Reply to: You're only as good as your last contract?

[Bluenose]

Just wondering about your respective opinions re the impact that the names of previous clients have when applying for contracts.

Ive tended to work for the big banks on large programme's, Lloyds, RBS, Santander etc.

My last contract was with a small building society, ive got a contract offer with another small financial services company now, neither are household names and the latest offer is a really small company I suspect 99% of people wont have heard of.

My hesitation is that a future client instead of seeing my previous roles as X at RBS, Lloyds etc will see my latest two roles at fairly non descript organisations.

How important do you think the previous client names are with agents & clients? I know when im receiving CV's from candidates, those with the more well known clients (or certainly clients I know and have worked with) are more inclined to make my shortlist.

I guess im concerned that to many non descript roles could water down what has been a pretty strong client list.

From experience, End clients won't care and probably appreciate a little flexibility in your past working environments. Just working in large banks is not an ideal background. That said, Junior recruitment drone doing the cv filtering won't read past the first line describing your last role. Even Experienced recruitment consultants have a hard time reading two paragraphs down.

Flip a coin time with your cv applications.

When placed in this situation My best results have come from working with resourcers from consulting firms as they tend to know their stuff better and are more willing to look at your background. It's more in their interest to create a working and lasting relationship with you.

Just on the topic of working background I have found it highly unusual and in some ways ironic that recruitment Consultants continue to spout the same old tripe about using working background as the main metric for Cv filtering technology consultants at banks. There was a shift which happened around 2008 which means this is no longer valid.

Internal consultancies to major banks do not Weight candidates based on working background as the main factor for determining resourcing for transformation and support programmes. This goes across the board, from the big four all the way down to the Indian outsourcers. You can never have worked in a particular vertical before and still get placed by a consultancy in that vertical, the rules don't apply there, so why do recruitment consultants inflict this onto the rest of the industry?

I see this as one of the root causes for the lack of technology innovation in companies and its driven by recruitment consultants not knowing their subject matter and simply assuming that because you have worked in the same big bank before (for example), you are more sellable than someone who has, without even considering other aspects of the candidates background or abilities. Not worked at X company before? Bin the Cv.

[tractor]

...

Why do you think its narrow minded? I didn't say it was the only factor or major weighting characteristic.

In my view it enables me to understand that certain applicants are used to working in a certain environment, what's expected and they will know the kind of governance, methodology and processes similar companies work with.

If im interviewing for a banking role why wouldn't I weight someone who'd previously contracted at say Nationwide, Barclays and Deloitte above someone who'd worked at XYZ software company, non UK bank and obscure Asian bank?

If you can suggest other ways to filter down 150 CVs to identify candidates to interview im all ears.

• Don't use ten agents.
• Tell two agents to send you their best 3
• If say, SOX is what you are looking for why wouldn't someone with SOX experience with a software house be interesting to you? As Cojak said, industry experience is what is relevant. Also that obscure bank may be a big player locally. It may even outperform some of the numpties we keep bailing out here!!!

Cheesus - 150 cvs? Are you mad?

and posting a vicarious insult at 2.19 in the morning makes you such a legend?

It is mid morning and Stek does sorta have a point. Poeple easily see through you complaining about something that you actively practice yourself.

[Barley]

and posting a vicarious insult at 2.19 in the morning makes you such a legend?

[stek]

Why do you think its narrow minded? I didn't say it was the only factor or major weighting characteristic.

In my view it enables me to understand that certain applicants are used to working in a certain environment, what's expected and they will know the kind of governance, methodology and processes similar companies work with.

If im interviewing for a banking role why wouldn't I weight someone who'd previously contracted at say Nationwide, Barclays and Deloitte above someone who'd worked at XYZ software company, non UK bank and obscure Asian bank?

If you can suggest other ways to filter down 150 CVs to identify candidates to interview im all ears.

Is it because you come across as a bit of a bell end?

Happy New Year!!

[Barley]

Why's that then? Seems a bit narrow minded to me.

