|
||||||
|
||||||
TOP STORIESTRANCHED: Life after CDOs, Week 1015 July 2008By CDO Joe COMMENTSown experience of HH's is mixed; some (or shall I say a very few) are very polite, straight-forward and honest. Others are simply vultures. Read all comments »Just when I thought I had seen every dirty trick in the murky world of recruitment, it seems we have now begun to plunge to new depths. A lot of this is supposition and I can’t verify a word of it, but if my suspicions are correct then we have entered a very dark period indeed. If you are sitting comfortably, then I will begin. Our story revolves around one of the headhunting firms that has displayed a number of high-profile roles through their own website and elsewhere. My involvement with the firm came through an ex-colleague, who gave me the name of a headhunter she recommended at this firm. I made the call, sent over my CV and gave a brief introduction to the consultant who had been recommended. Over a period of a number of weeks I chased the consultant I’d sent my details to and heard nothing. Given how busy headhunters are, this has become a common occurrence, part of the new reality that I have come to accept and deal with. This week, out of the blue, two consultants from the firm, who I hadn’t spoken to before, called and left urgent messages for me to contact them. I made the call and expected the usual polite invitation to come into their offices, walk through my CV and discuss roles they have on at the moment – putting a name to the face. Instead, I got a barrage of questions as to where I’d been interviewing and the names of the hiring managers I’d spoken to at these firms. Their excuse was that they needed to ensure that I don’t get my CV sent through to the same people from multiple headhunters. This is normally a sound policy and one that protects against embarrassing overlap. I may be being intensely paranoid (redundancy can have strange effects on one’s psyche), but I am almost convinced that this group of crooks are using potential candidates to scope out potential recruiters. The heavy insistence on knowing the names of the people who are recruiting, combined with an apparent lack of desire to get me into their own offices to outline my position, are very suspicious. Unless I am much mistaken, the recruitment model works as follows: headhunter retained by employer to find suitable candidates, suitable candidates approach headhunter and ultimately headhunter matches candidate with employer to earn a fee. The idea that headhunters are now using candidates to find recruiters breaks this simple paradigm. I appreciate that for many of you hardened bankers this will come as no surprise and may even prompt a smirk as just another demonstration of the dog eat dog nature of the financial sector. However, even as someone who until recently sold CDOs for a living, I think this behaviour shows a level of morality on a parallel with that of stealing gold teeth from corpses. Driven by my long-held natural cynicism about the headhunting profession, I made up a few names and sent them through, and if my suspicions are correct these consultants will waste a few precious hours trying to track down non-existent hedge funds and people at bulge-bracket banks with mildly comic names. What if I am wrong about this? I have been wrong before, and after this extended rant (even by my own standards) a large amount of hat eating would be required. On balance, though, my instinct tells me that shady practices are afoot and that the motto of the City, caveat emptor, now applies in spades to the field of recruitment. On a slightly more positive note, friends and contacts have been brilliant this week – nuggets of hope are beginning to appear amongst the sediment left by the credit crunch. More about these next week. Until then, I urge vigilance.
COMMENTSComtrader, Tue 15 Jul 08i have a worry that everyone is talking about the same HH here whose name starts with a S? I am assuming we cant mention names? Add your comment »pranitakumar, Tue 15 Jul 08Well, we all do cross the line once in a while, but its the same practice followed by most industries which are sales driven.
Pragma, Information Services, Tue 15 Jul 08Shouldn't the Recruitment & Employment Confederation have a role on this? Add your comment »Moksha, Information Technology, Tue 15 Jul 08I have experienced this 3 times in last two months. I think most of them have come down to this level. Add your comment »Formerly unemployed, Trading, Tue 15 Jul 08This has happened to me a few times, all from one very well known firm. You know who you are. Really made my day to hear your idea of sending bogus info their way. Candidates should not give this kind of information to lazy hh's simply out of politeness. Add your comment »Bored, HR & Recruitment, Tue 15 Jul 08It is obvious that desperation has settled in when so many people feel the need to consistently attack and generalise headhunters. Add your comment »James Frew, Private Equity / Venture Capital, Tue 15 Jul 08So, we have bankers accusing the recruitment industry of lax morals. I cannot imagine a more perfect example of pots calling kettles black. Add your comment »Patronising Pete, Operations, Tue 15 Jul 08For a financial website the tone of this article and the posts exhibits a surprising degree of naivety of basic economics. Didn’t your mothers teach you that nothing in this life comes for free? The same applies to the candidate recruiter relationship. They provide you with a service which includes the distribution and marketing of your CV, the arrangement of interviews, and the closing of the process. In return you pay for this service. As a minimum the consideration you pay will comprise information about your career history. This info. is valuable to the recruiter as he use it to obtain a recruitment fee. You may decide to pay additional consideration in the form of other information such as the names of interviewers at the companies you have visited. But to hand over valuable information to anyone who asks is akin to dishing out £5 notes to people on the street. You would hesitate to pay more than the minimum required deposit in advance for any service, especially if you had not already built up a trusted relationship with the vendor. The same approach should be adopted with recruiters - If he sounds like he wears pointy shoes, don’t pay more that the bare minimum in advance. Add your comment »Anon2, Information Services, Tue 15 Jul 08Can't live with em, can't live without em. They are working for you on some roles and against you at the same time ie pitching other candidates against the jobs you have already applied for with other recruitment agencies. Best to keep things vague as possible but possibly not lie, if you still need their help. Add your comment »Anon, Credit, Tue 15 Jul 08First time I am seeing this in print and it is so true. While I was out of work, I had the misfortune of wasting travelcard money on seeing so many of these guys who apparently had roles, only to never hear from them again.
|
||||||
| ||||||


