Reply to: Agencies need to get rid of the keyword based search

[tractor]

..

Let us not forget who developed the technology that brought on this state of affairs

bloody IT people

And let's not forget it's the agents with their tier based service management business model that accepts a client producing fairy tale specs and facilitates the 'interview to death' syndrome we often see now. Typically it costs the client nothing to make several tiers jump through stupid hoops knowing that they will only pay a fraction of the costs.

I too remember the Access 97 requirement of 3 yrs experience in '98. Nothing changes nor will it ever. Managed Services will see to that.

I am tempted daily to change my cv read 'Tier 1 agents ONLY need apply, please only contact if you are an account manager'

[DodgyAgent]

Let us not forget who developed the technology that brought on this state of affairs

bloody IT people

[petergriffin]

Just copy and paste the job ad into the black spaces on your CV and switch the font to white.

Don't forget to add this disclaimer:
YOU'RE A LAZY AND STUPID PIMP!!!!!

[domcobb180]

Just copy and paste the job ad into the black spaces on your CV and switch the font to white.

[Gentile]

Gotta blame the clients themselves sometimes. Its the 'Van Driver wanted - must have experience of driving red vans' syndrome that gets me.

LOL! - so true.

[Gentile]

I applied to for a contract role to assist with one of the first Service Manager 7 roll outs on a trial client. Spec asked for experience in SM7 implementations. WTF?!? I rang the agent and asked him how can anyone have SM7 experience when they piece of work was to roll out to one of the first clients. He said he couldn't help and that is what the client wanted. Tosser.

I've no idea what SM7, and doubtless neither did he. That's bad enough when you're recruiting for a discrete technology, but it's even worse when you're recruiting for a technology where the clue as to its recency is in the title, such as SQL Server 2008, etc. Back in 1998, I interviewed for a job developing Access databases. The interviewer (not even the agent) asked me if I had three years' experience of Access '97, because it was really essential that they had someone with that number of years in. I didn't realise that Tardis Pilot was one of the technical skills they were after, or I wouldn't have wasted my time.

[The Agents View]

I applied to for a contract role to assist with one of the first Service Manager 7 roll outs on a trial client. Spec asked for experience in SM7 implementations. WTF?!? I rang the agent and asked him how can anyone have SM7 experience when they piece of work was to roll out to one of the first clients. He said he couldn't help and that is what the client wanted. Tosser.

In that case, you've gotta blame the agent....

I had something similar. I worked IT when Vista first came out. My major client was one of the first to plan a full scale Vista roll out (to their ultimate regret!) The client called me up, and said "I want someone who has been doing Vista Roll Outs" - A very brief "are you sure?" was all it took, for him to realise he was being an idiot, and to re-phrase to desktop refreshes.

I really hated that job!

[northernladuk]

I applied to for a contract role to assist with one of the first Service Manager 7 roll outs on a trial client. Spec asked for experience in SM7 implementations. WTF?!? I rang the agent and asked him how can anyone have SM7 experience when they piece of work was to roll out to one of the first clients. He said he couldn't help and that is what the client wanted. Tosser.

[Murder1]

My favourites are the one's where the technical skills required and the length of experience clearly have no association - an agent with a little bit of nous would stop the following from being shown on a contract spec.

Must have 3 years experience in the following:
.Net 4.0
NServiceBus
ASP.Net MVC 3
etc...

[psychocandy]

Gotta blame the clients themselves sometimes. Its the 'Van Driver wanted - must have experience of driving red vans' syndrome that gets me.

You see an advert on jobserve with a long list of skills that are absolutely essential. Urgent as well. There is going to be no-one in this world or the next who has all of these skills, let alone do it for the average rate you are offering. Good luck client.

Then you see the same contract appearing time and time again for months when they cant find someone. Makes me laugh....

[The Agents View]

Then again, to be blunt, that's one of the main skills top recruiters get paid for: the ability to cut through bureaucracy and obtain the direct ear of a hiring manager. Sometimes that involves bending the rules, by finding out who needs the work done and liaising with them directly, whatever the low-level bureaucrat trying and failing to control the process may feel about it. It's not an easy job by any means, but it is one of the key things contractors can't do for themselves, even if they have the necessary interpersonal skills. It's one thing a recruiter calling up to push a person with skills in front of a decision maker with a matching requirement; it's another prospect entirely to try and sound credible as a contractor whilst blowing your own trumpet.

You are absolutely correct - and that is exactly what your top recruiters will do. But there are several problems with this.

1) Many of the businesses who go down this route, are so blinkered, that they'll refuse to pay, unless you're on the right lists. They only have to do this once, before a recruiter will steer clear of them.

2) Managers all too often get their fingers burned when they step outside of process - no matter how incompetent the individuals involved in the official process are. Again, they only really have to do this once, before they are completely closed to the idea.