Why do you think its narrow minded? I didn't say it was the only factor or major weighting characteristic.

In my view it enables me to understand that certain applicants are used to working in a certain environment, what's expected and they will know the kind of governance, methodology and processes similar companies work with.

If im interviewing for a banking role why wouldn't I weight someone who'd previously contracted at say Nationwide, Barclays and Deloitte above someone who'd worked at XYZ software company, non UK bank and obscure Asian bank?

If you can suggest other ways to filter down 150 CVs to identify candidates to interview im all ears.

[SteelyDan]

I know when im receiving CV's from candidates, those with the more well known clients (or certainly clients I know and have worked with) are more inclined to make my shortlist.

Why's that then? Seems a bit narrow minded to me.

[Barley]

Thanks for the responses, I think the upshot is that it wont really matter, positives and negatives.

At the smaller company interview I was asked about whether I was in overall control at other clients, having worked on large programmes I had to reply no, but I was in overall control at the preceding small client.

I guess its better to have a mix, also as someone said its about what you've done as much as which clients you've worked at.

Yeah im all financial (20 years, 7 years contractor) only consider the sector, 'better the devil you know'

Cheers

[SteelyDan]

What I've done and what I've achieved - the whole point of my CV. Totally agree.

Who I've done it for - irrelevant apart from industry experience.

Latter part might have some relevance to a client, but frankly it means diddly-squat to me...it's just another fee earning opportunity

[TwoWolves]

Depends on the individual, really.

Don't concern yourself.

Lots of people think ex Goldmans people are God's gift, I've found them a bit useless.

My wife worked there and has nothing good to say about them.

As long as you have plenty of "financial" you're good.

[jmo21]

I used to work permie for arguably the most well known IT company in the world, and I think between speaking to agents and to end clients, people have mentioned it to me maybe twice in 7 years contracting.

I thought it was going to be a great plus on my CV, and yes, maybe it has got me interviews and even roles, but it's barely came up when talking to agents/clients.

[cojak]

What I've done and what I've achieved - the whole point of my CV.

Who I've done it for - irrelevant apart from industry experience.

[colinrobinson]

Just wondering about your respective opinions re the impact that the names of previous clients have when applying for contracts.

Ive tended to work for the big banks on large programme's, Lloyds, RBS, Santander etc.

My last contract was with a small building society, ive got a contract offer with another small financial services company now, neither are household names and the latest offer is a really small company I suspect 99% of people wont have heard of.

My hesitation is that a future client instead of seeing my previous roles as X at RBS, Lloyds etc will see my latest two roles at fairly non descript organisations.

How important do you think the previous client names are with agents & clients? I know when im receiving CV's from candidates, those with the more well known clients (or certainly clients I know and have worked with) are more inclined to make my shortlist.

I guess im concerned that to many non descript roles could water down what has been a pretty strong client list.

I work across clients and industry sectors with clients large and Small. the question always comes up at interview along the lines how well you will integrate with a larger/smaller team.

I guess the interview pivots on my response to this single question as technical experience is rarely an issue.

[TykeMerc]

A TA that was in one of my test teams last year got asked at an interview for a small building society if spending a year at Lloyds had effected his ability to deliver anything on time

That could be read in either direction of course.

It's true that some client managers may look down on client lists that aren't 100% blue chip, FTSE 100, but in reality there's nothing you can do about it. Odds are there are some who would look at a spell at RBS, Barclays or Lloyds as a negative, so in reality there's really absolutely nothing you can do about it

In truth you can either get pointlessly wrapped around the axle of name equity, possibly including bench time or dull projects or just say sod it and go for any contract you fancy, there's no 100% win strategy.

[TestMangler]

A TA that was in one of my test teams last year got asked at an interview for a small building society if spending a year at Lloyds had effected his ability to deliver anything on time

[malvolio]

Your client list only impresses agencies. Hiring managers are looking at what you've achieved or delivered, who you did it for is of less importance. And some small and largely invisible finance houses have higher net worth than many banks...