The Problem With Recruitment: Is It You?

As anyone who's read my articles or posts will know, I have my issues with the way the agency recruitment industry operates. For the most part I believe it's too transactional and, by it's very nature, employs and encourages people who are almost entirely sales focused rather than those who are ethically or long-term driven.

Nothing new from me here then.

But here's the part that might upset, alienate or hopefully intrigue you, the reader.

The longer I'm in this industry, the more I suspect that recruitment agencies are only half (or indeed, one third) of the problem. What makes up the rest? Well, I'm sorry to say that by definition it has to be Jobseekers and Employers.

Woah! Way to shift the blame there Mr Recruiter Guy!

Indeed it is. And I must admit, I'm as intrigued to know why I think this as you are.

So, in search of answers, Fife Group sent out our best interviewer (me) to track me down for an exclusive interview and get the full story.

See below for the explosive, tell-all interview that insiders have described as "...completely full of words" and "...long-ish".

Our interviewer tracked Andy down and invited him to an open chat about his controversial thoughts on the state of the recruitment industry. The following interview took place in the lobby of a well known 5 star hotel in central Auckland.

Interviewer: Thanks for agreeing to meet with us Andy, we know you like to "fly under the radar" so we won't waste your time.

Me: Seems like we're doing that already.

Interviewer: Fair enough, let's get straight to it then. What's up with shifting the blame for crappy recruitment practices on to the poor jobseekers and hardworking businesses out there?

Me: Well, here's how I see it. No industry could survive being regarded as simply a bunch of hacks and job pushers if there were a better, widely available alternative right?

Interviewer: Sure, makes sense.

Me: So why isn't the industry better? Why do people have similar horror stories about recruiters all over the world and why do businesses assume that engaging with a recruitment agency will be akin to having teeth extracted in terms of it being a pleasant experience?

Interviewer: I'm sure you're going to tell me...

Me: Well, it seems to me that the industry "is how it is" because it doesn't need to improve. Employers and jobseekers both mostly treat it as being a transactional, commodity based engagement which they'll use through necessity only. The vast majority of businesses and jobseekers would never dream of genuinely engaging with a recruiter when they aren't either actively looking to fill a role or find themselves a new job.

Interviewer: Makes sense, why would they?

Me: Because if you treat an entire industry as a transaction, then what you'll end up with is people "selling a product" and racing each other to the bottom in terms of price (and ultimately, service). Treating people's careers as a commodity is both actively and passively encouraged by businesses and jobseekers behaviour.

Interviewer: So you're saying that, because people only engage when they have a need, then rather than getting someone who understands their long-term needs they'll simply end up with someone trying to tick the boxes?

Me: Exactly.

Interviewer: So what would you suggest to change this?

Me: Well first of all, you won't change an industry overnight, and for some areas this approach will always be somewhat necessary. High volume roles, basic roles early in your career, large scale short-term projects etc will always exist and that's absolutely OK.

My point it that, for a huge number of roles across all industries, wouldn't it make more sense to partner with a really good recruiter and get them to understand what it is you're looking for in the short, medium and long-term? That way, when the perfect thing comes up (no matter when that might be) they'll only be presenting you with the very best, most relevant options.

Interviewer: How would this concept work for businesses or employers? Surely they can't just hire people all the time!?

Me: No, of course not. But the same principles hold true. Rather than frantically trying to fill a gap when employee X resigns, why not always be open to seeing outstanding talent when it becomes available in the market? Sure you might carry a little extra fat in the business now and then in terms of FTE, but (and here's the whole point) if that "fat" is based on having hired someone because they're outstanding, then do you really think they wouldn't be adding value in some way (project work, training, covering leave etc)? Also, it means that when Employee X inevitably resigns, you've already got Employee Y up-skilled and ready to jump straight in.

Interviewer: OK, but do you think recruitment firms can work in a way which partners with talent over longer periods and is astute enough to only ever provide the ideal candidates to the right businesses?

Me: For the most part, no. Because that's not how they've ever been expected to operate. They operate as a "supermarket for people" because that's how businesses have used them. That said, there's a real shift in the recruitment industry happening which is definitely moving things in this direction.

Interviewer: So what are you expecting from all this?

Me: Honestly, not much. I've set up a business that works entirely based on this model and it seems to be really resonating with both jobseekers and businesses. That said, I'm still coming up against the same preconceptions and assumptions about what I do and why I do it. Trying to make every interaction genuine, useful and without a hidden agenda is a slow road to success, but it's the road I'm really stoked to be on.

Interviewer: Ah, so this has just been one big self-promotion effort in a deliberate and shameless effort to show people what a groundbreaking model you've adopted?

Me: Of course, why the hell else would I go to the effort of interviewing myself in a hotel lobby??

Interviewer: I was wondering that. So, shall we grab a drink?

Me: I thought you'd never ask...