A Recruitment Consultant's perspective

Treehugged

I prefer to apply directly to the employer as they're more likely to read your CV or you get to sell yourself when you go through the laborious but worthwhile person specifications.

Recruitment agencies are incompetent and should confine themselves to the casual work sector, and nothing else. Sorry but I can count on one hand the people I know that have a good word to say about them.

Just my opinion though :cool:

k12479

Treehugged wrote: »

I prefer to apply directly to the employer as they're more likely to read your CV or you get to sell yourself when you go through the laborious but worthwhile person specifications.

My experience is that recruitment agents can get you to an interview much faster than lumbering corporate recruitment websites which can take months and months.

Treehugged

k12479 wrote: »

My experience is that recruitment agents can get you to an interview much faster than lumbering corporate recruitment websites which can take months and months.

True enough but at least I won't be rejected because the recruitment agent was deluged with CVs and so had to resort to filtering keywords (?!).

I use a well known professional jobsite and because I didn't know any better, I didn't uncheck the recruitment agencies. And so I found myself receiving emails from these RA regretting to inform me that I didn't meet the criteria for the job I am experienced and qualified for. Yet when I've applied for identical roles directly, hey presto!

Anyway these jokers always try to fit you up for jobs whose criteria you barely meet. They just want their cut.

I really do prefer the application form process that has the person specifications to really outline your skills and experience. :cool:

Put it this way: if I don't get the jobs I apply for directly at least I have myself to blame and no one else.

wimblewomble_2

Treehugged wrote: »

I prefer to apply directly to the employer as they're more likely to read your CV or you get to sell yourself when you go through the laborious but worthwhile person specifications.

Recruitment agencies are incompetent and should confine themselves to the casual work sector, and nothing else. Sorry but I can count on one hand the people I know that have a good word to say about them.

Just my opinion though :cool:

Statistically, you're right. But that doesnt make you right.

If there is 1 job, and 100 applicants, no amount of recruiter magic is going to change the fact that 99 people are going to be unhappy.
Out of 100 applications, perhaps 5 are worth reviewing.

When similar jobs arise, its the same top CVs that get put forward.
So you have the same small number of people getting the interviews, and more likely to get jobs.

Logically, there will always be a higher number of unhappy people than happy ones.

wimblewomble_2

Treehugged wrote: »

True enough but at least I won't be rejected because the recruitment agent was deluged with CVs and so had to resort to filtering keywords (?!).

I use a well known professional jobsite and because I didn't know any better, I didn't uncheck the recruitment agencies. And so I found myself receiving emails from these RA regretting to inform me that I didn't meet the criteria for the job I am experienced and qualified for. Yet when I've applied for identical roles directly, hey presto!

Anyway these jokers always try to fit you up for jobs whose criteria you barely meet. They just want their cut.

I really do prefer the application form process that has the person specifications to really outline your skills and experience. :cool:

Put it this way: if I don't get the jobs I apply for directly at least I have myself to blame and no one else.

You completely miss the point with regards to direct applications.
Large organisations employ Human Resources departments.

HR depts are pretty much a waste of space. The people are generally good at employment law, and other stuff, but are equally in the dark about reading and assessing CVs, and employee suitability. They might use psychometric testing or other such mumbo-jumbo.

HR depts also have to translate a hiring managers requirements into a job-spec. They also have to make judgement calls on arcane technical skills they are unable to understand.
They also make judgement calls on culture fit, etc.
Even with direct hires, the HR have to trawl through CVs.

Your CV, lovingly crafted over 17.5 hours, has to make an impact within about 15 seconds.
They HR dept still has to look out for key words, skills and phrases.
In fact, an eyeballed CV has to be correctly formatted, or the key stuff can be missed in a mash of poor formatting.

In an ideal situation, the hiring manager would do the recruiting, without the need for intermediaries, whether in-house or out-sourced.

PasturesNew

The OP ran for the hills early didn't he.... never to be seen again.

Treehugged

wimblewomble wrote: »

You completely miss the point with regards to direct applications.
Large organisations employ Human Resources departments.

HR depts are pretty much a waste of space. The people are generally good at employment law, and other stuff, but are equally in the dark about reading and assessing CVs, and employee suitability. They might use psychometric testing or other such mumbo-jumbo.

HR depts also have to translate a hiring managers requirements into a job-spec. They also have to make judgement calls on arcane technical skills they are unable to understand.
They also make judgement calls on culture fit, etc.
Even with direct hires, the HR have to trawl through CVs.

Your CV, lovingly crafted over 17.5 hours, has to make an impact within about 15 seconds.
They HR dept still has to look out for key words, skills and phrases.
In fact, an eyeballed CV has to be correctly formatted, or the key stuff can be missed in a mash of poor formatting.

In an ideal situation, the hiring manager would do the recruiting, without the need for intermediaries, whether in-house or out-sourced.

Nope, sorry but I prefer direct, and my CV wasn't lovingly crafted over 17.5 hours or whatever it is you're trying to dismissively imply. It's been objectively, professionally and honestly produced.

My background is in the third sector whereby most application forms are downloadable with person specifications that must be addressed, point by point. As I said a few posts up, many recruitment consultants that recruit for the third sector have rejected my CV, whereas HR departments (again within the third sector) have short-listed me on the strength of my CV. That's how I got a call back yesterday afternoon inviting me for a first interview. They'll look at the CV and just know the B essers.

Recruitment agencies have, in the past, when I took them seriously, phoned me on the strength of my CV and asked a load of banal questions, forwarded my CV for similar roles ('because the client was looking for a different type of candidate'), and then...nothing.

Sorry but I'll only use RA for casual work. I'll do the hard stuff myself.

Look, I do what works for me and leave others to do what works for them. :wave: