Unprofessional recruiters

[carboy2017]

I got an email from a big energy organization (name starts with a C) this morning about an IT role that I applied for and saying I have been selected for an interview the week after and specified a date and wanted me to pick a time slot between 9am to 4pm

Couple of hrs later I get another email saying to ignore the previous email as it was a system error and they will let me know once the screening is over,I was like what the heck

has it happened to anyone else here as well

[dibblecorse]

You got sent it in error and was never on the shortlist, processes and people are not perfec.t

[Gargamel]

Not sure how that's unprofessional.

I appreciate there is a good deal of emotion involved in job seeking. But that just sounds like a processing error.

Nothing intentional.

[okgo]

It’s recruitment.

fking useless in every sense in every company I’ve ever worked for. The in-house lot are even worse.

[dibblecorse]

okgo said:

It’s recruitment.

fking useless in every sense in every company I’ve ever worked for. The in-house lot are even worse.

Keep trotting out that old bks, I've worked in and ran world class recruitment teams both agency side and in house for organisations ranging FinServ to global tech.

What would good look like to you

[Alex Z]

That’s not unprofessional, it’s just a simple human or system error which they’ve flagged.

Unprofessional is taking over a fortnight to provide an update after someone has gone to an in-person first interview.

Unprofessional is calling someone who’s applied, then saying you are too busy to talk to them, promising to call back in an hour, then ghosting them on phone, email and LinkedIn.

Unprofessional is contacting someone to discuss a vacancy they are working on, asking a mountain of questions, then admitting that they don’t actually have a vacancy after all.

[SAS Tom]

dibblecorse said:

okgo said:

It’s recruitment.

fking useless in every sense in every company I’ve ever worked for. The in-house lot are even worse.

Keep trotting out that old bks, I've worked in and ran world class recruitment teams both agency side and in house for organisations ranging FinServ to global tech.

What would good look like to you

Maybe so but he’s got a point. Every recruitment agency I’ve dealt with from both sides have been crap. Do the bare minimum and lie as much as possible in the hope they get paid. Most don’t even seem to check if the person is actually capable of the job.

[dave123456]

SAS Tom said:

dibblecorse said:

okgo said:

It’s recruitment.

fking useless in every sense in every company I’ve ever worked for. The in-house lot are even worse.

Keep trotting out that old bks, I've worked in and ran world class recruitment teams both agency side and in house for organisations ranging FinServ to global tech.

What would good look like to you

Maybe so but he’s got a point. Every recruitment agency I’ve dealt with from both sides have been crap. Do the bare minimum and lie as much as possible in the hope they get paid. Most don’t even seem to check if the person is actually capable of the job.

Challenge with recruiters generally is the reward structure. It’s hard for someone to act ethically when their pay cheque relies on a binary outcome.

Over time I’ve worked out who to use and who to avoid, but it’s hard as they have bizarre structures, so some will recruit to to say, £60k, and if you are looking at nudging over that for a role you recruit for, they move you elsewhere.

The other thing that pisses me off is they establish what your absolute max budget is and then publish that as the salary guide, often kitchen sinking with other benefits too.

That for me is disingenuous, the OP is a clerical error made good. Might annoy him but that’s life unfortunately.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

In other words the OP wasn't selected but they sent that email as a method of recovery i.e. tell the truth would cause possible anger reactions - the OP won't have been the only person to receive it?..

Recruitment is s hideous industry, in the majority it's about the look of the agent. Not their values or competence.

Dibblecorse sorry that's at any level.

[okgo]

dave123456 said:

Challenge with recruiters generally is the reward structure. It’s hard for someone to act ethically when their pay cheque relies on a binary outcome.

Over time I’ve worked out who to use and who to avoid, but it’s hard as they have bizarre structures, so some will recruit to to say, £60k, and if you are looking at nudging over that for a role you recruit for, they move you elsewhere.

The other thing that pisses me off is they establish what your absolute max budget is and then publish that as the salary guide, often kitchen sinking with other benefits too.

That for me is disingenuous, the OP is a clerical error made good. Might annoy him but that’s life unfortunately.

That’s all sales jobs. And they’re not all as useless.

I think it’s lack of knowledge about the industry in question, lack of knowledge in general as it has no barrier to entry and is a catch all for people that could not get the grad job they wanted etc.

In-house are those that wanted an easier life so generally have no urgency or ability to get a good candidate quickly, and I’d imagine they’re rewarded poorly vs a high flier at some city firm, though probably less cocaine required.

I work for a successful tech company that gets over 1000 applicants per role, their life is like shooting fish in a barrel and even with that they seem completely incapable of the basics - I am referring someone in now and I’m embarrassed by the process

That’s not ALL recruiters. I know some experts in their field and sector but they’re 1 in 50 at best.

[craigjm]

carboy2017 said:

I got an email from a big energy organization (name starts with a C) this morning about an IT role that I applied for and saying I have been selected for an interview the week after and specified a date and wanted me to pick a time slot between 9am to 4pm

Couple of hrs later I get another email saying to ignore the previous email as it was a system error and they will let me know once the screening is over,I was like what the heck

has it happened to anyone else here as well

Sounds like an IT error. If you are applying for an IT role then surely, you know, its obvious that IT errors happen.

Where is the unprofessional behavior?

[Countdown]

I think it should be pointed out that the OP seems to be referring to an in-house HR team. IME there's a huge difference in the approach, motivation, and morals of in-house versus Recruitment Agency.

I've always found in-house teams generally fine. However they're not Finance specialists so we will take the lead on drafting the Job Description, setting the salary band, and deciding where it gets advertised. HR will do the admin side of things.

[craigjm]

Countdown said:

I think it should be pointed out that the OP seems to be referring to an in-house HR team. IME there's a huge difference in the approach, motivation, and morals of in-house versus Recruitment Agency.

I've always found in-house teams generally fine. However they're not Finance specialists so we will take the lead on drafting the Job Description, setting the salary band, and deciding where it gets advertised. HR will do the admin side of things.

Yes the key difference being that the internal recruitment team will actually have the job whereas with externals some will and some will just be trying their luck and throw you over the wall as an unsolicited applicant. What happened here is a clear error and that’s it. I have no idea why the OP is getting so upset

[Countdown]

craigjm said:

Yes the key difference being that the internal recruitment team will actually have the job whereas with externals some will and some will just be trying their luck and throw you over the wall as an unsolicited applicant. What happened here is a clear error and that’s it. I have no idea why the OP is getting so upset

Very true and also asking you which other roles you’re applying for “so they don’t send your CV over again “

[omniflow]

dibblecorse said:

Keep trotting out that old bks, I've worked in and ran world class recruitment teams both agency side and in house for organisations ranging FinServ to global tech.

What would good look like to you

I think you've posted your own response. "keep trotting out that old bks" - which is exactly what you're doing.

Most people's experience of recruitment "people" is extremely poor - whether it's as a job seeker or a hiring manager - 98% of the people involved in the process are dire. Yes there are SOME good ones, but they're very definitely in a tiny minority.

You may think that you (and your teams) were good at it, and maybe they were. However, that is not the experience that 98% of people have, and that's what you're seeing posted on here. It might not match your view, but it doesn't mean it's wrong.