Louise's UK Recruiter Blog

CareerSiteAdvisors - Recruiter Live Cast Session

CareerSiteAdvisor is a site for jobseekers which categorises online career and job sites.  Over the past few months they have run Career Advice live video "casts" which are live interview/discussion sessions around typical job seeker questions (preparing a CV, posting a CV to the web, etc). 
 
However, tomorrow they are running their first recruiter session - “Recruiter Cast TV”. 
 
On this and subsequent monthly shows, Recruiter Cast TV plans to answer the questions that many recruiter’s need answers to and debate the topics that are current and relevant.  This week the experts participating in the livecast include Keith Robinson (who is the lovely chap who runs CareerSiteAdvisor), Colin Minto (who will be giving a monthly round up of “Recruitment technology news” and Tim Forster (talking about “What makes a great In-House Recruiter”).  There will also be a panel debate entitled: “Post Recession, Post Social what will the Job Board of the Future Look Like?.  The (rather large in my opinion!) panel consists of Martin Warnes (MD – Reed.co.uk), Simon Lewis (Editor – Onlymarketingjobs), Alex Hens (Director – 3D Marcomms), Colin Minto (Recruitment Technology Advisor), Tim Forster (Recruiter), Matt Alder (Head of Product and Strategy Director – Penna Barkers), Richard Tyrie (Co Founder - JobsGoPublic), and Martin Cerullo (Director – Resourcing Communications – Alexander Mann Solutions).
 
To see the Livestream on Wednesday 23rd at 12.30 go to  http://www.careersiteadvisor.com and see the TV panel to the right of the homepage.

Recruiter as Living Art

I've heard through the grapevine that Russell Dalgleish (MD of a Scottish recruiting firm) will be taking part in sculptor Anthony Gormley’s 4th Plinth Project in Trafalgar Square on the 25th September.
 
If you've not heard of the project the concept is to "allow" members of the British public, selected at random, to appear as a living work of art, for one hour, occupying the unused plinth adjacent to Nelson’s famous column.
 
Apparently there have over 30,000 applications for this!
 
Russell is getting the 4am to 5am slot (with floodlights). He says he will be attempting "to recreate memories from my childhood in Selkirk in the Scottish borders and broader images of Scotland. Be warned there will be tartan, hopefully a large flag all accompanied by the music of Scotland". I happened to be checking out the site at a similarly indecent hour the other day and spotted some other chap in a kilt writing on a whiteboard.  Russell may want to ensure he has double starched his kilt as this poor chap's was whipping about like something out of a Marilyn Monroe fantasy!
 
Russell is hoping to raise money for a local charity during his plinth time and if you want more details I suggest you make contact with him via his LinkedIn profile.

Is LinkedIn a PSL Selection Tool

In the newly designed Recruiter magazine there is a new backpage feature (I'm assuming it's a regular feature) called In-House Hannah.  The crux of the "story" is how when vetting recruiters for a PSL she checked them out on LinkedIn .... "Yet some 40% were obviously not networking. I worked out that the 37 PSL contacts were linked directly to less than 1,000 people. I am personally linked to over 5,000! Yet I am being asked to pay money for these people to find me candidates. How does that work? Where is the value to me? Perhaps one of the so called ‘consultants’ could explain to me why I need to pay them when they are obviously taking me for a ride?"
 
I'd like to start out by saying we are big fans of LinkedIn here at UK Recruiter.  We've even got our own group.
 
LinkedIn is fabulously useful in finding out background information about someone.  However, one does have to bear in mind that it's information they have entered themselves and the number of connections they have may have nothing at all to do with how well connected they are. 
 
One of the best recruiters I know has 90 connections on LinkedIn.  She is without doubt superbly networked - just not via LinkedIn. 
 
Often there is no love lost between Agency and In-house recruiters but even so I think this is a cheap shot.
 
How can it make sense to use just one "tool" to determine the worth of any other individual.  So Hannah has crossed most (all?) of these recruiters off her PSL list based on the fact they have less connections than her.  As a recruiter does she base her decision making in the selection process on one element of what she sees; how the candidate dresses, what their hobbies on their CV are, how they came across in a two minute interview booking phone call, a reference from 5 years back? 
 
However, don't get me wrong, all recruiters would do themselves a favour if they did have a great LinkedIn profile with a good solid connection base.  To that end .... (shameless plug) .... check out our LinkedIn Guide for Recruiters!!
 

Results of the Voyager Professional Bodies Poll

A little while back we ran a survey with Voyager around the topic of professional bodies.  Especially pertinent as there has been quite a lot of discussion (both in a post here and on the forum) about the new IRP division of the REC.

Firstly, good news for the REC; 96% of the people who responded have heard of them.  In "second" place comes APSCO (Association of Professional Staffing Companies) with 39% of people having heard of them, followed by TEAM (The Employment Agencies Movement) with 22%.  The new APRC (Association of Professional Recruitment Consultants) was know by 15% of respondents.

