Why Recruitment ISN’T a sales job!

I’m going to be honest, when I first got into recruitment I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into.  I’d been made redundant from my role as a German Speaking customer service agent and was desperate to find something that would help pay off the student loan.

“Recruitment pays well” said one friend.

“Will I have to speak German anymore?” I questioned

“Nein” he replied (he thinks he is a comedian).

“Sign me up!” and that’s when I started applying.

During my interview process at my previous company, I had 3 interviews, all of which pushed me on the fact that recruitment is a sales job, do I have the tenacity, am I prepared for the long hours, can I negotiate the deals etc?  I was more than confident I could do the job, even though I never thought I was a salesman.

In the second interview, the cliché was put to me.  “Can you sell me this pen?” (remember, this was 14 years ago now)

I fell in to the usual trap and started extolling my perception of its virtues, rather than information gathering first.  Luckily they were desperate, and so didn’t eject me from the process and eventually appointed me.

Now, 14 years on, I still don’t think I’m a salesman.  I don’t see myself standing out on a metaphorical forecourt, trying to persuade people to buy something that they’re not sure they want, just because I have sales targets to hit.

My role does involve making sales, but that is a by-product of my role as I see it.  My role is a relationship development role- building understanding and trust with my clients and candidates, so that they can entrust me to either find them the RIGHT role, or the RIGHT candidate, rather than just any old role or candidate that suits me.

My best clients used to be my candidates, and often when many of my clients decide to move on or face redundancy, they will seek my advice or assistance.  If I treated my role as a pure sales role, I’d be approaching my role as a more transactional process(usually the one that will make me the most money!)  Do you think those clients and candidates would remember me and bring me future business?

The problem is that many recruiters out there do still see it as a sales role and are peddling their wares on that basis.  Using their candidates like a commodity rather than people on a career path.  Clients will receive relentless approaches from numerous agencies (often from a different consultant each time), pushing forward a faceless candidate who could be anyone, rather than discussing a personality with ambitions and aspirations!

So, if you just look at recruitment as a pure transactional sales role, go for it!  You’ll make money, certainly in the short term- the more muck you throw at the wall, the more will stick.

But, if you want longevity, repeat business and more importantly job satisfaction- remember that your job involves people, not products.  Get to know your customers-clients and candidates- give them your time and interest.  Develop the relationship.  Develop understanding.  Develop Trust.  Then the sales will come …

Why are you using Job Boards?

This isn’t an attack on job boards by any stretch.  I use them to post jobs and also to find CVs.  And its that second use that I find strange really.  If you are looking for work, scanning the job boards for jobs is ideal.  You can even set up a search so that the website will do the scanning for you and send the most appropriate.  Great heh?  But why register your CV on them?  Have a quick think about what it will achieve.

Someone might call you to speak about a job they are working on, right?  Yes, that is true, but of the 10 calls you receive, how many of them are from agencies to discuss a live vacancy, and how many are to “register your details” in case of future work coming up?

I’d say it must be at least 70% if not more.  I know because I do it!  And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because if the agency is any good, they will have called you as you have a useful skill set for their clients and they will be pro-active about getting you into work.  But if they aren’t that good (and how many out there are?), they will have called you to hit a meaningless “candidates interviewed” KPI, they will waste 20 minutes of your time and you will never hear from them again.  But that’s not all!

If this has happened a few times, there are people out there with your CV on their database and you have no control over what they do with it.  It might be unscrupulously sent to all and sundry to try and get a “bite”, or they might send you to a role that you have already gone for through someone else.  Or worse still, they will send you to your current employer (believe me, I’ve seen it happen more than you think!).

Housing is a very insular industry.  There are a finite amount of employers in your region and so it is easy to know who they are.  Equally, there are a certain amount of recruitment specialists operating in this sphere.  You have a relatively unique situation in that sense, and so you are able to be more in control of the process.  If you work in IT or finance, then you could work across pretty much all industries, so it makes sense to register your CV on a board to make sure you don’t miss an opportunity, but Housing is different.  You can select those people or that person in the market that you trust to represent you in the right way, find the right job for you and you can build an actual relationship with them.  They will be your eyes and ears in the market, they will put your best foot forward on any applications and they will add contact to your CV to clients.

I search Job Boards for CVs because I want to make sure I have the best people in the market, but most of my best relationships come through previous working relationships or recommendations.  If you really want to find a job, I highly recommend doing a bit of research, ask some of your colleagues for recommendations, make a couple of calls and then let us do our jobs- you’ll find it a much more effective use of your time!

