Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was WHEN they were called that was improper. Read my post. And then read the two responses posted after yours. I get called by head hunters every other week. If they were calling my references before even an interview every week I would no longer have any references.
I disagree. Recruiters are REPRESENTING YOU to their clients, who expect them to vet the people they send on interviews. If they aren't verifying your work history and the references you provided, they aren't doing their job for their corporate clients. They're in the middle working for job seekers AND employers. I have an inkling a significant number of people lie, or at least exaggerate their qualifications, to recruiters. If I were a recruiter (and I'm not), I wouldn't take the chance of sending someone to an interview who might not be all they claimed to be. That's a sure way to lose their contacts.
Even if you do "get called by head hunters every other week," it's not productive to work with them all. Pick a good one and stick with them if you're looking for a new job. And if you're not looking for a new job, why are you wasting everyone's time? Not only should you step back and allow a head hunter to check you out, you should be investigating the qualifications of the head hunters you work with.
I've grown very frustrated with recruiters. They almost never lead to job interviews, and they just usually waste my time so they can brag about how many resumes they forwarded to the employer. I just had once call me about a job I applied to that is far away. We had a phone interview and then he asked me for my references. I hesitantly gave them to him, and he reassured him that I would be sent for an in person interview if they checked out.
Of course he also wants a Skype interview, and already called my references. I'm kind of ticked off. My references are busy and are probably assuming I was getting a job offer, but now I have to do a skype interview and then maybe get an in person interview. If I don't get an in-person interview, I am going to be furious that he bothered my references. If I could do it over again, I would probably tell him thanks but no thanks.
they wont even be given my references until after the interview. No, most cant be trusted.
Internal recruiters don't play these games. I don't care for outsourced recruiters. Back when my husband was considering changing jobs he had responded to three or four "headhunter" emails that asked for updated resumes and references including one managerial person and he decided not to include any. Every single one replied back with "please resubmit with references". Once submitted, he only heard back from one of them. I guess these people like to collect resumes and phone numbers. That will never happen again.
It sounds to me like the third party facilitated recruitment process is a triple handshake wherein everyone has needs. It seems reasonable to me that this dynamic should be acknowledged by all involved, and the process optimized so that no one's needs are ignored. Denial of this dynamic speaks negatively toward the party who irrationally prioritizes their needs as the most important, and thus it is rational that the other parties are henceforth suspicious about that party's competence in upholding other forms of social contract.
The applicant needs to maintain the motivation of his or her hard won references to act as such. This is important. It's not a minor need, and it is especially not minor to them when they are being treated similarly by a variety of recruiters.
The party that is seeking employees needs applicants that are vetted enough to warrant an interview.
The third party recruiter needs to fulfill their contract to the employer to provide a vetted stream of applicants that are qualified enough to warrant a first interview.
The only logical solution is that pre-first interview applicants need to be vetted in a manner that does not include calling their references. The alternative ignores the primary need of the applicant. In a job market wherein there are a lot of qualified applicants, perhaps the employer and recruiter could get away with ignoring his primary need of the applicant. However, it sounds like the qualified pool of applicants is often not deep, and so it is irrational for the employer and recruiter to demand this concession of applicants. They simply do not often have the leverage in the handshake, assuming that the position needs to be filled. Applying leverage to ignore one party's needs, even when one can, still doesn't form the best foundation for a future relationship.
I know that this behavioral template is a mere toy, divorced from how people will actually behave in this circumstance, but I think that it's valid in theory.
It sounds to me like the third party facilitated recruitment process is a triple handshake wherein everyone has needs. It seems reasonable to me that this dynamic should be acknowledged by all involved, and the process optimized so that no one's needs are ignored. Denial of this dynamic speaks negatively toward the party who irrationally prioritizes their needs as the most important, and thus it is rational that the other parties are henceforth suspicious about that party's competence in upholding other forms of social contract.
The applicant needs to maintain the motivation of his or her hard won references to act as such. This is important. It's not a minor need, and it is especially not minor to them when they are being treated similarly by a variety of recruiters.
The party that is seeking employees needs applicants that are vetted enough to warrant an interview.
The third party recruiter needs to fulfill their contract to the employer to provide a vetted stream of applicants that are qualified enough to warrant a first interview.
