Role of Recruitement Agency in the first 3 Months

[Gail]

What role do you think the recruitment agency has in managing the client/candidate expectations within the first three months of employment?

For example - once the candidate has been engaged and is not peforming to expecations do you think the recruitment agency shoud intervine and act as a mediator between the employee (once candidate) and company? Or do you think that is something that should be handled between the company and the employee directly?

Personally - I think that once the company has gone back to the agency and said they are not happy with the employee (once candidate) and intervention is required between the recruitment agency and the candidate the relationship is doomed to fail but would be interested in your view points.

[tshaw]

I have always believed that if there are problems with the candidate within the first 3 months, they should always be discussed between both the employer to agency and employer to the employee.

There isnt much the agency can do, except talk to the candidate they placed.

Has the employer expected too much from the candidate?
Did the employer select the right candidate?
Was all the necessary steps taken in the process - interview structure, questions, reference checks?

It would then be the employers responsibility to either go through some performance management or consulting sessions to see what the issues at work are.

If that fails, it would come back to the agency/employer to go through the recruitment and selection process again.

[tshaw]

I came across this summary a while back....

-----------
there are three types of recruitment consultants

1) The Proactive.

These are the people that are genuinely interested in placing people into jobs. Value the candidates and go in to bat for them to get them a role. They are nice to talk to on the phone, pleasant in the interview, and committed to doing the right thing. These are the types that you want to deal with, and get back to you, keep you updated and debrief you.

2) The Disillusioned.

These are the ones that thought that being a consultant was a touchy feely path into HR, and then realised being a consultant was a hardcore sales job. They are the type of people who are ok at the sales role, and so stay on (many people falling into this class leave within weeks of starting when they realise it isnt a HR role).

They are usually the ones that sound like they are in pain when they are talking to you, rushed off their feet and not enough time in the day. Getting a job with these consultants is very hit and miss... sometimes they are good, sometimes they are bad. Usually get back to you with the outcome.

3) The Predator.

These are the hard core sales career consultants. They want bums on seats, jobs filled, time is money and every second spent not recruiting is time they are not earning commission. When talking on the phone, they often sound like they cant wait for the call to end, and as soon as they say "bye" the call drops instantly as they release the call from their desk phone.

Whilst your resume is the current best of the bunch, they are all over you.. once someone stronger comes in, you are dropped like a hot potato, with phone calls, messages and emails ignored. They also do the rude predatory sales leads questions, trying to get leads for positions from your current employer, referees or the employer you chose instead of their job.

These are the consultants to avoid... they are terrible to deal with, have no interest in the candidates, and live for payday.

[happybee]

I recently got a job through an agency (my first experience in gaining a job this way) and was baffled by these phone calls from the agency 'to check up on how I was going'. At no time did they communicate to me that this was what they were going to do or if there was some issues, how they would assist me. I felt they had no genuine interest and were just ticking a box for the boss. The consultant rang daily, leaving messages on my mobile, until I gave in and returned her calls.

I guess the practice could have some value if carried out properly through relationship building. My experience was just painful.

[Moz]

I seemed to have missed this thread when it first appeared, so apologies for the late entry.

There is a common misconception that recruitment consultants guarantee the performance of a person they place in a job. They can not and should not ever do this. Most recruitment companies offer a “replacement guarantee”, although this is really only because of market pressure, and because like lemmings they all do the same thing. But really even a replacement guarantee is an unfair expectation.

After all, their job is to identify candidates whom they believe will be a good fit for their client's requirements, but the ultimate decision to employ a particular person rests with the employer. The employer then has complete control of the person they employ, and the recruiter is excluded. They have no say in the induction process or the indeed any other control of the person in their new workplace, nor should they.

Nevertheless, because of the replacement guarantee, recruiters often follow up with the person they have placed and the client (the employer) to make sure all is going well. There are plenty of instances where handled diplomatically a potential ‘issue’, can be resolved. Sometimes there may be different expectations between a new employee and their employer, usually due to poor induction or communication. These sorts of things are don’t have to be show stoppers, providing they are nipped in the bud.

Given that the recruiter has given a replacement guarantee I don’t think it’s unreasonable to for them to follow up on a placement this way, but some new employees and employers expect it and some don’t. I can personally remember being admonished by one of my customers for following up with staff I had placed with them – their view being that I was interfering!

Unfortunately the recruiter can be damned if they do and damned if they don’t!