 

 

There be a storm a-brewing….

Last week I celebrated/commiserated (delete as appropriate) my 14th year in recruitment.  Rather than get all nostalgic about what has changed in recruitment and Housing (which is a lot by the way…..Transitional Housing Benefit and Supporting People was being rolled out for a start), it got me thinking about the future and where the market and industry is going now.  The Tories seem hell bent on finding every bit of change down the back of the economic sofa in order to reduce the deficit, and 2 target areas are Social Housing and the Interim market, so should I start to worry?

I recently wrote a blog on the changes from the HMRC which will impact the interim market, and you can read it again here.  The constant pressures put on Social Housing are widespread and unlikely to abate.

I want to concentrate on the IMPACT that this could have in the market.  I often get asked, “how is the market at the moment?”, and the honest answer is that we are actually pretty busy.  For a still relatively young company, we’ve been kept very busy with both interim and permanent campaigns and I can’t see that changing.  My concern however, is for Housing organisations themselves, and think they need to act now, to prepare for the future.

So what are the potential issues?

Many Housing organisations are being forced to find efficiencies in service delivery in order to cover losses from the impact of Welfare Reform/UC/1% rent drop.  They are doing this in numerous different ways- some through scaling back from development plans, some through merging with other organisations, and many through looking at staffing structures (i.e. redundancies).  We have seen a surge in people contacting us looking to move on from their current employers as their workload has increased to unmanageable levels and in some cases, this is twinned with a drop in salary.  Although, it has an immediate impact on the bottom line, its more of an elastoplast, rather than a cure.  Overtime, what could this lead to?

An increase in people on sick leave? Very likely- and then an increase in staff costs when bringing in temporary cover.  FAIL.

An increase in staff turnover?  Likely again-People will move on to other roles, (sometimes that may be a good thing) but less experienced staff will take time to train up, so it can lead to a build-up in workload and sometimes a drop in quality. Additionally, high staff turnover (and redundancies) can make future applicant attraction more difficult. FAIL.

A reduction in customer satisfaction? Possibly- if customers have been used to a visible presence on the patch, or the phone being answered rather than being held in a queue for 10 minutes, and this changes, you can be sure that they will let you know about it. FAIL.

None of these options are positive and flies in the face of what Housing organisations have been striving for in recent years.

Other organisations are looking for financial security and efficiencies through merging with another organisation, or joining a group structure.  Many of these can be very positive, but they can also have negative sides too.  It will often create a nervousness within the staff teams and lead to leaking good talent who choose to move on their own terms rather than wait to see if there is a place for them in the new structure.

If you work in Housing, the above will not be too much of a shock.  And the fluid nature of the industry is what keeps people like us in business.  But I think there is an opportunity here to really change how Housing & recruitment companies can work together.

The HMRC changes regarding IR35 compliance means that the pool of talent (for the temporary market in particular) that clients could have called upon in the past has been eroded.  Housing requires a bespoke skill set- great customer service, comprehensive legislative knowledge and particular policies and processes to follow.  Those people that choose to work in the temporary/interim market do so, knowing that they may be required to travel for work.  Historically, they have been able to offset these expenses against tax, but for many, that is no longer the case.  In the last month, I have lost count of the number of seasoned temps who have called me asking for advice in getting back into the permanent market.  On Friday, a candidate that has worked in countless temporary assignments for me over the past 12 years, said that she is considering permanent opportunities.  I never thought I’d see the day!

But what does this mean?

Well, firstly, Housing organisations are going to have to start considering local candidates for their temporary cover (or face paying over the odds to contribute towards expenses).  If you are based in one of the bigger cities, then that shouldn’t be too difficult initially, but those in more rural settings may struggle.  Even in bigger conurbations, over time, it will also lead to the same old faces being recycled, thus reducing choice for the client.

The pool of talent running dry- there will be more requirements than decent candidates and so something will give- either services will fail due to having no-one in post, or sub-standard talent will be brought in (those people that were made redundant and have struggled to find a new role), and that just adds to the workload.

So what now?

Recruitment needs to play a key role in Housing organisations’ strategy- that is from applicant attraction and getting people into Housing generally, to employee recruitment and retention (and that includes factoring in your fluid temporary workforce).  Recruitment companies could and should play a role in this.

