By Sweth Chandramouli
Posted with permission of the author.

From: Sweth Chandramouli
Subject: dc-sage-chat The Ideal Recruiter (was: Jobs)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:36:49 -0400
To: dc-sage-chat@dc-sage.org

Having been on both sides of the recruiter issue multiple times before (as both a job seeker and potential employer, sometimes both at the same time, and now (via "brokers") as a consultant, too), I'd have to say that I agree with most of what Jerald says. So in the interests of doing something productive rather than just carping (not that I've got anything against carping), how about we come up with a list of the qualities of the ideal recruiter. Then maybe we can start pointing the "fargin bastages" that we encounter at that list (I'll collate info and post it somewhere if there's a reasonable amount of response) in hopes of educating them (yeah, right), or just to let us more intelligently share info about which ones are good/bad/indifferent (e.g. "Joe Smith did all of these things right, but really annoyed me when he did this other thing"). 1 2

So, to kick things off, here's some of my list of traits of the ideal headhunter/borker, from the POV of a job-seeker:

• Is prompt, courteous, and honest. 3
• Isn't paid based on job-seeker's salary OR has job-seeker do all salary negotiations indpendent of headhunter. This seems kind of counter-intuitive, but when the borkers' paychecks are coming from the employer, their desire for a higher commision now is usually tempered by their desire to get more commissions in the long run by keeping the employer happy at the expense of the candidate. I've successfully convinced recruiters to convince their candidates to accept a lower salary than they probably could have gotten elsewhere when I've been in hiring positions, so I assume it's being done to me when I'm on the job-seeking end as well. (Ideally, there would be some sort of "buyer's broker" arrangement like there is in real estate, but the odds of that happening without legislative intervention are pretty minimal.)
• Knows and is willing to discuss basics of job, including:
  • Salary, more specifically than just "depending on experience"; we all know that it depends on experience, but there are still ranges, and a clueful borker should know what they are so that the candidates don't waste their time.
  • Location
  • Hours
  • Type(s) of work (sysadmin, dba, programmer, etc.)
  • OS(es)/language(s)/application(s) of interest
  • Ratios of technical vs. management, implementation vs. design vs. support work that job would entail

• Trusted enough by the potential employer to be able to get all of the necessary info, not only about the position but also about how a particular candidate is doing in the process, what the holdups are, etc. And, as part of prompt/courteous (above), will keep the candidate in the loop about that info.
• Able to talk intelligently with both decision-makers and techie grunts at employer in order to actually understand what need the employer is trying to fill, and convey that need to candidate. (Also a trait of the ideal headhunter from an employer's POV...)
• Able to accurately gauge technical and cultural fit of candidate for that need. (Again, a big plus for employers, for more reasons than might be imagined; because of discrimination suits, it's very inadvisable (though I don't think outright illegal) for a company to screen applicants with a technical quiz of any sort unless that quiz is identical for all candidates. Clueful borkers should be emphasizing the advantage of their ability to pre-screen candidates without such liability issues. (Then again, if that became widespread, people would start suing the borkers, too...))
• Willing to do a thorough overhaul of candidate's resume, but NOT to change anything without candidate's express consent. (I hate borkers who automatically reformat all resumes into their generic layout, which is often worse than the one in which the resume originally was created. Ditto for borkers who can't deal with non- Word resumes.)
• Able to coach the candidate in effective interviewing skills. This is a huge plus that could probably close the deal on tons of potential matches if it were done. People just don't know how to be interviewed. (I guess my ideal headhunter would be as much an "job search advisor" as just a placement person.)
• Clueful about things like not contacting current employers if asked not to (and knowing to ask the candidate about that, if they don't explicitly mention it).
• As part of honest (above), willing to tell candidates when they are being unrealistic in their goals; also, being able to earn candidates trust enough to be taken seriously when doing so.

<p>OK, that's a start. 4  Any other suggestions?  What about

from an employer's POV? (Keith, you've been banging your head against clueless internal HR types recently, it seems; any thoughts on ways that a clueful broker might have been able to make the process easier?)

1 Heck, I'm tempted to open up shop as a Clueful Headhunter myself, if only to spare others from the horror stories I've endured. :) 5

2 No offense to any Joe Smiths who may be on the list.

3 The fact that this one shows up at all saddens me.

4 I know, I know; my "start"s are more overboard than most people's "overboard" is.

5 The less said about the candidate whose entire experience was as a slurpee jockey at a 7-11 (and the creative ways in which he tried to hide that fact on his resume), the better.

--
Sweth Chandramouli

Idiopathic Systems Consulting
svc@idiopathic.net

No Comments | #1416

Unless noted, all content on epistolary.org is © Copyright 1999-2008 to Rob Carlson with all rights reserved. All information is verified when possible, cited as appropriate and applied in the real world at your own risk. Send all feedback to rob@vees.net.