The Candidate

The “Too Long; Didn’t Read” on this is:

If you’re a candidate looking for a role and using the services of a recruiter, use your professional integrity in your job search in the same way you operate in your current workplace environment.

Following on from last week’s article concerning the ‘client’ element of the “Recruitment Triangle” (client – recruiter – candidate), I now look towards the area in which I have some experience, both first hand and vicariously.

On looking for a job (or ‘role’ when one moves sufficiently higher in one’s career, it seems) the recruiters are the gatekeepers. Very few clients will place an advert in the local rag, preferring not to source their staff from a page which also features “Lonely Hearts” or “Sofa for sale – requires steam cleaning”. At least, in that respect, clients sometimes have some minimal degree of style…

We have pretty much all been candidates at some point, unless you operate your own company and have never even had a paper round (kudos to you).

We all know the main motivators for a new role, money, challenge, career development, money, lifestyle, money, money, self-actualisation, money, career progression, money and bonuses.

Cynical

Very few individuals will consider a drop in salary unless it fits very specific, personal circumstances. Making the transition from Regional Sales Director to Brain Surgeon would take a certain amount of personal introspection and career planning, building in the long hours of being a junior doctor, the potentially crippling debts and the nagging feeling that – based on your extensive experience of buying departments – there are very few brains in circulation on which to develop a career. One would expect the salary to plummet, but that is balanced out by the “long game” whereby the reward at the end, that glorious world of “Carry on Matron” where one can develop a James Robertson Justice persona and be a lovable curmudgeon, is worth the short- to mid-term salary sacrifice.

If I, for instance, as a professional burgerologist at “Mc.Five Guys King” wanted to live in the Shetlands, I would sacrifice my career path at the grill and accept a lower salary because of the prevailing, local cost of living and the few opportunities to be a ‘ground beef flip gymnast’ in my desired location.

Consider the candle-maker. My skill set is massively niche in an age of LED lighting controlled from a smartphone. The only smartphone remote control I can offer for my candles is the option to doubt the flame with a carefully-flung iPhone, which makes the whole experience more expensive than is entirely necessary. My value in the employment market for my skill set is minimal. If my current employer was changing business – presumably to move into the more up-to-date quill and sedan chair business – then I might be forced to accept a lower remuneration for my skills as both the external market (shops) and the internal market (my employer's product line) diminishes. I might need to re-skill, so moving to another company and accepting a more junior role for lower salary might be a driver for my job search.

Other than that… Money.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. (Timothy 6:10)

I’m not religious, so I was surprised that there was a “Book of Timothy”. I’m supposing that the Book of Timothy falls between the Books of Jeff and Colin. Anyway…

Candidates are usually looking for more money. This helps the recruiter because their fee is often based on agreed salary. Win-win!

Well… Yes… Usually…

There now follows a tale I have heard several times from several agents and from friends (by their own admission) in their search for a new role. The names have been changed to protect the guilty.

John Smith is a COBOL programmer. His skills are niche, but he can expect a short-ish, well-paid salary as one of the few who can support ancient legacy systems on which some organisations rely to this day.

John is bored with his job. COBOL programmer – remember?!

John goes out to market to see whether he can use his considerable skills to secure an increased salary.

The recruitment agent sees this as a bit of a challenge. There are few organisations which still run COBOL on live systems (compared to more recent programming frameworks). Those who are running COBOL are moving to the latest whizz-bang coding for websites and devices.

Agent has a lightbulb moment!

“John, about the job search…”

“Yes?” replies John.

“Have you considered taking the same salary you currently have and using your next job to upskill to more modern programming skills with a new company? Take a career hiatus for a year or so, let the company use your COBOL skills to help their transition and develop your new skills and then - the world’s your oyster! The new skills are attracting a good salary and with your experience you’d be able to drop into a senior development role. You’ll put between ￡15-￡20k p.a. on your salary in a year’s time?” explains the recruiter, offering a true consultancy opinion.

“Hmmm….” Replies John, interested. “I think that makes a lot of sense – I’d be happy to go for an interview and accept the same money I currently have.”

The interview is set up. The client loves John. The agent loves the fact that they’ve fulfilled the client’s needs with a candidate who offers great potential going forward.

Since the interview, and prior to the client’s decision to hire, John gets a phonecall from another agent.

“John. COBOL role. ￡5k more than you’re on. The company are sweating their COBOL estate with a plan to move to another platform in three years’ time. They like your CV and don’t need to interview. Start in a month?”

“Five thousand? Yes – I’ll start in a month,” replies John, mentally working out the net increase on his salary.

As a candidate, John obviously has to consider his personal circumstances.

Obviously.

The problem arises when John, contrite because he has gone to interviews for the first role and embarrassed that he has been driven by the almighty dollar, goes missing.

Suddenly, email has been un-invented. Mobile telephony around John ceases to exist (and no, not because he has moved to West Bromwich). If the first recruiter wanted to serve a sub poena on behalf of the High Court on John they would need the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (motto: “We always get our man”) allied with one of the seemingly endless cadres of bounty hunters on which Channel 5 predicates their evening TV scheduling.

John is an ex-candidate. He is no more.

The recruiter is embarrassed before the client they have been nurturing as a business relationship. The client has to start the recruitment process again, muttering under their breath about “Bloody agencies…” and the cycle of recruitment goes down a notch (again) in terms of mutual respect and mutual benefit.

John should have informed the agent. The agent could then have had a dialogue in which, initially, subtle questions regarding John’s father could have been raised, a conversation about John’s career path could have been discussed and, potentially, an opportunity for the recruiter to return to the client and wring a further ￡5k could have been undertaken. John still gets his ￡5k, the recruiter gets his man, the client gets their employee and everyone is happy. I know, from my chats with recruiters, that a “Dutch Auction” for salaries is inconvenient and uncomfortable because, inevitably, the client thinks that the recruiter is ‘trying it on’, but losing a candidate for the sake of ￡5k is often nonsensical.