Many organisations have an “arms length” relationship with their recruiters (and I don’t blame them in the main).  They get bombarded all the time by speculative calls and emails, so just engage a few when needed and set them off with a skeleton brief.  Its fine if you want to spend time shortlisting, sifting and referencing a mixed bag of applications.  But, the best outcomes come through effective engagement and understanding of the client and their needs.  In a market where you will be fighting over the best people during the on-coming “perfect storm” of increased demand and decreased supply, I think it would be prudent to engage now in 2-way, open conversations with (carefully selected) recruiters to enable them to be effective ambassadors for your organisation and be pro-actively hunting out those people that you will need in the future.

Be selective.  Be demanding.   Really get them to demonstrate how they can add value to your organisation and then you can really start to work collaboratively and see what effective recruiters can bring to the table.

 

 

HMRC proposed changes for Interims-1st April 2016

It appears that there is a black cloud on the horizon that will have a significant impact on the senior interim market, and many clients and candidates seem to be oblivious. This surprises me most as in the Housing market, there is a massive reliance on interims who will travel or stay away during the week, especially at the moment when the market is in turmoil following the Autumn Statement.

I’m not going to detail the full details here- (you can do your own reading the link here), but I thought it would be worth highlighting how the changes could possibly impact you (as an interim) or your organisation (as the client)- because it will either way! Equally, its worth stating that the below is not legal advice on what you should do, but should give you food for thought, or help you to consider the right things when engaging on your next assignment.

So what are they proposing?

In the Summer Budget 2015, George Osborne stated,” “We will stop employment intermediaries exploiting the tax system to reduce their own costs by clamping down on the agencies and umbrella companies who abuse tax reliefs on travel and subsistence – while we protect those genuinely self-employed.”

During the Coalition, many of these threats may not have come to fruition, but with a majority party in charge, that has changed.  Now it is on the horizon, it isn’t as comprehensive as was suggested above, but the main issue is around whether people fall inside or outside of IR35 (IR35 is explained here)

Why will that impact me (as an interim)?
There are a couple of considerations here. Firstly, if you are working through an umbrella company or your own Limited Company and are operating within IR35, you will NOT be allowed to claim travel or subsistence expenses and therefore claim tax relief against these costs. The key aspect that will likely affect many interims (in the Housing market at least), will come down to how they engage with the end client-i.e. do they come under “Supervision, Direction, or Control”(SDC) from the client? If so, then you no doubt fall into IR35, and are therefore unable to benefit from tax relief.

Why will that impact me (as a client)?
Surely, you shouldn’t need to worry about whether your interim is claiming travel and subsistence?  Well, that has been the case up until now.  These costs are often not passed on to you, but that may well change, as the costs of staying away can mount up for an interim.  In an increasingly competitive market, they will likely not be able to absorb that additional cost.

The main thing that will impact you will all hinge on the following question:
What is your requirement?
If you need someone to cover a period of absence of one of your exec team, then the interim will likely come under some aspect of SDC and therefore fall into the IR35 regulations. In the past, that wouldn’t bother you either way as you’d see no impact- however, you will now either be forced to only consider local interims (who won’t be claiming travel and subsistence to work), or be prepared to consider interims on a day rate PLUS expenses basis. As the client, this is an added cost that you won’t have incurred in the past.
If however, you are able to engage someone through providing a brief, and leave the interim to achieve this without any SDC, then you should see no impact.

My one piece of advice is speak to your accountant and see how it will impact you directly, so you can make sure you are on the right side of this key legislation change- you don’t want to be a Maria Sharapova and claim to have not seen that email!

The key consideration here is whether the interim falls into IR35, and that is down to the engagement on the assignment.  A traditional consultancy piece of work will often fall out of this, but should you have a “babysitting” requirement, it will be more difficult to avoid.  Therefore, both client and candidate need to have an open conversation about requirements and rules of engagement to ensure they understand which side of IR35 they then fall on.

The concern is now that there is the possibility of a two tiered market which will create confusion and misunderstanding. It will make competition for assignments very difficult if you are competing with a local candidate (not necessarily a bad thing), but is a geographically silo’d interim market a positive thing?

Consider the following scenario. the Housing market is under intense pressure nowadays and many interims are carrying out important pieces of work for their clients across the country. If you need to bring in an interim to help affect some significant change to help achieve your corporate objectives and you are faced with 2 candidates- a local, cost effective option (although not able to deliver the full scope of work required) and a perfect candidate who is charging expenses on top, who do you go for? In the long run, the second option will deliver more savings than the total cost of expenses, but are you able to justify that to the Board (or your customers) at the initial engagement?

