Can the recruitment industry survive its own culture? Falling victim to its very design?
Time is money.
This is the ethos that drives the recruitment industry. The more placements a recruiter makes, the more money they earn. The aim of the game is to place as many candidates as possible, in the least amount of time.
This founding principle has created a system that prioritises ‘bums on seats’ over sourcing talent that aligns with the client’s vision, culture, and needs. The candidate’s fulfilment is an afterthought when being coached into an ill-fitting role to make money.
Priority isn’t given to clients; care isn’t taken of the candidates.
With the allure of big commissions, the industry attracts professionals who are savvy at selling and hungry for their payday. A trend is then established -recruiters are drawn to, and frankly taught to, seek the low-hanging fruit – easy to pick with minimal effort. The standard practice results in the selling of candidates into roles and companies that are not a match. The driving factor is that the faster recruiters make the placement, the sooner and more regular their big payday is.
Lying in the wake of this self-serving culture is, ironically, the two things it cannot live without: clients and candidates.
For clients, they have the choice of facing the employment market alone or utilising the services of a recruiter. With option one, they are inundated with applications, investing precious time in the process, and potentially spending more on one bad hire than they would have on a recruiter. With option two, they spend money on a recruiter who has more time and resources, however, there are no guarantees nor a genuine investment in the longevity of good placements, and they put the workforce at risk of poaching.
Rock meets hard place.
For candidates, they have access to a free service when they use a recruiter. Why look for a new job when someone will do it for you? You give the recruiter your CV; some will even re-write it for you, they’ll find you a new role and tell you what to say to get it. Where’s the harm?
The problem is job satisfaction. A candidate once said to me ‘I don’t live to work, but I will spend most of my life working so I want to enjoy it’. The problem for candidates being coached into roles is they won’t stay in them. A recruiter often does not consider the candidate’s best interests, their soft skills, or their potential in a role, only the saleability of that candidate.
Perhaps this is a pessimistic view. However, if you read reviews of recruitment agencies, there is an overwhelming number of disgruntled candidates who have been completely ghosted by their recruiters. It has become common practice for recruiters to cease all communication with the candidates they no longer have a use for.
The recruitment industry is being fuelled by an unsuitable culture, which can only result in its downfall.
Despite this culture, the recruitment industry still has the potential to be more. Historically, it ensured critical roles were always filled during the Industrial Revolution; it aided soldiers to re-enter work after both World Wars, and so much more.
What the industry needs is the next evolution of recruitment. It needs to take the ‘recruiter’ out of recruitment.
By adopting a culture that recognises and embraces the people at every stage, we can break the current cycle. We are not at a stage, at least yet, where we can or should use an entirely AI program (a conversation for another day). Instead, we need to utilise a process that guarantees a placement that fits the client’s vision, culture, and needs. A system that values the candidate’s time and engagement, and is steered by their professional aspirations. Recruitment led by professionals driven by lasting results, not quick paydays, who value integrity, honesty, and delivering the best possible outcomes.
By Freya Baggaley