A Recruiter’s Explanation of Why They Are Annoying Fails to Make Me Less Annoyed

Richard Moy, an apparent reformed recruiter, wrote a post on The Muse which was picked up by Fast Company, entitled A Recruiter Explains Four Of The Most Annoying Parts Of The Hiring Process. In it, Moy explains that there are in fact, perfectly good reasons for the atrocious way that candidates are treated by recruiters and then advocates that it is not the recruiters’ fault. There are legitimate reasons for each act of disrespect, Moy says.

To which I respond, screw that.

But perhaps a more in-depth analysis is called for here. Let’s look through Moy’s article piece by piece, shall we?

Annoyance 1: A Request for An Updated Resume

Before I becoming a recruiter, I just about lost my mind anytime I was asked to send an “updated” resume. (…) “I sent this application to you three days ago,” I’d think to myself. “My resume is not going to be much different now!”

Moy goes onto explain that this is actually good news. It means that the recruiter is sending your resume to a hiring manager (why this has anything to do with not having the resume that you had previously sent is unclear). But then he goes on to admit:

(OK, I also didn’t always want to dig through my inbox to find it, if we’re being completely honest.)

Translation: I don’t have any system for keeping track of information about candidates, so I’m shifting the burden of this work to them. It’s up to the candidate to jump through the hoops.

There’s this thing, called a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system (alternately an Applicant Tracking System, or even a series of organized directories) that would allow you to keep track of candidate information in an organized manner. Perhaps you should be employing one, and not hunting through your emails for resumes. Just a thought.

Annoyance 2: Recruiter Goes Dark, Does Not Follow Up As They Promised

Moy:

I used to lean on my “unforgiving” calendar as an excuse for not providing next steps to applicants in a timely fashion. But it wasn’t just that. Putting together next steps in an interview often involves coordinating lots of schedules and discussing a few things about the candidate (for example, what to do if the person’s awesome, but seeking a higher salary than what was originally budgeted for).

Moy goes on to, once again, shift the burden of responsibility to the candidate, telling them to send “check in” emails, and never addresses the fact that the recruiter dropped the ball.

Why does anyone think this is remotely okay? Promising something like a simple courtesy response, and then not doing it, is disrespectful and rude. It doesn’t matter how busy you are. If you can’t pull it off, then don’t promise it in the first place. You know what they call someone who doesn’t do what they say they’re going to do? A flake. Don’t be a flake.

Annoyance 3: Last Minute Interview Rescheduling

Moy:

The unfortunate truth is that while recruiters coordinate the interview process, there’s only so much they can control. Sometimes the hiring manager gets pulled into a last-minute meeting. Other times, an interviewer comes down with a cold. Sometimes things just come up, right? The only problem is that the person it impacts most is you.

Okay, I get it, the recruiter doesn’t control the schedule of the hiring managers. That’s fine as far as that goes.

However, the main issue here is that the recruiter is essentially adding zero value to this process. They are a middleman, and things would run smoother if they weren’t there, and the hiring manager or HR personnel at the employer company just dealt with the candidate directly.

Of course, that won’t happen for the exact reason that the recruiter is a middleman. They need to maintain control over the relationship, to broker it, so they hold onto it like a parasite.

Annoyance 4: Recruiter Doesn’t Understand Your Role

Moy:

There were countless times when a candidate asked me a question about the job they were up for that I simply could not answer. I knew how frustrating it was for them, but at the same time, there were little nuances of many gigs that I did not understand myself — which led me responding often with, “That’s something you should feel more than welcome to ask the hiring manager.”

Again, screw that.

Presumably the value that a recruiter brings to the table is to separate the wheat from the chaff. In theory, they can look at a candidate and evaluate if that candidate might be a good match for a position.

However, the less informed the recruiter is, the less capable they are of performing their function. Therefore, they do not get a pass on their lack of understanding of the subject matter, the role, the position, the hiring organization, the supervising manager or the capabilities of the candidate. Because it is their job.

In case you don’t know, hiring firms pay a lot of money to recruiters. Fees of 10% to 20% on the candidate’s annual salary are common. This means a hiring company could pay $20,000 on a hire with a salary of $100,000. That’s the equivilent of 416 working hours (or about 10 weeks) of that candidate’s time. Don’t you think the recruiter should familiarize themselves with everythingwhen being paid the equivilent of two and a half months of salary?

Moy concludes with:

So I’ll leave you with my number one tip for getting through this with your sanity intact: Remember that recruiters are people, too. And just like any other person you know, they’re not perfect. That doesn’t excuse them, but it might make the annoying moments easier to deal with.

Really? Here’s my number one tip. Stop using recruiters. They are bad for candidates, bad for hiring companies, and generally are not worth the money. My experience with recruiters on both sides of the hiring table have been bad enough that it’s inspired me to create int18, an entirely new company to deal with the problem.