The market is changing, and it is key that you understand what is happening because even if its not impacting you or your organisation directly, it will possibly have a knock on effect and you need to be prepared for that.

If you want to discuss it in any more detail, feel free to get in touch.

Recruiter Dirty Tricks No. 3- The Blind Introduction

So I had an interesting situation last week, and I’m sad to say its something that happens all too often. Luckily, it was resolved relatively easily, but it reinforced to me the huge failings that many people in the industry are making.

I had been working on a permanent management position for a medium sized Housing Association. As per their company policy, they had to go out to 3 agencies. Now, I’m fine to work in this way (although I’d rather not), as I appreciate that we operate in the Public Sector and you have to demonstrate Value for Money. The reason this isn’t often the best way forward is that it creates a race to get the first “introduction” of a candidate, which often results in just getting sent the “low hanging fruit”- the easy and quick to find candidates, rather than the best people in the market.

So, in this particular instance, I provided a shortlist of 3 candidates, 2 of whom were invited in for interview. The other 2 agencies sent 20 CVs between them, and had 6 of them invited in. (n.b. just dumping their database on the client rather than doing our job of assessing and selecting- perhaps the subject for another blog!)

I arranged the interviews, sent over some additional information to help them prepare, gave some critique on the presentation that they had to give, met up with them to give some final interview prep and build their confidence and then it was over to them. The good news is one of them was offered the role and accepted. But this is where the gall of one particular “consultant” came to the fore.

Upon finding out that they hadn’t been successful, and finding out who had been offered, they tried to claim that they should have had the introduction as they sent the candidate first!!! Upon looking at both e-mail trails, it turns out that they had sent the candidate first, so he did have a point.

I must admit, I was alarmed, especially having put so much work in. I also knew the candidate very well by now, and was sure that he wouldn’t have pitched us against each other, so asked him about the situation.

It transpires that he had not heard anything from the other agency for months and had even had a couple of calls not returned a couple of months ago. What they had done is just send a load of CVs to a job without having spoken to them, until they got a bite. And yet, they still felt they merited an introduction fee!?!?!?!

I wonder why recruitment agencies get a bad rep??

Luckily, when presented with the evidence, they backed down, but it still doesn’t make anyone involved look good.

So, recruiters, just think about a few things when you register your next vacancy:
1. Your product is your people/your network– get to know them, engage with them and make sure anything you send them to is the right thing for them.
2. Be a consultant!– we get paid handsomely for what we do, so earn it. Scour the market, assess who is the best, and then put your best selection forward. nail your reputation to the mast! Don’t just dump your database on the client, they have better things to do.
3. Don’t be so bloody lazy!

Recruiters Dirty Tricks No. 1- Ghosting

So I’m now 6 months into my new role at Greenacre and things have been going really well. One of the real positives about working within a small business that is looking to grow and establish itself in a new market is that you have the chance to establish its identity. In a service industry, our differentiator isn’t necessarily the product (other than when you have exclusive candidates), but its very much about the “experience”…essentially its down to how we (or at the moment, I) transact with clients and candidates alike.
I’ve always been a little negative about the industry if truth be told. Not because I don’t like the job/career. I love it when you get a person that dream job (or even when its not the dream job, but you know they really needed the money/opportunity) but because of its wider perception. And why is that? Because of the many negative “experiences” out there- bad customer service, consultants not listening, being mislead, consultants not understanding requirements etc.

Recruitment has become very competitive, and because of that, consultants who are under pressure to perform start to use dirty tricks or tactics to swing things in their favour. But that often flies in the face of the reason for our existence- to find people jobs.

As I’m establishing myself in an increasingly saturated market, I wanted to distance myself from those underhand practices and base our service around transparency- an open, honest approach, backed by a comprehensive market knowledge and extensive candidate and client network.

With that in mind, I thought it worth helping people to identify those that have lost (or never had) their scruples. I may get kicked out of the “recruitment magic circle”, but I am going to publish a few blogs over the coming weeks revealing some of the mal-practice or dirty tricks out there, designed to pull the wool over the eyes of their clients and candidates, and try and give you an idea of some of the “tells” so you can avoid it in the future.

So where to start? How about the practice of “ghosting”?

