Current Events > Recruiting misconceptions

(+) Yeah! (+)

Venturing into Reddit and Blind and seeing all the hatred towards recruiters is really interesting. I mean I get some of it, being ghosted sucks or having someone reach out about a job that isnt relevant is annoying.

A lot of misconceptions though.

1. Recruiters dont want to low ball you. If were agency recruiters, then we get more money the higher your salary is. If were internal, we get to fill the req (metrics like that are tracked). If you get lowballed, its either the hiring manager, HR or the compensation team. Ive had numerous battles with all of the above to try and land a good offer and often fail. Only so much I can do as the recruiter.
2. If I dont want to share salary range in a message its because I dont want to scare off potentially good candidates if it happens to be low. The truth is, theres often enough room to negotiate for the right person but it depends on how well you interview. Its better to talk to you and get a sense of your experience so I can better share a range I think will apply in regards to your level. Maybe they only have 2 years of experience but theyre extremely knowledgeable. I could share the entry level lower range in a message and scare them off when maybe theyre mid level. But if I share the higher range and they dont interview at that level, then candidates expect the higher number regardless and it gets more difficult to close them
3. Ghosting happens. But often its because we talk to so many people and work with a lot of managers. And those managers often dont respond to us. I have to constantly send reminders to several for feedback on resumes or post interview. This sometimes takes a week or more. Ill try and remember to get back to candidates and let them know Im waiting, or we arent moving forward. But Im human and will miss some.
4. There are a lot of battles that go on in the background you arent aware of. Truth is, interviewers often dont know how to interview and pick apart really stupid things. I need to reject a candidate that everyone except one person was a yes on, simply because that one no turned everyones decision around (literally 1 out of 10 people). Ive tried to point out all the good feedback, but again only so much I can do. Job postings are also usually from HR or hiring managers. Recruiters just post them. So when you see things like 10 years of experience on something that hasnt been around that long, thats not the recruiter. I once had to argue with a manager on a tech that wasnt around for as many years as he wanted and he talked down to me like I was stupid. But he looked it up and I was correct.

Sunday ramblings. AMA else I guess

How many jobs have you seen get filled due to nepotism where the candidate was a "Friend of somebody" already employed or a "Relative of somebody" already employed? Despite you having better candidates to select from that wouldn't have conflict of interests and have no pre-existing relations to anybody already employed in the company?

KamenRiderBlade posted...

How many jobs have you seen get filled due to nepotism where the candidate was a "Friend of somebody" already employed or a "Relative of somebody" already employed? Despite you having better candidates to select from that wouldn't have conflict of interests and have no pre-existing relations to anybody already employed in the company?

I wouldnt say they get employed but referrals do tend to get higher rates of being interviewed. We tend to try and make sure the panel is one that is unbiased and that the person doing the referral isnt a part of the process in any way. Hell the other day we had an executive referral but none of the interviewers knew that so it would be unbiased and the person got the job. Thats not to say that nepotism doesnt happen at some level but were a larger company with some checks and balances in place.

Now that I think of it, a lot of recruiters are attractive women and they reject people for a living. Wonder if theres a parallel there with resentment towards women.

The other week someone on LinkedIn went off on me because I didnt respond to his message. I was on vacation and he messaged me asking for advice on getting a job because he has been unemployed a few months. I didnt answer and he went off about how I didnt give a shit about anyone and he doubted I ever helped anyone. The sense of entitlement really hit me, I dont owe him any response since he was just a random person on the internet but reading all the negative comments about recruiters not responding makes me think of how men whine about women on dating apps ignoring them lol

I guess Ill turn this into Cleos gripes about her job.

Today I had to reject a candidate. He didnt take it well. Got super mad and said I was the one to reach out to him and he spent hours interviewing only to be told he didnt get it. Seemed to think that because we engaged him it was a given hed get an offer. Kept arguing about the feedback and said he was insulted. He seemed to think because he does a similar job with the same tech it should have been a done deal but the problem was he wasnt able to explain any of the tech in any depth or explain why hed use one over the other. So that was a no go with our engineers.

This is why a lot of recruiters just ghost or dont share feedback. Not saying its right but a lot of people cant handle it.

I mean, #2 is basically saying that you want to waste potential candidates time

TheGoldenEel posted...

I mean, #2 is basically saying that you want to waste potential candidates time

Not exactly. Im just saying Id rather talk to them first to better share the right range and not waste their time. Hard to do that in a message. If they absolutely require it then Ill share. Also my company pays super well so Im not too worried about hitting their number. For the right candidate I can usually make any offer work but candidates dont know this. And its other factors I can add like sign on, equity, etc that are typically flexible and not in a range. Just easier to cover all that in a conversation.