But John simply disappeared.

It’s worth mentioning that John might also have disappeared if, when handing in his notice, his current employer counter-offered. John might have disappeared off the electronic face of the earth because his current employer offered to match or beat (by usually a tiny amount) the new salary on offer.

Human Nature

If you’ve made it through that lengthy vignette, you will know that these things happen all the time.

It’s worth pointing out that recruiters are (very often) people, too. People with memories. People who can bear grudges. People who are basically just people.

John Smith pops up six months later. He didn’t move to a new employer and stayed put for ￡6k more than he was on. The problem is, his work is slowly being moved to a country where COBOL programmers are paid the equivalent money of someone on a reasonably extended paper round. John’s role is under threat.

John goes for a new role.

For the agent - once bitten, twice shy?

Of course. The agent who had secured John’s future with a new role, only to be wrong-footed when John went back to the communication methods of Tudor Britain and successfully ignored all contact via phone, email or text, raises a wry smile…

If they can get John in on an absolute “gimme” role, then of course they’ll do it. Maybe it’s a client who hires once in a blue moon, or it’s that client who no one wants to really work with, but it will often be a client who has no real development potential. And neither does John. Recruiter’s match made in heaven.

"But!" you cry, "John might not go back to the same agent, Evans - your logic is flawed!" You're right. Absolutely right. And agents don't talk to other agents about terrible clients and terrible candidates - of course they don't...

If, however, the agency is one of a number (more than three?) who have been given the role on a contingency basis then John’s CV will probably be delivered to the client with all of the grace, urgency and dexterity of a brick thrown by an octopus.

This whole scenario shows that recruiters – gasp – are human too. Why would anyone consciously go out on a limb again to help someone who doesn’t even have the integrity to decline, in person, the role they have accepted?

I believe that we are getting closer to the issue here.

In the late 19th Century, John Stuart Mill (see references, below) started to talk about “homo economicus”, proposing “an arbitrary definition of man, as a being who inevitably does that by which he may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labour and physical self-denial with which they can be obtained.”

To an extent, we are all driven in the same way. We all want that next prize. What some candidates seem to forget is that in the “Recruitment Triangle”, the deal essentially breaks down thus:

Client – has role, needs candidate.

Recruiter – sources role, needs client, needs candidate.

Candidate – has availability (skill / time / resource), needs recruiter.

If we see recruiters as the gatekeepers of new opportunities (I’ll expand on this in my next piece, “The Recruiter”) then candidates need to portray as much credibility with the recruiter as they do with the client at interview. Live and operate with integrity. Say what you mean but also – do what you say.

Maybe you go about your job search with impeccable integrity and feel let down by recruiters – does that mean you should stop looking?

Did a dodgy second-hand car salesman stop you from buying a car ever again?

Did a sleazy double-glazing salesman stop you from buying new windows?

Experiences with poor recruiters should indicate that pursuing other opportunities requires partnering with recruiters who share your professional ethos.

The power to remove appalling recruiters from the market resides in the hands of the client and the candidate. Look at the “Recruitment Triangle” above. Recruiters need clients, yes. But they also need candidates. If their supply of candidates dries up because their service is dreadful then they go out of business.

Good riddance, too, according to recruiters with whom I’ve spoken.

If you happen to land a role via a recruiter who behaved badly, let your new employer know. After all, no employer wants their brand tarnished by a supplier, which is, after all, what recruiters are. It may lead to a conversation with the recruiter to address any challenges, or it might remove them from the PSL and cut off the source of future opportunities, again – attacking the fundamental income stream of a poor agency.

Conclusion?

As a candidate, you should expect no sympathy and no help if you treat recruiters poorly. You have the power to challenge poor service, either during the recruitment process or afterwards, when you feedback to your new employer that their preferred recruitment agency is “right up there” with illegal wheel-clampers in terms of reputation and operational ethics.

It should be noted, that you should operate as a paragon of professional integrity. You are your own shop window. Your CV is the sign above the shop. If you comport yourself with a professional manner then you will find that you will receive the same in return. This isn’t some New Age “ask the Universe” mumbo-jumbo, it’s profound sense. People like to be treated ethically and respectfully. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” is a cliché because it’s used so often because it’s based in truth.

A lot of those recruitment stories you hear about cowboy agents have another side, too. Maybe you didn’t hear that the candidate was underhand and got caught out? Blaming the agent gets rid of any shame or smear on the candidate’s reputation.

Like in everything else, there are three sides to every story; yours, mine and the truth.

The final component of this is the “C” word.

Communication.

Don’t “go to ground” because you don’t have the ‘stones’ to deal with a situation like an adult. Fall back on your professional integrity and communicate. Not a text message late at night or twenty minutes before you are due to start a new role for which you have no intention of attending.

Make a call. Explain your situation. Treat the recruiter with respect. Treat the role with respect. Treat the business with respect. It’s a small world (although I wouldn’t like to have to paint it) and your professional “brand” is the only thing you have when you are going for a role against someone else. Get a reputation for going into hiding and you can’t expect anyone to take you seriously, which means that you slip down the ranking for attaining a new job.

I’m not lecturing. I’m hoping that this lengthy post is, basically, preaching to the choir.

If it isn’t – if it’s something totally alien – then blaming recruiters for the state of recruitment is so myopic that we sincerely need some honest introspection and to approach recruitment from a totally different perspective.

For that, I don't think anyone has the answer. Yet.

Reference

Mill, John Stuart. "On the Definition of Political Economy, and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It," London and Westminster Review, October 1836. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1874, essay 5, paragraphs 38 and 48.