You’ll be pleased to hear that “ghosting” isn’t placing Casper or the Blair Witch into your next Rent Arrears Officer role (although they may encourage more prompt payment???)  Ghosting is something that recruiters do when they don’t have a good enough network of available candidates.  They will “sell” the ideal candidate to the client after taking down the Job Order and book them in for an interview over the phone, without sending over a CV.  This is supposed to give the client “peace of mind”, will take up an interview slot or more (if you’ve been sold multiple ghosts (apparently the colective known is a Fraid or Fright of ghosts!!) and stop you going to other agencies.  Between that point and the interview slot, the consultant will then start searching for an actual real person who could take that slot.  If they find someone, you’ll receive a call from the consultant giving some story about why the “ghost” can’t make it, and provide you with a great alternative and slot them in instead.  If they don’t find someone, they’ll usually be withdrawn at the last minute or just not turn up (because they don’t exist!!)  This has not only wasted your time preparing for an interview, but it has lost you valuable time in getting someone for your vacancy.

In the last 3 weeks, I have worked on 3 different roles alongside other agencies, where 4 “candidates” have either not turned up or been withdrawn last minute, which makes me think this practice is being employed regularly by less scrupulous agencies.

“So why do you want this job?”

So, how can you spot a ghost?  You could ask Yvette Fielding and the “Most Haunted” crew for their opinion, or add Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, and Harold Ramis on to the interview panel ….or ask the following questions:

1. Have you received a CV? If not, then you may well be experiencing a supernatural recruitment experience- ask to see the CV, and references! It will be difficult to fabricate that!

2. Is the name pretty generic or outrageous? Dave Smith, Peter Jones, or Jason Argonaut etc.  Not always a “tell” but its always worth googling (other search engines are available) their name to see if they have an online presence.  You should do this as a matter of course anyway as it can give you a flavour of the person you’ll be meeting, but will also give you an indication of whether they exist.  Also, make sure you ask detailed questions about them- what companies have they worked for, who have they reported to, what specific achievements etc- if they stumble over that they either don’t know their candidate very well (fail), or they don’t exist (double fail).

3. Have they been withdrawn and you have been immediately presented with an alternative?  This is perhaps the biggest indicator that you are dealing with a ghost.  You may think that at least you now have someone, but this indicates that the candidate has just been found and they may not have been fully referenced or skills verified, so you could be exposed to more risk.  In this situation, definitely again ask for references before agreeing to the interview to save wasting your time later on down the line- if a consultant is “ghosting” they are desperate, and their sense of judgement is often impaired!

4. Have they just not turned up?  This is again not a fool-proof tell as unfortunately our products are people and they are sometimes unpredictable by their very nature, but if this is combined with any of the above, then there is a reasonable chance you have been sold a “ghoul”.

The problem is that the indicators are often after the event, so it is very difficult to prevent being “ghosted”, but hopefully by showing you the “tells” then you can make sure it doesn’t happen to you a second time.  Its a huge waste of your time (and the consultants to be honest which is why I find it such a ridiculous practice!!), but also encourages future use of that practice.  If people are called out on it, recruiters will get scared of trying it next time!

Developing a true supplier relationship with your agency

Many people see working with recruitment agencies as a painful process rather than a regarding them as a valued supplier- there, I said it (albeit with tears in my eyes).  But why is that?

Well, I’m sorry to say but its YOUR fault!

Well, not quite, but you do have a part to play in it.

Its important to remember that the recruitment agency industry is still relatively young in the grander scheme of things.  For many years, as it grew at an astounding rate, customer service and a focus on quality played second fiddle to making the placement and earning the commission!  People saw it as a chance to print money.  And some people still act like that, but in the main, the industry has become much more sophisticated over recent times as the market has become more competitive and agencies look to develop their USPs.

I feel we are in a transitional stage where added value is king and agencies are trying to build long lasting, valuable, partnering relationships, rather than the flyby-night approach of yesteryear.  The problem that exists at the moment is that there are the laggards that haven’t evolved and so perpetuate the old stereotype of the agency recruiter.  This has meant it has been difficult for the customers perceptions to have evolved with those of us that have developed a more sophisticated approach.

If we ask ourselves why people use agencies, there are a few reasons:

1. To save time

2. To save money (no, really!!)

3. To access talent that you won’t be able to.

And more often than not, its a combination of all 3- so lets now look at what people often do.

In social Housing, its common place for managers to go to a selection of agencies, give them the JD and send them off on their way.  They will often use agencies that they don’t like, or don’t rate, just because they have called every day for the last month.  As they resent the people they are dealing with, the levels of engagement are relatively low, information on requirements is sometimes generic rather than specific and thought through and any advice provided is often ignored- they just want the CVs and they’ll make a decision based on that!

