recruitment agencies
Options
Comments
-
Hello
can anyone shed any light on how recruitment agencies operate? I am looking for work and am somewhat puzzled as I keep submitting my cv and I rarely hear anything back. I know I meet all the criteria for the jobs as advertised. When I follow up with a phone call to them, the reception person usually just tells me that I have to wait for one of the staff to get in contact with me. Surely this is open to a bit of nepotism of sorts? Like if my "friend" worked in one of these recruitment agencies, they could "reserve" the "better" jobs for me so others would never get a look-in?
Just wondering what anyone else's experience has been.
Thanks in advance.
Generally speaking, they wont interact with you unless you're one of the two or three candidates with the strongest skills and thus the best opportunity of getting the job (for them).
They are paid by the employer and will be competing with many other agencies so wont want to waste their time (and as a side effect - yours) on a job they think you wont get.
Harsh, by no means perfect and open to abuse potentially, but thats how it works.0 -
Good agencies (from a recruiter point of view) supply a string of potential candidates, any of whom could do the job. Good agencies (from a candidate point of view) always put you in for a job you believe you could do.
An agency will often be restricted to, or only want to submit maybe 3 candidates tops. Sometimes only two. Submitted a raft of CVs just puts extra hassle on to the employer as they have to sift through them (which is what they pay the agency for).
An agency SHOULDNT be putting any tom !!!! or harry in for a job role just because said person "believes" they can do the job. Thats bad for the employer, agency and candidate (who may end up getting a load of interviews for jobs they've no mission of getting)0 -
allianceinternational wrote: »As a professor and a corporate recruiting strategist, I can tell you that very few applicants truly understand the corporate recruiting process. Most people looking for a job approach it with little factual knowledge. That is a huge mistake. A superior approach is to instead analyze it carefully, because data can help you understand why so many applicants simply can’t land a job.
Exactly.
Too many people think "uh i can do that" and then get miffed when agencies and employers dont fawn over them.0 -
I'm an IT contractor so am regularly applying for job roles / contracts.
Basically, i look at it as a series of stages :-- Find a job role than i have easily 80% of the pre-reqs and ensure these are clearly documented on my CV
- Apply with a cover letter highlighting how my experience meets the pre-reqs
- Ideally, get a call back from the agency for more info
- Ideally, get an interview
- Ideally, get the job offer.
For every 10 CVs i submit, i maybe get 5 callbacks
For every 5 callbacks i maybe get 3 interviews
For every 3 interviews i maybe get 1-2 offers0 -
Interesting response, but I am not looking for a corporate job. The ones I am focusing on are routine public service administration posts. The same vacancies for the same locations are advertised regularly.
Allianceinternational - can you explain what you mean by "factual knowledge" and "analyze" - do you mean to research a company before applying?
Any info you would like to share would be most welcome.
Thank you.
Ensure you have clearly demonstrable skills for the pre-requisites and that those skills are clearly marked on your CV.
If they're looking for 2 years experience as an HR Administrator, clearly show you have 2 years experience as an HR Administrator.
Dont apply for jobs based on "oh i know i can do that", apply for jobs that you have ALL (or at very least 80% of) the pre-requisites.
Not having all the pre-requisites means you probably wont even make the paper sift. Chances are some office junior in the recruitment agency is paid minimum wage to read CVs (or they have a computer program doing it) and ONLY those CVs with all the pre-reqs will make it to be in front of the agency recruiter.
THEN they will look down through them for the strongest 3 or 4 candidates
THEN they will telephone those 3 or 4 to fill in any gaps
THEN they will decide who to put forward
They wont bother with the niceties of ringing you back to let you know you're unsuccessful or to give you "feedback". However if you do get to the potentials list then all of a sudden they're your new BFF...0 -
I didn't imply that they should... Just observed that people looking for jobs would really like an agency to put them forward for jobs they think they are suitable for.An agency SHOULDNT be putting any tom !!!! or harry in for a job role just because said person "believes" they can do the job. Thats bad for the employer, agency and candidate (who may end up getting a load of interviews for jobs they've no mission of getting)
From a candidate point of view, if you're in the unwelcome position of job hunting, it can be flat out enraging if an agent won't put you forward for a post that you think is a good fit.
From an employer point of view, I've seen the kind of rubbish that agents produce (even when told to field only their best candidates), but also that the best CV is not necessarily the best candidate.0 -
I didn't imply that they should... Just observed that people looking for jobs would really like an agency to put them forward for jobs they think they are suitable for.
From a candidate point of view, if you're in the unwelcome position of job hunting, it can be flat out enraging if an agent won't put you forward for a post that you think is a good fit.
From an employer point of view, I've seen the kind of rubbish that agents produce (even when told to field only their best candidates), but also that the best CV is not necessarily the best candidate.
Ah right, with you now.
Your original intimation was that what made a good agency was one that put candidates through because the candidate thought they could do the job.
Good agencies (from a candidate point of view) always put you in for a job you believe you could do.0 -
Ah right, with you now.
Your original intimation was that what made a good agency was one that put candidates through because the candidate thought they could do the job.
Yes, that is what makes an agency "good", so far as a candidate is concerned. For anything else to be true, they would really have to trust the agent to have their best interests at heart.
I've never met an agent I would credit that way.0 -
I've never met an agent I would credit that way.
Ditto, my worst experiences with agents:
As a recruiter:
- Telling a candidate the salary was 50% higher than it actually was
- Sending the CV of someone who at interview did not match the skill set/experience at all (met the basic academic criteria), felt like they were answering the questions as if it was for a different job. {Recruiter's excuse was that we chose to interview them}
As a recruitee:
- Being promised they'd get me an interview then nothing for three weeks. Got a call from another recruiter (same job), sent them my CV and they got me an interview within two days
- Same recruiter as above (the one that didn't get me an interview) calling me at least once every 4-6 months to see if I know anyone who may be interested in this job or that job (as if I am their friend or owe them some sort of favour)
- Calling about an advertised job, being asked to come in for a face-to-face then finding out that the job is already filled but there's this other opportunity (etc, etc.) that doesn't actually fit my interests (due to location)
They're a necessary evil from both perspectives but for sure don't trust them0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards