Recruitment takes too long

Readers' comments (5)

• Daniel Lewis | Mon, 8 Mar 2010 8:39 am

  Whilst I think the above can be true, the dragging heels attitude is rife currently. Clients see a good candidate, then take days to get back to the consultancy. Once back, they say they love the candidate and that they are absolutely right for the position but need to see others before they can make a decision. By the time they come back on the original candidate, they are too late and have lost out to someone else.
  The other aspect of time length is from the candidate side. we are finding that a great many candidates are getting offers and then trying to sit on them for as long as possible without actually committing. This is as prevalent as the first aspect I have outlined.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Smith | Mon, 8 Mar 2010 8:46 am

  I agree with the point but it it is rather stating the obvious. There are many reasons for the 'problem' and many solutions. From the client side, dealing with multiple agencies, not providing CV feedback, no time for interviews etc etc, makes the process longer.
  Agencies sending CVs in a race to be first, without proper screening are a menace and a major problem. Client thinks they have sufficient candidates but many are unavailable. Start again!
  Agree timetables and deadlines with the client, in advance.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Simon Page | Mon, 8 Mar 2010 9:15 am

  And so the dichotomy continues!
  
  If employers truly recognise the importance of recruiting the right people and this is undertaken as a strategic consideration within the broader function of talent management, then there is simply no reason why they should not devote adequate time to the process.
  
  If employers are dealing with dozens of agencies, this is because they have not taken time to establish true, strategic partnerships with a couple of well-placed organisations, where both sides have taken time to invest in the relationship, thereby enhancing the likelihood of a successful hire in a shorter time period.
  
  Where 'recruitment' is spread across multiple agencies, multiple contracts etc, the process will be at best transactional, rather than strategic, and agencies competing to be first passed the post with the 'killer CV' are unlikely to contribute added value to what should be an uncomplicated but value-rich relationship.
  
  It behoves organisations and agencies alike to encourage added-value consultancy to the recruitment function. Investment by both sides in the short term will nearly always deliver positive, sustainable results in the longer term, by increasing the relevance of candidate submissions and reducing the administrative burden experienced by the hiring organisation.
  
  Simon Page
  Strategic sales director
  Parity Resources Ltd

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Baker | Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:46 am

  I fully endorse Simon Page's comments. The best value-added processes occur when both the client and the consultancy have invested time in building a partnership. The misguided approach of using multiple suppliers merely creates a CV race with little or no value being added to the process.
  
  My advice to any company is build a strong relationship with a small number of trusted suppliers who understand your business and culture. The supplier will then see the benefit of 'going the extra mile' to find the best talent for the company, whilst considerably reducing the amount of time a company spends in sifting through numerous inappropriate CVs.
  
  Short term investment by the client will derive major time saving benefits, whilst increasing the quality of the candidates submitted by the supplier. Surely a 'win-win' outcome.
  
  John Baker
  Chief executive
  Macmillan Davies Hodes

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Antony Meek | Thu, 11 Mar 2010 8:57 am

  Echo both Simon Page's and John Baker's sentiments: the process becomes cloudy and diluted with the inclusion of many suppliers.
  
  It takes an investment on both sides of the fence to make the relationship truly work. Timelines should be agreed beforehand and also the clients/recruiters need to work together to make sure these are realistic and suit both parties.
  
  The time 'problem' will be alleviated if recruiters are honest with the clients and do not over promise and under deliver (as sadly is the case in many instances).

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment