Reply to: agents fighting over a candidate

[northernladuk]

Had you already paid for parking, or was the parking free?

I hadn't pushed the envelope with the money in far enough through the letter box so I was able to retrieve it.. So kinda both.

[Old Greg]

Unfortunately I've also been in more or less the same situation and i got turned down by the client in the car park before the interview because the agents were giving him grief. I'm sure I got unlucky and more often than not it can be worked out as you say.

I'm just wary now and avoidance of the situation is the best defense.

Had you already paid for parking, or was the parking free?

[MattZani]

Updates: nobody got in touch with me. Not the client nor the agent. Client most likely dropped me.

Oh well, live and learn, I suppose.

[MarillionFan]

Unfortunately I've also been in more or less the same situation and i got turned down by the client in the car park before the interview because the agents were giving him grief. I'm sure I got unlucky and more often than not it can be worked out as you say.

I'm just wary now and avoidance of the situation is the best defense.

WHS

It's happened a few times over the years. Agents are like dogs fighting over a bone, or NLUK & Old Greg fighting to get the first barbed comment into a thread. Nobody comes out a winner.

[billybiro]

That's right. It takes effort that some clients don't want to spend, not because they are lazy, but because they have better things to do with their time.

Better than ensuring they're getting quality professionals to perform a quality job? No wonder British industry is going to hell. Hiring the right people (whether they be permies or contractors) is crucial to companies who wish to truly succeed. This whole, we've-got-better-things-to-do-than-make-the-effort-to-hire-the-right-people is short-sightedness and a refusal to stop and sharpen the saw.

There's no moral or fiscal imperative for clients to become experts at finding the best contractors.

No fiscal imperative? Have you seen how much these agencies charge for their "services"? Seems what you're saying is that clients simply don't have the time to expend the effort to hire good people directly, but they'll happily pay a small fortune for a third-party to do the job badly.

Also, there's definitely a quality imperative. Assuming, as a client, you give a sh!t about the quality of the work performed on your behalf.

They just want someone to come in and do a competent job.

And therein lies the rub. Again, I'll ask. Do you honestly think the average recruitment agent is capable of effectively filtering truly high quality people, or even just competent people (again, be they permies or contractors) for highly specialised, disciplined IT roles?

[WordIsBond]

And you clearly have no idea that it's possible to think outside of the box and recruit in other ways other than the usual "post a job advert and wait for the flood of inappropriate responses".

<snip>

Of course, the reason no client does this is because it takes effort. And virtually all clients who rely upon recruitment agents to provide them with contractors and staff are incredibly lazy in this regard.

That's right. It takes effort that some clients don't want to spend, not because they are lazy, but because they have better things to do with their time. Back in my permie days, when we wanted someone really highly skilled for a niche task, we knew who to contact. And when we needed a few code jockeys to surround him with to code to his specs, we had a lot better things to do with our time than run around to meetups. The guys that we had used before and knew were good were usually in contract (funny how that works, the good guys aren't looking for work when you are looking for them).

If I was looking for a permie, yeah, that might be worth a little more creativity and effort to make sure you got the right guy. A six-month guy? Forget it, I don't have time. Just send me a few candidates after filtering out the obvious incompetents. The better you filter them, the more likely I am to come back to you next time.

There's no moral or fiscal imperative for clients to become experts at finding the best contractors. The real clients have no need to be skilled at it, and HR is more focused on hiring employees. If a contractor hire goes bad, just dump him and get another one. I don't know what world you live in that you think clients should be creative about looking for contractors, but it's not the one most clients know. Their world does not revolve around contractors, they want to think about contractors as little as possible. They just want someone to come in and do a competent job.

[billybiro]

To cut out the CVs that come from people without work permits. To cut out the people who think that having once created a powerpoint qualifies them to be a test of a complex system.

And you honestly believe that the average agent has the requisite intelligence or is in any way qualified to make those judgements? These idiots don't know their JAVER language from their SEEQUEL from their SEE SHARP. Hell, printing out all the CV's, sticking them to a wall, and randomly throwing darts at them would probably be equally as effective at filtering. After all, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

They match keywords from their job advert to keywords on the CV's which means that a client who wants someone skilled in Ubuntu (a Linux distro) will probably not get matched to the guy who has "Linux expert" on his CV. Once those facile keywords are matched, the agent phones the candidate. "Do you know Ubuntu?" "Sure, I know Ubuntu. I'm an expert!". That guy goes in the "send-these-to-the-client" pile. Of course, some chancer who knows nothing about IT couldn't possibly bullsh!t the agent at this stage, could they?