Why?

You get constant calls from the competing agents to push their candidates forward, they try and force you into situations where you feel uncomfortable?  Its like engaging a team of PPI pushers isn’t it?  And then at the end of it all, you end up with a mixed bag of quality, sometimes the same name crops up, and then the fighting over representation begins.  Sound familiar?

But it doesn’t have to be like that.  Working with recruitment agencies is part of your supply chain.  Think about any of your other supplier relationships.  Lets take stationery as an example.  If you are needing to procure some pens, do you:

a) Go to a selection of stationery providers, and tell them to bring you their best pens and their best price and then you’ll make a decision? or

b) Research the market, look at feedback, get them to tender for your business, make a selection of the one that offers the best quality at the best price and then develop a relationship with them, so they understand your requirements, value your custom and work with you to improve their service over time?

I imagine its the latter- if not, you may want to review your procurement procedures.  And it doesn’t have to be different with recruitment.  In fact, I think its even more important to develop those relationships as your people are probably more important than your pens (I’m sorry bic, but its true).  And an understanding of your requirements, your business, your company culture, the department profile etc is probably more important when bringing in a new team member than when you are getting some more Biros.

And there are some other benefits to developing a better supplier relationship with an agency:

1. You’ll get better candidates

2. You’ll get better value

3. You’ll get a quicker, more efficient, and more pleasant process.

Which meets all the reasons you will have engaged an agency in the first place!  So, if the above rings true for you, have a think about how you can influence the process before you go and create another bun fight of a recruitment campaign!

Are passive candidates really the best?

Its a common held belief that if you want the best talent in the market, you need to tap into the “passive candidate market”.  A passive candidate is someone who is currently employed and not proactively searching for a role, but could be tempted for the right opportunity.  Recruitment agencies have jumped on to this as a justification for their services against standard job adverts.  And it is often true, but don’t just just assume that if someone is working that they must be the best in the market!

Passive recruiting is a difficult skill and often not one that is taught to agency recruiters.  It used to be called headhunting, but that term seems to have negative connotations, especially in the softly softly public sector market.  Too many agencies talk about targeting “passive” candidates but either don’t actually know how to do it effectively or get lazy and don’t really scrutinise their suitability for the particular role.  If they’re working, they must be good, right?

According to some Linkedin research, 75% of employees are “open” to a new opportunity, so its a huge pool to fish in.  This reflects the fact that this working generation (Gen Y and Z) is much more happy to work with many more companies than before (Baby Boomers and Gen X), and I discuss this in a previous blog here.  But does the fact that they are employed actually mean they are the best in the market?

Look around your office and you’ll no doubt see someone who is cruising, or not really that good at the role.  That might be because they are not engaged, or it might be that they are not right for that particular role.  If someone approaches them about a role, they will likely listen to the proposal, but are they the best option the market can offer? Probably not.  But to the “lazy” recruiter, they have got the holy grail- the passive candidate.  They will proudly produce them to their client and explain how clever they have been at tempting this person away from another company.  Truth be known, your competitor will be happy to be rid, and you’ll be burdened with this average employee.

So, if you get presented with a “passive candidate”, make sure you consider the following:

1. Look at their career path- if they have been with the same company, have they shown growth, ambition and have they hunted out new challenges, or have they sat in one role, comfortable and avoiding risk?

2. How difficult was it to tempt them away? If it was too easy, then ask why?  It could be that they have been “hiding” in their comfortable role, and been waiting for an opportunity to come knocking.  Again, that is probably a reflection of their drive and enthusiasm, or lack of it.  Are they the type of people to hunt out new challenges and drive your business forward?

3. Can you genuinely offer something different to their current situation?  If not, then you know for sure that you’ll end up in the same situation a year down the line, and they will likely have not brought too much value to the role.

4. Make sure they are genuinely interested, by constantly trying to put them off the role.  Lets be honest, its flattering to be approached- it makes you feel important, talented and is a boost to the ego.  So to get someone interested is easy.  However, the closer you get to an offer, the more real the whole situation becomes and passive candidates can get cold feet.  It is an agencies job to nurse people through the process and make sure that its the right move for both parties- revisiting this throughout the process.

