Scumbags & Sleazeballs – Recruiters under the Tech Hammer

So – as per my recent post – the Kernel recognised that there was a market to investigate; namely our beloved industry; Recruitment.

How dare they? OHow dare thHow very dare they? 

To be fair, they had that case-study with Consol to go off. They smelled blood. They clearly had ammunition, and their own Louis Theroux; Mic Wright; was tasked with the investigative report into the Tech recruitment industry. Readers were already lead to believe this was a grubby little industry from the comments and buzz from the Consol story, and sure enough muck was found. 

Read the article to find out how and why they targeted primarily these 3 companies - and when you look at the case studies; often anonymous; we sit here as recruiters and think “Meh… really? Just that?”. They even produced a report labelling the `10 Sleaziest Tech Recruiter Scams` - and although it is uncomfortable for a recruiter to read – still we look and say, well we knew that. Heck, most of us were even trained to half those things. It’s the usual list. The stuff we do, we hear about, or did once and then grew up and learnt the word `consultancy` and `ethics`… and applied them.

So why worry? Because of perception. That’s why. 

A person can tell me I’m a rubbish recruiter – and that’s fine – it’s an opinion, and whoever said it was probably right. I never found them the job they wanted, or I couldn’t fill that role. Someone else maybe did. My bad.

But being targeted for sleaze, scamming, and misplaced ethics, now that’s a different thing. The common areas of hoodwinkery maybe blasé stuff for the average recruiter desperate to hit their corporate KPIs – but for the world out there – it is rotten and hideous in the extreme.

Recruiters charge whacking great fees for the pleasure of their work; so long as we find that person. So, it helps if we do it with an element of decorum, because – as I write in this blog many, many times – it’s about people, and their careers. It’s about businesses and their most prized assets – their employees. For the start-up represented in the Kernel’s work, even more so. 

On the flip side – in part III of the report, we see the acclaimed Tech recruiters – who got the GOOD rep. Namely; The Forsyth Group, The Up Group and Orchard; standing out as the beacons of quality recruiting within a infested crowd. And again, we look at the stories of why they were so good – and we say as recruiters… “well of course” – but we need to learn and listen right there. These things mattered to the people who contributed to this journalism. These things need to be part of our service personality and mix.

My concerns initially about this piece of journalism, was that it was going to paint an unfair picture on those concerned. And it probably does. However in truth, isolated and anonymous `case studies` don’t rattle too many cages. I also wondered how biased it would be. It was hugely biased towards the anti-agency brigade, and no amount of flannel from Kevin Green of the REC in part 2 was going to change that. Yes the 3 stand-outs were given their dues – but it was still sandwiched in some vitriol at the industry. Is the customer always right? Is the person who had their baggage lost always paint the fairest overall picture of the airline? I think we needed more proof. Isolated cases in huge companies like SThree, are hardly damaging the foundations of their business – and a company of that size is; despite their very `corporate communications-speak` response in the comments; going to completely ignore this. Frankly, big corporate recruiters couldn’t give a monkeys – hence why the REC were hardly the best-placed respresentation of recrutiment standards – when the largest part of their wealth comes from big corporate recruiters; with their revolving doors packed full of disgruntled jobseekers and indeed, the turnover of their own recruitment consultants.

But for us independent recruiters, there’s a lot to learn from this study. Those recruiters that took care to comment, read and listen to the subject matter, were predominantly small independents. We take pride in every component of our work, and have an ear to what the perception of out market place is. We hope to be the ones standing at the end of all this. Interesting to see that the acclaimed recruiters were established but niche, modest sized recruiters.

So for the Kernel readers who happen to pick up this blog; or anyone else for that matterl here’s the practical clues in quality recruiter identification.

1.       The larger the recruitment agency, likely the less capable the average recruiter. Too many heads means greater diversity in quality and consistency in service, and also less respect for brand, and greater desperacy for a `deal` - because their job depends on it.

2.       Niche means niche. Genuinely niche recruiters are predominantly the best bet. Not recruiters who list 15 different things  that they do on their website, and then call each one of them a `niche` - no, I mean recruiters who are genuine participants within your industry. You see them, they are connected, knowledgable, sharing thoughts and probably came from within the industry in the first place. Well connected niche recruiters have the ears of the talent pool you want to recruit from.

3.       Look at individuals, not agencies. Great service comes from great individuals. THEY are the market experts, moreso than the company.

4.       Don’t be sold to. When you think you need to use a recruitment agency – ask your industry peers who you should use, or look into who is active there. Ignore sales calls. Recommendation is more convincing than a sales patter – and slightly less impartial. Good recruiters don’t need to sell.

5.       Eyeballs. Where possible, please don’t make your final decision on a recruiter until you have met them, or at least had a decent conversation with them. Don’t trust internet recruiting – hiring staff is NOT like ordering an Xbox game from Amazon. Consultancy matters. Good recruiters will take the time to see you – wherever possible.

So well done to The Kernel. It’s a niche study, but it was worth it. Will it change anything on any grand scale? – maybe not – but for those who care – it is a learning experience. For those named or otherwise, clearly there are suggestions they have taken it rather badly. Many recruiters are proud and spikey – and not good at taken critique on the chin. Permanently paranoid, often desperate, extremely self-centred and badly directed. One bad display of ethics is enough to get negative press, and a scumbag label. 

The Kernel has delighted in finding some of those. It sadly wasn't difficult.