Next we asked which professional body respondents were members of.  64% of respondents are members of the REC, only 7% are members of APSCO, 5% are members of TEAM and 1% are members of APRC. 

Leaving quite a lot of respondents who are not a member of any professional body.  Obviously our next question was "If you're not currently a member of any of the previous organisations, why not?"  The main reasons, both with 43%, were "being a member makes no difference to my bottom line or pocket" and "I don't know enough about what they offer to members".  So, either the professional bodies are not promoting themselves enough and/or when they do they are not managing to sell the benefits in a way that recruiters respond to.  The other main reasons were "They’re simply not worth the fee" (33%) and "they don’t adequately represent me or my business" (29%).  Both would suggest a level of awareness and understanding of the professional bodies in question.

The next question we asked was "Which professional body do you feel best represents the Recruitment Industry and/or Recruiter?"  Again, the REC came out top with just less than one third of the votes (62%).  The rest fared pretty badly with the APSCO getting 6% and TEAM and APRC getting 1%.  One of the options we gave was to respond with "I don't think any of them are better than the others" and 12% of respondents selected that.

It's disappointing to think that our main professional body is only covering the needs of two thirds of the industry.

Finally, we asked "If you have ever joined one of the previously mentioned organisations, what are the main reason(s) for being a member?".  This was a bit more positive with 61% saying "It helps uphold standards in the industry", 57% going for "their advice, experience and tools available offer me value for money/reassurance" and 19% saying "The events offer a good opportunity to network within the industry". All great reasons to join a professional body.  However, 28% suggested they only joined as "My customers expect it" and nearly a fifth (18%) said "The badge in the window is cheap PR".  Disappointing and cynical reasons to join a professional body.

Some positives in here (the REC ought to be pleased that 96% of recruiters know about them) but sadly plenty of negatives reinforcing long held views of our professional bodies.

 

Standards, standards, standards

This opinion piece was written for us by Martin Dangerfield.  Martin is a Regional Director for the Institute of Recruitment Professionals (IRP).   I personally believe that the REC are committed to the improvement of standards and that their reorganisation and introduction of the IRP is a step towards this.  Obviously I would be interested in any comments on the likely effectiveness of the REC/IRP and standards in the industry in general.

Whilst this might be an old topic it’s one that refuses to go away.  The recruitment industry and more specifically recruitment consultants have a poor reputation. Worryingly it’s a reputation that appears to be sticking and is becoming increasingly difficult to shift.  When the market was good this reputation mattered less with recruitment consultants seen as a ‘necessary evil’ with organisations struggling to source the talent they needed in house due to volumes or not being brave enough to do it themselves.  However, now the market has changed there is a greater focus on dare I say it quality.  Those in the business happy with their estate agent credentials are as many estate agents finding it tough.  Those consultants taking the high ground, moving into value based services, true consultancy are still struggling to differentiate themselves as ‘real’ standards and qualifications are difficult to measure and police.  That external badge of quality that other professions enjoy.

A while ago I decided to put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to be a Regional Director for REC. I did this as whilst I had been both a corporate and individual member I had been frustrated with a lack of direction locally and hoped I could do better.  Since joining as an individual member REC has redesigned the proposition and launched the Institute of Recruitment Professionals as the first real stake in the ground at creating a tangible trade body with enforceable standards.  Now clearly it is early days and undoubtedly I am biased but surely this is the way to go for recruitment consultants who take this profession seriously?

I am a realist and whilst I know this article won’t be falling on deaf ears I also know there won’t be a stampede to sign up.  So what stops consultants from joining?  Rather than me answering that, let’s get that debate going, what would stop you from joining the trade body that represents the majority of the industry no matter what sector you are in, whether you are a volume temp recruiter or in high fee executive search.  I see this as the only way to go if we really want to raise standards and have ethical business practices. Yes the entry point needs to be made tougher (and over time it will be as membership increases) and yes it needs to mean something if people get ejected.  The IRP isn’t perfect, but with increased membership comes scale, momentum and an increase in ideas.

My personal feeling is that we need to do this now, before the good times return, get our house in order whilst we have the chance.  What I would say is that membership is open to all, including in-house recruitment and talent acquisition professionals, many of whom are starting to join the IRP.  Whilst you might not like it, joining the IRP might be the only way to continue a business relationship becoming a badge of entry?

For more information on IRP go to www.rec-irp.uk.com or contact Martin Dangerfield either on 0161 955 3647 or email martin.dangerfield@mckinleyresource.com.  As well as being a Regional Director for the IRP Martin is Director of the search business mckinley|resource, a freelance people consultant specialising in talent attraction, assessment and recruitment and a provider of career and business coaching.  www.martindangerfield.com

UPDATE: There are a couple of threads on the UK Recruiter Discussion Board on the subject of REC/IRP.  The most recent one is REC RIP?.  There is also one that was started back in July: REC - IRP