5. If using an agency, ask how long they have known the candidate- the best passive candidates have likely been on their radar for a long time.  The best recruiters out there are pro-active and nurture their networks from day 1.  I have a number of people that I speak to regularly that I haven’t moved on to a different role yet.  However, I’d identified them as being exceptional in their roles, and although they are happy and focussed on their current roles/careers, they know that I am keeping an eye out for the “dream role” for them.  Sometimes this takes 6 months, sometimes it takes years, but I know that when that role comes up, they will be the ideal “passive candidate”.

6.  Have they moved around without really progressing their career?  This is a huge tell tale sign that they aren’t the best in the market.  They often talk a good game but often don’t deliver and then move on.

7.  And finally, are they genuinely better than the person who is not working and that applied for your role? Don’t just assume that because they are not working, that they are not the best out there- you may just be lucky that they are available when you need them.

There are too many people out there who are trying to over-complicate recruitment- trying to confuse their clients with buzzwords and snappy phrases that sound convincing, rather than focussing on ensuring they genuinely have the best product.  Test your recruiters by asking about the above to make sure you really do get the best in the market, be they passive or active!

 

 

 

Are we ready for the video CV?

I interviewed a candidate last week and they asked me the question,

“I’m thinking of doing a video CV, do you think its a good idea?”

To be honest, I hadn’t had the question before and so not sure how considered my response was but have since reflected and thought it worth putting it in a blog.  Please also be aware that my opinion is specific to the world of Social Housing recruitment, rather than a generic response to the question, as different industries have different “norms” and “trends”.

There does seem to be a growing movement towards “innovative” job applications.  I think this has come from peoples growing frustrations at getting no response to countless applications, and the sporadic news stories of people successfully getting a job from “thinking outside the box”- see these examples here and here.  But for every “sandwich board applicant” and “chocolate bar resume” out there, there are hundreds of copycat failures, so its key to make sure your efforts don’t fall by the wayside.

So what are the pro’s and cons of creating your video CV.  Lets start with..

The positives:

1. You will stand out from the crowd (at the moment).  I am still yet to receive a video CV.  In a climate where there are more applicants per role than ever before, you need to find a way to be “memorable” (but for the right reasons- don’t go too wacky!)

2. It gives you an opportunity to convey your personality much better than any paper CV.  As a footnote to this, if you aren’t the best in front of a camera, I’d stick to the traditional format!

3. It demonstrates your creativity and desire for the role.

4. It allows you to engage more effectively with the employer.  By using your communication skills effectively, you are getting a head start on the others, as you will be recognised when you turn up for interview.

5. It taps into our current communication fashion.  In this “social” world, where we can check people out on Linkedin, Facebook, Instagram etc, and probably learn more about them than any CV will tell us, it feeds that desire to “get to know people” better and quicker.

6. It can play to your strengths.  If your written skills are not as strong as your verbal communication, then it enables you to play to put your best foot (or should that be face/voice??) forward and increases your chances of getting selected. If the role requires these soft skills, then it also demonstrates your abilities much better than a CV ever could!

The cons

1. I’m not sure our market is ready for it.  The recruitment process is stiffled by needless hoops and barriers, and especially in the Housing market, there is a firm structure as to how people recruit in order to ensure a fair and measured approach.

2. You risk being forgotten– people still seem to print off all CVs.  So if someone has a pile of CVs that they have to go through, they may get focussed solely on getting through them, and your video on their email may get forgotten.

3. They may not have the capability to watch the video– some organisations’ IT systems may not be able to cope with the format or have firewalls that prevent the format being accessed.  I still remember a time not too long ago, when I had to fax CVs across to clients (dinosaur recruiter alert!)!!

4. There is an argument to say that it could increase the potential for discrimination, although my experience of the Housing market would tell me this probably won’t be the case.

So if you decide to go for it, you would certainly be one of the “early adopters”, but that’s no bad thing.  And it appears that there is the appetite for it being a viable option.  According to career publisher Vault Inc.’s annual employer survey, 89% of employers would watch a video CV if it came through to them, but only 17% have actually received one.  However, I did a rudimentary small straw poll of about 15 of my HR contacts and it was a narrow majority of them who would consider it (8 of them), and only then, as a supplement to their current process.

With that in mind, I would suggest taking the following action to make sure that all your efforts aren’t in vain.

1. Call ahead and explain that you have a video CV and would they have any issues with you submitting it?  Many organisations will have a very prescribed process and will discount people who don’t comply with that.  If they want you to complete an online application form or send a standard CV, ask if you can send the video CV to supplement it.