You clearly have absolutely no clue of the scale of the work involved. You should try it sometime. If you're ever given that level of responsibility, which I sincerely hope you never do.

And you clearly have no idea that it's possible to think outside of the box and recruit in other ways other than the usual "post a job advert and wait for the flood of inappropriate responses".

For what it's worth, I have had to review dozens of CV's that have been sent to me via a recruitment agent. It's absolutely crystal clear that their methods of filtering are exactly as effective as those I describe above.

Just as savvy contractors will maintain a network of clients whom they can lean on for work, it's possible for clients to do the same thing effectively in reverse. Keep a PSL of contractors, Network with contractors whom they've had good experience with and ask about their contractor friends also, attend industry events and meetups etc. etc. etc.

Of course, the reason no client does this is because it takes effort. And virtually all clients who rely upon recruitment agents to provide them with contractors and staff are incredibly lazy in this regard.

It's no surprise that many clients in the internet space - i.e. big technology brands - (just as an example), who want to recruit the very best people, absolutely do NOT use recruitment agencies in any capacity whatsoever.

[LondonManc]

Having recruited in the past, I can say that my experience is hit and miss.

As the client, the agency wants your money and are therefore far nicer to you than they are to candidates - they're never in meetings like they are when you ring as a candidate. Funny that.

I've found the best way to get them working for you is to meet with them. Works for niche and for those where there are plenty of candidates. You simply need to be very precise about what you're asking for; in niche areas, there are certain things that you can search for, while in areas with lots of candidates, you'd have other key differentiators.

[pauldee]

To cut out the CVs that come from people without work permits. To cut out the people who think that having once created a powerpoint qualifies them to be a test of a complex system. To arrange interviews on your behalf. On occasion to actually find people with rare skills who are unlikely to respond to an advert, but might respond to a telephone call or email. To reduce the number of suppliers... Things like that.

You missed one: to deliver bad news.

[NotAllThere]

Only once. The HR director pulled an interview I was meant to be doing as another agent came forward and kicked up a fuss about having an agreement first.

He couldn’t be bothered with getting “proof” or having to make a decision so binned it totally.

(He was a massive ego twunt though so maybe not a good example to base it on)

To be fair - the time I was a hiring manager was when I took a management job after a few years of contracting, so I was fairly agency savvy. "Oh look - lips moving. That means he's telling a lie. Unless he faints due to lack of oxygen, in which case he was simply trying to chew gum and think at the same time".

Then why do they use them?

To cut out the CVs that come from people without work permits. To cut out the people who think that having once created a powerpoint qualifies them to be a test of a complex system. To arrange interviews on your behalf. On occasion to actually find people with rare skills who are unlikely to respond to an advert, but might respond to a telephone call or email. To reduce the number of suppliers... Things like that.

It's entirely possible for any client to recruit both staff and contractors without necessitating the use of an agency if they're not bone-idle lazy in this regard, you know!

You clearly have absolutely no clue of the scale of the work involved. You should try it sometime. If you're ever given that level of responsibility, which I sincerely hope you never do.

[billybiro]

It's a damned good question. With linkedin, jobserve and other social media agents are hardly needed. And are incredibly expensive.

Exactly.

In fact, the question was partially rhetorical. I think I know the answer, and I'll answer it by quoting from one of my all time favourite articles regarding recruitment agencies:

"Many organisations think themselves too busy to filter and headhunt. They don’t perceive the value of hiring well or the damage a few sleazebags can do to their reputation. Recruitment consultants promise to make hiring problem go away and companies – particularly lazy ones – soon grow dependent upon them."

[GreenMirror]

Then why do they use them?

It's entirely possible for any client to recruit both staff and contractors without necessitating the use of an agency if they're not bone-idle lazy in this regard, you know!

It's a damned good question. With linkedin, jobserve and other social media agents are hardly needed. And are incredibly expensive.

[billybiro]

Had to can an agency a couple of times for threatening candidates they lost out on. Most satisfying. What people fail often to understand is that clients tend to have as high a regard towards agencies as contractors do.

Then why do they use them?

It's entirely possible for any client to recruit both staff and contractors without necessitating the use of an agency if they're not bone-idle lazy in this regard, you know!

[LondonManc]

Had to can an agency a couple of times for threatening candidates they lost out on. Most satisfying. What people fail often to understand is that clients tend to have as high a regard towards agencies as contractors do.

This. Same goes on the permie side - got feedback from my new employers about the interviews/process and they said that some of the candidate cvs that were sent over were a joke (even though I managed to get the job....) and barely related to the role.

[chineseJohn]

Happened to my wife (not in IT) who was going for permie role. Got really messy, client was interested, then gave up when they were in the middle of a bun fight.