|
back to the index page
We Had a Bad Experience, Part III
In the first two issues of HIRING LINE on this subject, we addressed
the facts that we are business partners, prviding a service, doing
something FOR rather than TO our clients. Lack of this understanding
is the major reason clients have a bad experience with a recruiter.
The realization that our relationship is not a one time experience,
but rather a long term one will offset the second major reason for a
bad experience. We communicated that dealing with an experienced
placement professional of 3 years or better as well as a firm established
at least 15 years will help insure the experience being not only good but
successful. "There is no experience like experience" the saying goes and
that's even truer in the placement/recruitment profession. When the
average placement firm is only around four years and the average recruiter
only eighteen months, we can't overemphasize the importance of hiring an
experienced firm. We just know more of what we are doing to help you when
we have been around a long time.
Expectations
The next major reason why clients may have a bad experience is that
they have unrealistic expectations of both the service we provide and
what they are trying to hire. These expectations stem from the fact
that because people think they are paying the fee, they should get
exactly what they want. Sometimes what people want is not necessarily
good for them. But because they have hired people before there is a
tendency to believe they know exactly how they ought to do it. The
resulting bad experience came because they set parameters that were
unreasonable to begin with.
Limitations
The first mistake here often comes in terms of the process. We will
often get calls for a particular type of candidate. We get excellent
specifications, reasonable parameters, right money, etc. and then we are
told to send our best two candidates. Oh Boy! Well it just doesn't
work that way. Best in this case can't be limited to just two. Clients
think they are helping themselves by putting this kind of limit on us.
We will encourage a client to interview at least 8 to 10 candidates
(the reasons are discussed in other issues of HIRING LINE). Suffice
it to say we have an obligation to provide a range of best qualified
candidates. That's what our service really is. We have turned down
search opportunities with such a narrow dictate. This kind of demand
isn't good for the client. He has set himself up for a bad experience.
A client company is sincere in their efforts when they put these kinds of
restraints on us. They want to dictate the process of how they will
interview and hire, thinking it's going to help them. We've seen things
that range from having the secretary do the initial interviewing to an
employer not wanting to discuss money until after he has sent a formal
offer letter. We had a firm not long ago offer a candidate a job, expecting
him to take it and after he did, they would discuss money and formal duties.
Amazingly, they were somewhat insulted when the candidate wouldn't do it that
way. Don't think these strange things don't happen. They do. Sincere? Yes!
Smart business? No! We have an obligation to encourage our clients not to
sabotage the process. If it's not to their benefit to proceed in the manner
they wish, we will tell them. It's like going to the doctor, telling him
what is wrong with you and prescribing your own medicine. Or like going to
the accounting firm and because you have paid taxes before, telling them how
they should do the accounting or how much in taxes you want to pay. Sincere?
Yes. Good business? No. A good experienced placement/recruiter professional,
like a good accountant is going to advise on the process to avoid a bad
experience. Just because our clients have hired people before doesn't mean
the process they want is best. On the whole, our client companies normally
don't hire so often that the process is an everyday thing.
back to the index page
|