2. Remember that you aren’t Steven Spielberg- you need to focus on the aim of your video CV- to demonstrate why you are the best employee for a particular role- and you are not creating a movie masterpiece.  Save the special effects for something else- this is new to many people and I think you’d be better served keeping it simple and professional.

3. Tailor it to the specific role.  This applies for paper CVs too, but I would advise against a general “one size fits all” video.  Take a little extra time to tailor it to specific roles and watch your success rate shoot up!

4. Keep it short- the most successful video CVs are between 1 and 3 minutes long.  If it gets much longer, it will start to work against you.

5. Look the camera in the eye- use the same principles as you would in an interview to ensure you engage with the viewer.  If you have a script off camera, it will be uncomfortable for the person watching it.

6. Be yourself- the benefit of using this medium is that you can express your personality, so do that!

7. Structure it like you are telling a story- make sure it has a beginning, middle and end, and have your contact details at the end, as you want them to have them to hand after watching it.

I do believe that there is a future in using this medium.  I have had so many poor CVs come through, but then been blown away when I met the candidate in person and this addresses that. It can also save employers time by making the same “gut feel” assessment before inviting someone in, and can enable you to represent yourself so much more effectively than on a couple of pieces of A4.

 

But most of all, be prepared for the question, “Why have you got a video CV?”, because you will undoubtedly be asked it, and your answer could actually be the reason you get employed!

References- the biggest waste of time in recruitment?

When I first started in recruitment, I was told that people aren’t allowed to provide a bad reference (I think someone initially said it was illegal)…….. WHAT???  At first I thought it was one of those induction pranks- “oh, can you get me some tartan paint” etc, but alas no.  As it turns out, its not illegal as long as it is factual, but the Urban Myth that it is in fact illegal does seem to have permeated wide and far.  This has resulted in many corporate policies solely providing a “dates only” reference, to avoid possible litigation.

So what is the point of references if they don’t actually provide feedback on a former employee?

Its easy to provide a non-committal, vague reference by filling in a reference form, so I always make sure I take a verbal reference.  But we seem to have created a secret language where the person taking the reference has to listen out for key words like “adequate”, “okay”, or “satisfactory”, and then decide if they mean that in a negative way.  I often wonder if I should start skyping people when taking references to check if they are winking when they are giving the reference, or see if they have their fingers crossed behind their backs.

Pretty much all organisations will take references, and the process is relatively standard, but it is fundamentally flawed and no-one seems that bothered, despite the massively destructive impact it can have on an organisation.  Social Housing is a very insular industry, but even then, I know plenty of candidates who I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole, who move from one role to another to another, leaving behind a trail of destruction.  How?  People are providing non-committal, dates-only references, and lazy employers and agencies aren’t questioning them.

Many organisations treat references as a tick box exercise.  They blindly do it because there is a policy that tells them they have to do it.  A person is interviewed, reference details taken and then these are passed to someone in HR (who may have never met the candidate), who sends out a form and waits to hear back.  It comes back and if there is nothing along the lines of, “he did steal £30,000 of stock”, or “would never hire this person ever again…EVER!”, then it just gets filed and never sees the light of day again.  WHY????

So are we just wasting our valuable time?  Surely, we can do much better than this?

Having recruited to the same market for such a long time, I had a strong enough network to go to people I know and respect to ask their unofficial opinion on someone who I had registered.  I would often get a candid, but constructive assessment of their strengths, weaknesses and everything in between.  This is invaluable and helps me to put people in a role where they will excel, rather than be out of their depth.

Having recently moved to my new company, and having to operate in a different geography due to restrictions from my previous employer, I don’t have the same network, and when I am calling on people for an assessment on a new candidate, they are often suspicious and guarded as they have the fear of repercussions.  Surely this is what references are for?  If we are going to dance this merry dance around the truth, we might as well save ourselves the bother and just close our eyes and hope they turn out to be a good egg!

Or, we could actually start treating references as an integral part of the recruitment process and benefiting from it.  As a hiring manager I would advise the following:

• Be involved in the referencing process- call and speak directly to their previous manager and get a real assessment on their abilities, but also how to get the best out of them, how best to manage them etc.
• Get an initial reference before making an offer- it doesn’t necessarily have to be the most recent role, but it can help weed out the people that you shouldn’t take too far down the process.
• Tailor references for particular roles- i.e. assess the skills that are pertinent to that role, not just bland questions like timekeeping, reliability etc.
• Ask the right questions, and don’t be afraid to then delve deeper.

Remember- you will be managing this person, and it will be you who has the headaches if they turn out to be the wrong employee!