In your opinion, is the threshold to get into our industry low?

[Kunal Malhotra]

Hi,

I've been thinking about this for a while now...

if you apply for an accounting role... you are supposed to know accounting, if you apply for a sales role you supposed to know the domain and how to close sales, so why is it that in recruitment when we are hiring an individual we don't ever check their domain knowledge but just check whether they can make placements or not? Very often you will find such recruiters struggle to fill roles because they just find themselves out of their league...

I am passionate about the IT recruitment industry because that's what I've done most of my professional life... but I came into this industry with an IT education to back me up... I studied comp science in school and then through university... I started my career in web development and then got into IT recruitment... so I understand and appreciate it... but I've come across so many recruiters who have absolutely no grasp of the subject but claim to be experts? I know I may ruffle some feathers with this post... but keen to have your thoughts...

Cheers
Kunal

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kunalmalhotra

[Andrew McNaught]

Interesting point, and certainly there are benefits to having first hand experience in the industry you are recruiting in. I guess the danger is that when you are too close to the forest you can't see the trees. Sometimes having an objective approach can help you select the right person for the role as opposed to the person who you think would do the role the way you would?

[Kunal Malhotra]

I appreciate your perspective Andrew...

I suppose I should clarify my point as well... on occasion, we recruiters are labelled as "job board posters" because we can't understand or appreciate a client's requirements which certainly impacts our ability to provide a quality service.

Given the size, scope and impact of our services, should we be investigating certain "pre-requisites" for people to step into our industry? such as a standardised certificates for all potential recruiters ... not as a barrier, rather a way to educate them of the best practices, provide some background essential skills such as basic search and selection, communication skills, negotiation, customer service, perhaps even advanced courses such as boolean searching etc. They may then perhaps go on to specialise in a certain industry sector and gain some fundamental knowledge... IT, Marketing, Finance, Accounting etc... Would us as a recruitment agency / corporate recruitment function, a potential employer, value such basic knowledge (although academic...)?

Now, there are a few individuals / organisations delivering such training ... but it's mostly after the fact and not as a pre-requisite...

Your thoughts?

[Andrew McNaught]

Good ideas, it would certainly benefit many individuals and the industry as a whole to have a minimum learning requirement to become a recruiter. I think an intial course explaining moral code and ethics would be a great start.

Apart from that the main problem seems to be a lack of regulation in the industry. If people can come in make a quick buck leave the industry when they get found out and return again when they want it gives the entire industry a bad name.

I ran a survey of my clients recenty, 9% said that the service they received from recruitment companies (not mine) was extremely poor. That to me is unacceptable for our industry.

[Samantha Webster]

HI Kunal

I am a career changer from 10 years as a High School Head of Department to IT Recruitment in 2000; eventuating in a National Client Director role and more recenlty consulting into the financial services.

I feel passionate about education and setting quality standards for entry into a professional environment. I think the day we mandate a Degree or some industry related qualification for the recruitment industry, will be the day staff turnover reduces, greed dissipates and we actually live up to the expectations of our customers!

Bring on the entry standards!

Sam

[Aaron Dodd]

It's not that the threshold is too low, it's that there is no threshold at all. Anyone can stick a shingle on the door and claim to be a "recruiter" or "consultant". I'm not saying that this is wrong, In theory market economics will weed out the poor performers in time.

Over the past 10 years prior to the GFC, the market (certainly in Australia) boomed and even mediocre recruiters could make a living. The GFC has focused a blowtorch on the industry and most of the cowboys have disappeared (for now). Those recruiters who have survived (or thrived in many cases) during the GFC will generally be the good quality ones.

The many "cowboys" in the market have historically made it difficult for quality companies and individuals to get their superior messages across. As a rule it's been the cowboys who have given the industry such a poor reputation. So the question is, how do we, the industry, educate the market effectively as to what makes a quality recruiter/conultant? Instigating a threshold, even if it were possible won't address this.

[Paul Jacobs]

Should individual recruiters need to obtain a license to practice? I guess the problem with that approach is, taking a driver's license analogy, just because one has their driver's license doesn't necessarily mean they will always be a good driver - they may text whilst driving or not indicate at roundabouts for example. Maybe demerit points should be awarded to recruiters ;)

Nonetheless, I'm concerned that many recruiters both currently operating within and new to the industry are only operating as sales people. In saying that many have exceptional sales skills and make good money, even in a down economy. I would like to see the standards lifted around candidate care, candidate assessment, behavioural assessment etc. I recall going to one of Greg Savage's sessions in Wellington a few years ago and I liked his recruiter scorecard / process checklist (my words not his). I also like Bill Boorman's 10 Recruiter Pledges list http://www.cruitertalk.com/2009/07/08/bill-boorman .

Part of me thinks that strong leadership and quality processes within an agency should help to lift the threshold - but often the leadership are in there because they are good sales people and promote an off-skew sales culture.

What concerns me more however is the new breed of "social media experts" who run workshops and offer consulting - many (not all) don't even participate in the social web and they are giving the marketplace advice at high prices - I've come across some horror stories recently.

[Fay Robin Samios]

I agree with you I was an RN and I recruit RNs and that works out very well for all of us. I often encounter recruiters who think they can do Health Recruitiment because they see that as an "easy option" They see a shortage and think I can do that and don't realise that to be successful you need very specific knowledge and experience. I feel the Recruitiment Industry does itself a grave disservice by employing people who have no qualifications in Recruitment apart from often the self perception that they can sell

[Dan Nuroo]

It interests me the question of whether you need industry hands on knowledge to be proficient in Recruiting people for it. My theory on that is that my industry is Recruitment. I know people, I know culture. I've been hiring in the IT world for 12 years now, and I've never cut code before in my life... and I never will... Does that make me a poor Recruiter... Geez I hope not. Would hate to think I've been wasting my time all these years.

Economic Darwinism will work out those who come in to make a quick buck. Every industry will have people who make it look good and bad, the trick is to pick up who is who. Then again, who is to say what makes a good recruiter? there are so many angles to look at that question... sales v relationships v sourcing v marketing v branding etc.... To have one industry body regulating that worries me.

[Kunal Malhotra]

I don't think I ever mentioned an industry regulator? :)

My suggestion was to have a basic foundation for the new entrants... a kind of elementary school for the newbies, at least to help them initially .... and the rest of the industry in the medium-longer term...

[Aaron Dodd]

An industry regulator will never work unless it is backed by legislation. Unfortunately we are in an industry with few barriers to entry, so cowboys flourish (especially in good times). The only thing that would work would be legislation and a licensing system, for example, the way car salespeople are licensed or Doctors.

We already have an industry body, the RCSA, that provides training at numerous levels including for new entrants. Unfortunately time and time again it has proven itself to be ineffectual and largely ignored by the industry. In 10 years in recruitment I have probably only been asked maybe 4-5 times if we are a member and always by government agencies. At the end of the day, who really cares if the maximum penalty the RCSA can apply is to be kicked out of an industry body that most people outsdie the profession have never heard of. Even now, we are one of the fastest growing organisations in the industry and are only affiliate members. Even with that we are unlikely to renew next year as I am yet to see a convincing business case to remain a member.