The importance of recommendations and references

Restaurants are getting busier again which is really, REALLY great. But how do you choose which restaurant to go to? Let me throw three personal theories at you (apologies in advance to any restaurateurs who may take offence):

1. You choose a restaurant based on reviews, not on your first impression of what the food looks like on the website and how well the website is designed
2. Restaurants with smaller menus produce better food than restaurants with massive, phonebook-esque menus.
3. Generally speaking, not always, specials or dishes of the day are what’s left in the kitchen as opposed to special buys (again, let me repeat, not always).

So why am I getting busy talking about food and restaurants when I work in recruitment tech??

I think as industries, the processes are clearly different but the (desirable) end result is the same. You want to eat and enjoy good quality food; you want to hire good quality candidates that can benefit the business.

Theory 1: You choose a restaurant based on reviews, not on your first impression of what the food looks like on the website and how well the website is designed

I usually choose a restaurant based on reviews and recommendations and rarely on a first impression of the website,? a picture of the food or on a hunch. Why? Because, other than being incredibly unspontaneous (which is my wife to be’s biggest bugbear), when it comes down to it, presentation and first impressions aren’t what counts. What counts is whether the food is good and you can't see that from an image or a description. The closest you can get, in my opinion, is that other independent people tried it, and liked it.

This goes against traditional recruitment though, doesn’t it? Everything is about first impressions and hunches - that’s what a CV screen and a phone qualification is. If you’ve got a spelling mistake on your CV - forget it, ‘you’re not right for us’. But does that really matter for a talented software developer, it’s not like they’re a creative copywriter with an English language degree.

If you were to ask the developer’s network (previous colleagues and managers), you may find out about the projects they’ve worked on and what they could bring to the table. But no, you looked at the image of the food and decided it wasn’t for you… Hmmmm.

By the way, I should tell you at this point that my dad has taught me many things over the years, two of which are food related:

1. Never trust a restaurant with pictures on the menu
2. Never eat anything luminous

Theory 2: Restaurants with smaller menus produce ‘better’ food than restaurants with massive, phonebook-esque menus

We’ve all seen restaurants and menus that cook and serve everything; jack of all trades… Now I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the food at such places, in fact I often do! They cater to a wide range of people. However restaurants with smaller, more curated menus are often seen as ‘better quality’ as they can focus on making fewer dishes ‘better’, knowing that these will appeal to a certain clientele.

For example, and I know I’m not necessarily comparing apples with apples, a worldwide buffet restaurant may serve currys, chow mein, pizza, pasta, fish and chips; you name it, it’s there. Some people like it because they can keep their options open and even enjoy a selection of everything.

Way over on the other side of the spectrum, there’s Michelin star restaurants , which usually have tasting menus with no choice at all. But because these restaurants are highly sought after and ever so highly recommended, the food is virtually guaranteed to be quality - it’s what the recommendation is built on.

Bringing this point back to recruitment, the phonebook-esque menu is the longlist of applicants; there’s a lot of choice, some might be relevant and some might not. You’ve got to find a way of sifting through and finding the diamonds. But on the other hand, the smaller, more focused menu is like the shortlist of quality candidates.?

The label, Michelin star, infers quality. As would, I think, a Software Developer who has been recommended by the CTO at Apple.

Theory 3: Generally speaking, not always, 'specials' or 'dishes of the day' are what’s left in the kitchen as opposed to special buys

Let me just start by saying this is not a criticism and there is nothing wrong with this! If I go straight to the point, this can be compared to SOME recruitment agencies, who have a bank of candidates they know are available and will shoehorn them from company to company, often having them interview at several places simultaneously. And why not, they want a placement whether it’s with your company or the company down the road.

I used to work in recruitment and, believe me, I don’t think recruiters deserve the bad reputation that often comes with them. But that said, they have to find ways of ensuring their targets are met and often that’s by casting their net far and wide. I realise I have generalised recruitment agencies here; not all act in this way and there might not be anything wrong with it.

But imagine having 5 special buys to choose from; 5 candidates who have demonstrated they want the role and want to work within your company.

Now, you might see a slight theme in my last couple of posts - the importance of referrals, recommendations, endorsements and you’re right, there is.

We’re launching Higher, a new SaaS platform that puts these things at the heart of the process. It’s different. It’s interesting. It makes sense - just ask my boss!