Hi All from ARM

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Thanks Michael,

Although it appears I will be hitting a brick wall with any suggestions of promise from a recruitment perspective this topic presents really valuable feedback for myself. Its interesting to hear simply how bad the reputation is amongst many candidates that are so vital to our industry. From this improvements can begin to be put in place that will hopefully improve the service for both parties involved. I'm not seeking or claiming to create a revolution within the industry, but with investment in support services (in particular market research in this case) we can begin to build bridges.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Indeed.

It's a similar situation to the one we see all the time with regard to training providers.
There are good ones, and there are bad ones.
There are ethical ones, and unethical ones.
There are good ethical ones, and bad ethical ones.
There are good unethical ones, and bad unethical ones.

The bad ones give all the others a bad name and frighten people off.

Every now and again there is a call for 'regulation' or 'accreditation' but then it all comes down to 'who polices the police?'

Very often getting accreditation is all too easy for poor providers. They need it more because they haven't got anything else, and they have cash to burn. Poor old Mr Honest can't afford £1k per year to be 'accredited'. And those doing the accreditation aren't going to chuck away £1k per year income because a few people complain.

It's a system that just doesn't work, and I can't see how it ever will.


I've worked in recruitment before (although not for an 'agency') It was all above board, govenment subsidised etc etc, but my experience of it was feeling like a used car salesman. You placed so many every month, or you were out. The only people who were any good were those who were used car salemen. They lied, cheated, fiddled their results, forced people into unsuitable jobs just to chalk up one more for the end of the month. Awful. I lasted one month, didn't place a single person and 'moved on'.

I'm not saying your place is like that, but an awful lot are. It's hard to avoid when you are target orientated in that manner.

 

The thing is, you don't need to promise anything from a recruitment perspective. All you need to do is to do things the right way and we techs will see it.

As you say, the information on this forum can indeed be valuable to you. Find out all the things that we techs hate about recruiters and use that information to avoid doing those things. Whether or not you create a revolution in the industry, you could personally benefit.

One of the best things that I think you could do is to educate the employer side a bit better. As others have already brought up in this thread, many employers are clueless about the purpose of certifications. You could easily find dozens of job listings for what ought to be an entry-level job, yet the employer desires someone with years of experience, or upper-level certifications that have nothing to do with the position. This helps neither the employer, the candidate, nor the certification industry. When we see a recruiter list positions like these, it is clear to us that the recruiter didn't know enough to advise the employer properly. Understanding realistic experience requirements as well as the role of each certification is vital to matching candidates with job requirements so that everyone ends up happy - the employee, the employer, and the recruiter.

 

Again, thanks for the information provided above. Already action and steps are being taken to look into improving the candidate experience and to match candidates expectations when using our recruitment services.

The first step is listening to your concerns, and to understand your expectations... then its down to us to act upon them.

It would be great to establish a closed discussion group where a few select users can contribute to providing some feedback on the recruitment process in the near future, whether on this forum or via another social network such as LinkedIn. I would like to know if there be any interest in this?