I had someone call me the other week for a role they'd been struggling with. I've placed it, but I've since found out, that this guy had spent 3 weeks trying to convince the powers that be, that they should use someone new - he had to interview 9 people with absolutely none of the skills required. Sometimes, business sense doesn't come into it!

3) It's very very hard, for a contractor, to know who the top recruiters are - and whilst this is not a new problem - with the onset of these internal teams, it becomes even more important to find those who can break down barriers.

[bobspud]

I've seen so many people go into these roles, it's unbelieveable - and for the company you have mentioned also.

The hilarious thing is that they take people who are so ridiculously poor, at such high rates. I have a friend, who is a really nice girl, but a USELESS recruiter. She's gone in there, taken a £60k salary. Her billings for the last 3 years in permanent recruitment - £55k, £50k, £68k. Most agencies wouldn't let her anywhere near anything wasn't a filing cabinet with those kind of numbers!

And the worst thing? She is now in the supply chain, controlling agencies inputs as well as supposedly dealing with direct applicants. So any agent who wants to deal with them on her specific roles, may not speak to the line manager (at all) - has to get the job spec from her notes (something I know she is absolutely awful at doing) and then has to submit candidates to her for review. She is also in charge of contractors for her business unit as well.

I hope nobody wants to have a serious conversation about a job at this gas supplier any time soon....

But the question is: Does she have great tits

A CV used to be a tool to be read and discussed between parties. It didn't need keywords. It gave a rounded personality of the candidate. As more and more people ask that you tailor the cv for every role, the content of the CV will gradually fade in favour of buzzwords and untruths placed there to get you past the idiots, so that you can have a real discussion with the hiring manager.

[DodgyAgent]

I've seen so many people go into these roles, it's unbelieveable - and for the company you have mentioned also.

The hilarious thing is that they take people who are so ridiculously poor, at such high rates. I have a friend, who is a really nice girl, but a USELESS recruiter. She's gone in there, taken a £60k salary. Her billings for the last 3 years in permanent recruitment - £55k, £50k, £68k. Most agencies wouldn't let her anywhere near anything wasn't a filing cabinet with those kind of numbers!

And the worst thing? She is now in the supply chain, controlling agencies inputs as well as supposedly dealing with direct applicants. So any agent who wants to deal with them on her specific roles, may not speak to the line manager (at all) - has to get the job spec from her notes (something I know she is absolutely awful at doing) and then has to submit candidates to her for review. She is also in charge of contractors for her business unit as well.

I hope nobody wants to have a serious conversation about a job at this gas supplier any time soon....

I do not often agree with you.

[Gentile]

So any agent who wants to deal with them on her specific roles, may not speak to the line manager (at all) - has to get the job spec from her notes (something I know she is absolutely awful at doing) and then has to submit candidates to her for review. She is also in charge of contractors for her business unit as well.

Then again, to be blunt, that's one of the main skills top recruiters get paid for: the ability to cut through bureaucracy and obtain the direct ear of a hiring manager. Sometimes that involves bending the rules, by finding out who needs the work done and liaising with them directly, whatever the low-level bureaucrat trying and failing to control the process may feel about it. It's not an easy job by any means, but it is one of the key things contractors can't do for themselves, even if they have the necessary interpersonal skills. It's one thing a recruiter calling up to push a person with skills in front of a decision maker with a matching requirement; it's another prospect entirely to try and sound credible as a contractor whilst blowing your own trumpet.

[The Agents View]

They are doing it mainly for perms these days. IT, Sales, Engineering the lot! They are recruiting agency recruitment consultants.
What must be embarrassing is when companies like British gas advertise for experienced Engineers on the same page as they advertise for recruiters. Always the recruiters are being offered more than the top engineers. These companies are being hoodwinked into believing that 65K is the going rate. The really good recruiters earn two or three times that much and the average ones can be picked up for £35k

I've seen so many people go into these roles, it's unbelieveable - and for the company you have mentioned also.

The hilarious thing is that they take people who are so ridiculously poor, at such high rates. I have a friend, who is a really nice girl, but a USELESS recruiter. She's gone in there, taken a £60k salary. Her billings for the last 3 years in permanent recruitment - £55k, £50k, £68k. Most agencies wouldn't let her anywhere near anything wasn't a filing cabinet with those kind of numbers!

And the worst thing? She is now in the supply chain, controlling agencies inputs as well as supposedly dealing with direct applicants. So any agent who wants to deal with them on her specific roles, may not speak to the line manager (at all) - has to get the job spec from her notes (something I know she is absolutely awful at doing) and then has to submit candidates to her for review. She is also in charge of contractors for her business unit as well.

I hope nobody wants to have a serious conversation about a job at this gas supplier any time soon....