The only logical solution is that pre-first interview applicants need to be vetted in a manner that does not include calling their references. The alternative ignores the primary need of the applicant. In a job market wherein there are a lot of qualified applicants, perhaps the employer and recruiter could get away with ignoring his primary need of the applicant. However, it sounds like the qualified pool of applicants is often not deep, and so it is irrational for the employer and recruiter to demand this concession of applicants. They simply do not often have the leverage in the handshake, assuming that the position needs to be filled. Applying leverage to ignore one party's needs, even when one can, still doesn't form the best foundation for a future relationship.
I know that this behavioral template is a mere toy, divorced from how people will actually behave in this circumstance, but I think that it's valid in theory.
it is valid, and how I've removed myself from several of these situations. I think the recruiters don't realize that they are pushing good candidates away. But its sad they don't understand it enough. Not surprising if many of them are from other countries that don't understand our culture anyway.
I disagree. Recruiters are REPRESENTING YOU to their clients, who expect them to vet the people they send on interviews. If they aren't verifying your work history and the references you provided, they aren't doing their job for their corporate clients. They're in the middle working for job seekers AND employers. I have an inkling a significant number of people lie, or at least exaggerate their qualifications, to recruiters. If I were a recruiter (and I'm not), I wouldn't take the chance of sending someone to an interview who might not be all they claimed to be. That's a sure way to lose their contacts.
Even if you do "get called by head hunters every other week," it's not productive to work with them all. Pick a good one and stick with them if you're looking for a new job. And if you're not looking for a new job, why are you wasting everyone's time? Not only should you step back and allow a head hunter to check you out, you should be investigating the qualifications of the head hunters you work with.
Headhunters(external) ask for references for no other reasons than to make sales calls. For every job available if the job uses headhunters there will be 4 or 5 headhunters trying to place someone. You would be a fool to go with the one that asked for references.
And as FYI to the OP I've been asked for references, refused and still interviewed with the client.
And the rest of your post is not good advice. Different headhunters will have different jobs, so why on earth would you pick one and just stick with them?
Headhunters(external) ask for references for no other reasons than to make sales calls. For every job available if the job uses headhunters there will be 4 or 5 headhunters trying to place someone. You would be a fool to go with the one that asked for references.
And as FYI to the OP I've been asked for references, refused and still interviewed with the client.
And the rest of your post is not good advice. Different headhunters will have different jobs, so why on earth would you pick one and just stick with them?
He called at least one reference. As far as I know, it was not a "sales call."
He called at least one reference. As far as I know, it was not a "sales call."
He called the reference...for a sales call. Asking if he had any hiring needs etc etc. And I'm sure this reference will get a call every 2-3 months asking this same question, and the reference will be very hesitant to be a reference for the OP again because he does not want to get bombarded with recruiters hitting him up for business.
It sounds to me like the third party facilitated recruitment process is a triple handshake wherein everyone has needs. It seems reasonable to me that this dynamic should be acknowledged by all involved, and the process optimized so that no one's needs are ignored. Denial of this dynamic speaks negatively toward the party who irrationally prioritizes their needs as the most important, and thus it is rational that the other parties are henceforth suspicious about that party's competence in upholding other forms of social contract.
The applicant needs to maintain the motivation of his or her hard won references to act as such. This is important. It's not a minor need, and it is especially not minor to them when they are being treated similarly by a variety of recruiters.
The party that is seeking employees needs applicants that are vetted enough to warrant an interview.
The third party recruiter needs to fulfill their contract to the employer to provide a vetted stream of applicants that are qualified enough to warrant a first interview.
The only logical solution is that pre-first interview applicants need to be vetted in a manner that does not include calling their references. The alternative ignores the primary need of the applicant. In a job market wherein there are a lot of qualified applicants, perhaps the employer and recruiter could get away with ignoring his primary need of the applicant. However, it sounds like the qualified pool of applicants is often not deep, and so it is irrational for the employer and recruiter to demand this concession of applicants. They simply do not often have the leverage in the handshake, assuming that the position needs to be filled. Applying leverage to ignore one party's needs, even when one can, still doesn't form the best foundation for a future relationship.
I know that this behavioral template is a mere toy, divorced from how people will actually behave in this circumstance, but I think that it's valid in theory.
The real issue is that recruiters generally don't have the technical knowledge to tell if candidates are actually BS-ing them in the first place. Like I have said in other threads, sometimes they need to be specifically spoon fed things.
So, they feel they need to call references before hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
