Why do I get called about roles unrelated to my skills?

I've often wondered about this... as I recently got an email asking about my availability on a Java/J2EE role.

For the record, I don't do Java or J2EE... at least not yet, I don't consider myself qualified for such roles. I will learn eventually, if it was called for... But at this point in time, it isn't an imperative.

But back to my subject line. I got the email from Recruiter A. She's asked about my availability for this role. I've already called her and explained my unsuitability. It seems the general system used by most recruitment agencies down here is based on keyword search, which in turn pulls in results relating to any CV that contains that specific keyword. In this case "Java".

You can imagine the number of hits it would generate based off this... But more importantly, depending on the sensitivity of these systems, words like "JavaScript", which would be quite common in many IT developers (well, the web-orientated developers such as myself), would light up a candidate's CV like a Christmas tree.

Guess whose CV made the list? ;)

Herein lies the rub... there are many candidates in this position, rather much like myself... who are focused on specfic technologies. They may have mentioned other technologies they had the opportunity to be exposed to during their time in these previous roles. It's these keyword searches that tend to pick up on these nuances.

It seems these keyword searches are somewhat limited and will return a hit on a single match in a document. It would be interesting to see if these systems are capable of providing relevance based searches that would determine the validity of these searches based on the number of matches per document, and with respect to most recently worked roles. Judging from the number of emails I have received lately about Dot Net based roles or roles regarding Java, that kind of technology has yet to be established as the norm.

Confession #1

I'm not fond of that previous post I made.

Yes, it was a bit of a rant at one particular individual's perspectives on how recruitment should be. But let's be honest here, it's a matter of respecting the processes of how a person is hired. Any candidate who believes they're too good for a client's recruitment process obviously does not have the respect of how a company does things.

Granted, some recruitment processes can go overboard... But let's stick with the mainstream argument here. Refusing to go through the customary process set by a company may be interpreted as being tantamount to disrespect for the organization and how they operate. Your chances with scoring roles with that company or through recruiters working with that company in the future would drop dramatically with this kind of attitude.

My two bytes worth.

Recruiter Meeting Stigma

Some candidates reading this will think that meetings with recruiters are a waste of time, citing reasons like "They have no clue about what I do, so who are they to deem me suitable?" or "I know how suitable I am to the role, why don't they just send me through?"

It isn't always like that though... Granted, the majority of recruiters come from primarily, a sales background... that's what their job is, to sell you to the candidate. But if you rock up straight to an interview and you're not prepared, or have yourself laid out the way your CV is, you'll leave that interview with your proverbial tail between your legs. Whatsmore, if it is a pre-requisite to a formal interview with the client, what have you really got to lose?

Some are quite adamant and confident they pretty much let it be known to the rest of the general public.

The linked example comes from a seasoned software called Rachel. She writes:

I wont interview with recuiters/agents/headhunters as a preliminary step to meeting the hiring manager within the employer's own staff. My reason for this is that, in my field (software development), such intermediaries often know little or nothing about the detail of what it is that I do, and precious little more about what it is that the employer does. If I meet with the employer themselves, that's the only meaningful basis I've found upon which that the employer can discover whether what I can do for them matches their needs, and whether what they have to offer in return is of interest to me; a direct meeting lets us know in fairly short order whether there is enough of a match between us to take our mutual interest further. Hiring managers who don't invest their own time in their own recruitment process, and who prefer instead to conduct the process through non-technical intermediaries, generally either don't know what they want clearly enough to be able to express it succinctly to a prospective new employee, or simply see the process as not import enough to spend their own valuable time upon; either way, they're generally not good people to work for, and so I bow out without ever having to subject myself to running a gauntlet of their lackys before they deign to meet me.

The "holier than thou" attitude of Rachel appears to be spawned from her belief that those who go through a recruiter "generally either don't know what they want clearly enough to be able to express it succinctly to a prospective new employee, or simply see the process as not import enough to spend their own valuable time upon", and such clients that use this process are "generally not good people to work for".

By what premise, Rachel? Recruitment processes in the IT industry is, true, a little more complicated at times than those in other industries, but hardly a barometer for pre-diagnosed ineptitude of a potential employer's ability to determine what they want. Recruitment is a fluid process whichever way you look at it.

The truth of the matter is that most clients are usually 95% certain of what they want in terms of general qualifications, skill sets and the like. That list of requirements may change, and certain limits may change as well, and in these sorts of cases it is the recruiter who determines "whom shall pass". To quote Ghostbusters, they are the Gate Keeper and you are the Key Master. The key, however, has to fit the lock. And we're not just talking about technical fit. There's salary expectations, cultural fit, your management and development paradigms, communications skills, personality; oodles and oodles of factors that need to be accounted for in the hiring of a candidate. And sometimes, a face-to-face interview with the client alone cannot determine these.

