring manager cannot be swayed in his/her perception of a "perfect candidate" because of the media? Where does individual thinking and accountability come into the picture?

Steve Levy said:

M-E-D-I-A

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pam claughton on April 16, 2009 at 9:51am

Claudia,

I'm not sure that seeking out recruiters that handle entry-level jobs is the answer for this person. I've found that entry-level jobs generally won't be filled by a senior level person.....unless there's extenuating circumstances, such as the person applies directly and makes it clear they are looking to downsize their role. But, I can't really see a company paying a fee for this type of hire. The big fear is that the person is 'settling', and as soon as the market gets better, they'll be out the door for a more suitable role, and also that they may well be bored, and the dynamics may be difficult if they are reporting into someone with far less experience.

There's a lot of people in this situation though, and I think they may have to get creative and look outside the box. I don't think going all the way back to an entry-level role is necessarily the answer and they may find it just as difficult to get one of those jobs.

Maybe look into something completely different, even opening up their own business, doing recruiting or consulting, where they'll be paid well for their efforts...once they get things going.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gino Conti on April 16, 2009 at 11:06am

Definitely some good reading, and I think worth pointing out that the link in Steve's post raised some good points as well. I agree that "overqualified" is a horrible cop-out which has a tendency to be code for "you're too old," but it can also be a catch-all excuse given to seemingly high level candidates who are actually underqualified or too far removed to still have related hands-on skills. I understand the fear of saying too much at the risk of backlash, but I don't think that justifies the overuse of such a broad, ambiguous, and lame duck explanation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claudia Faust on April 16, 2009 at 11:50am

Pam, great response - you make a good point about entry level jobs being just as difficult to get these days as those higher on the ladder. Regardless, I think the point is that DBNYO needs to generate some income here, and the window of choice in terms of "how" is narrowing by the day. What's a person to do in a situation like that? Consulting is certainly one option - but it takes time to bring in that first gig.

I'd like to bring this discussion back to the recruiter's scope of influence. Do you think that recruiters can really influence hiring managers or company culture to take a chance on someone who can bring much more to the table than what's described on the requisition? Gino's probably right that there's a lot of cop-outs going on in this regard because it is easier to say "not my decision" than to fight city hall. There is wisdom in picking our battles, however -- so on the flip side, when is it just good business sense to say "no" to a candidate that is clearly overqualified?

Lots of questions today, not so many answers...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gino Conti on April 16, 2009 at 12:03pm

There really is no clear-cut way to draw the line of when to just say 'no,' when to give some feedback, and when to take a chance on the person. Several factors play into each scenario so I have a hard time stating that every time a candidate with XYZ experience applies to role A the manager will pass for a specific reason. From my viewpoint the breakdown is something like this:

Entry level - if somebody who is truly well above the minimum qualifications applies for an entry level job the organization is likely to pass and have legitimate concern backing this decision. Retention, job satisfaction, and solid fit into the group will likely be sacrificed if hiring somebody with as much (or more) experience than his or her supervisor.

Taking a step back - if the same person as above applies to a position one (or even a couple) steps back in the career progression there could be a very good reason and it may be a great opportunity for the company and candidate. In this case the company is getting an employee with more experience than they needed at a minimal level, and there is a chance he or she will stick around. Depending on the personality of the candidate, there may be a sincere desire to stay long-term and get back to the original career level or beyond with the company who was good enough to give him/her a chance.

Aggressive/desperate candidate - no matter how many steps back they are taking a candidate with an aggressive growth vision is going to raise red flags as they will likely jump ship at the first sign of something better. A dire need hire may also do the same. While there is a possiblity that the employee will show some loyalty for putting food back on the table, it takes a unique personality to do this, and many will start seeking something at a more appropriate level once the market allows, thus making this hire a risky one as well.

Again, there is no clear black and white here, but as long as the person is still competent and in touch with the skills necessary to perform the job I see no problem with hiring somebody a level or two below the most recent responsibility. However, I get nervous with the VP turned analyst myself.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Sember on April 16, 2009 at 12:19pm

Without question recruiters can influence their clients and that includes taking on a more “seasoned” person. This does have limitations of course, if the client is looking to groom or mold someone from a more junior level into mid/senior level roles it can be a difficult sell and will most likely have very little chance of success.

Two main obstacles:
1: this is a competitive market, if the position is a mid-level role there are strong mid-level candidates and a senior person may not make the top of the list
2: if they are going backward in salary how happy (read dedicated long term) will they be…

I believe a good recruiter has influence with the client and with the appropriate coaching of the candidate these hurdles are all surmountable. I would also suggest this person work their professional network thoroughly

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claudia Faust on April 16, 2009 at 2:33pm

Love that, Sandra!

Sandra McCartt said:

Lead in on this kind of candidate. "How would you feel about a Cadillac for the price of Ford?"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pam claughton on April 16, 2009 at 3:24pm

Love it too! Claudia, I do think that recruiters can sometimes influence in favor of a more senior level person for junior job, it just really depends on the situation. Sometimes it's a win for both, sometimes the company would rather have a truly junior person who can grow with the company.

It's tough right now because companies have so many options that they often get more narrow in their thinking because they have such a selection of candidates, rather than thinking out of the box.

Claudia Faust said: