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.