Granted, the majority of these recruiters, as I said, are primarily from a sales-orientated background. They are generally non-technical, and may need clarification on certain things. I'm often asked by certain recruiters to explain certain technologies so that they gain a better understanding into the role they are trying to fill. There's no harm in that. Bear in mind, though, that with time comes experience and wisdom.

I may later add a post explaining key IT pre-requisite skills just to help those recruiters who aren't so clued in, just as a favor to all they've done for me! ;)

This quote from the extract almost made me fall out of my chair:

"...so I bow out without ever having to subject myself to running a gauntlet of their lackys before they deign to meet me..." [sic]

Firstly, I believe the word is "lackeys"... Also, "a gauntlet of lackeys"? Or even better, "they deign to meet me..."? Sorry, Rachel, but you sound like you're quoting from the script of Thor there... But seriously, by saying "Nah, I'm too good for your recruitment process" to a client is a slap in the face to both the recruiter and potentially, a client. The client just wants to ensure they have hired the right candidate. Who is to say that the recruiter or the client for that matter, won't deem that kind of attitude as unsuitable for any other possible roles they may have in the future? By that kind of response, you've pretty much confirmed that you're not a suitable candidate... in my humble opinion.

If a client prefers to go through a recruitment process that involves the retainer of a recruiter's services, why discount the opportunity on that alone? It may very well be a role more worthwhile than others to which one may have already applied.

Current Status

So here's where I'm at...

My contract ends at the end of June. So I literally have... about 5 weeks to go before it ends. I'm interstate four and a half days a week, and dying, er... eager... no... enthusiastic to get back to Sydney on a more permanent basis.

I've been floating my CV around since March due to my unique situation. I've had a few bites here and there, and at this point about... one... two... three misses so far... Everything else is held up due to available roles and finding out positions are being filled some five minutes after I apply (an exaggeration of course, but this can happen somewhat, which I'll explain in a later post).

Currently, I have nine possible opportunities currently being worked on... it's a slow process I've found as I've come to find that around this time of the year clients don't really get the ball rolling until closer into June... Maybe it's when they get sign-off for the budgets for the following financial year so that they can afford to interview for prospective candidates.

One of these roles has already gotten back to me regarding a preliminary meeting with the recruiter, a pre-requisite prior to representation to the client. Recruiter A as I will refer to him, has been very thoughtful and understanding of my situation relating to this particular role, and so I'll be meeting him later this week.

I'll keep you posted with updates as I go along.

CSC launches!

recruit [ri-kroot] - v. to enlist (a person) for service in one of the armed forces.

1635–45;  < French,  stem of recruter,  derivative of recrue  new growth, noun use of feminine past participle of recroître  ( re- re-  + croître  < Latin crēscere  to grow; compare crescent).

The definition of this word has changed considerably to what it initially meant back then. Recruitment nowadays, is more associated with working within a society than in terms of its original military definition.


The Spartans were known for their very simple recruitment process: you were screened from birth. Those deemed suitable were enrolled in military training from the age of seven onwards to thirty; the age of full citizenship; none of this age-old myth about throwing unsuitable youths over a cliff (a myth glorified in the movie 300).

Nowadays, recruitment goes through several stages involving CV's, cover letters, screening calls, recruiter meetings, face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, reference checks, personality assessments, criminal record checks, and so on. The list is not endless, but it is lengthy.

This is where I come in.

I'm the Serial Candidate. I've been involved in the IT industry for over a decade and have seen my fair share of the recruitment process through countless recruiters, and the by-products of the recruitment process. I'm primarily a contractor, but now in the search for a permanent role.

The search for a new role by any candidate, even myself, is, in itself an adventure. I'd probably be more accurate by calling it a psychological thriller mixed in with a drama (this is the movie fanatic in me, I'm categorizing myself into a genre - if only my life were that simple and predictable!)

My task over the course of this blog, is not only to provide updates of my own search; but to also touch on the unique nuances and habits of recruiters. This won't be a rant, but there may be times where I'll point out things that may not sit well with recruiters. This is only because certain actions can be seen as unprofessional in the eyes of a candidate. The Candidate-Recruiter Dynamic (which I'll term CRD from now on) is vital to ensure that progression from advertisement of a role to the signing of a contracted offer runs smoothly.

Similarly, I may point out similar nuances with clients... the Candidate-Client Dynamic (CCD) is similar to the CRD, but is generally a lot more direct due to the lack of the recruitment officer as a conduit.

I'm happy to receive comments and questions about my posts; of which I will try to answer to the best of my ability or research.

Hope you'll join me on my journey!