Blog

I have the privilege of working with some very well respected board directors, commercial directors and owners of some highly sought after construction enterprises, mainly Tier 1’s and PLC’s that many professionals see as a good company to work for in the future at some point in their careers.

But the market is facing a certain issue with some recruiting policies which begin and end during the interview phases:

Unfortunately there are far too many variables which apply to an applicant accepting an offer of employment despite the company boasting award-winning status, and offering a first class workplace and business culture for professionals to flourish in their careers. As someone who knows my market incredibly well there is a common pattern amongst many companies today, and that is essentially their hiring strategy.

To expand on this point a little further, prior to a business starting their recruitment process they will have their very own wish-list of what is essential for the role. As a recruiter I thoroughly will respect this and my job role is not to advise my clients necessarily on the criteria in which they seek as they do know what their function requires, however I do advise on trustworthy, tried and tested methods of candidate attraction and procuring candidates who tick all the boxes from my clients perspective.

Why is the recruitment, interviewing process is okay for some professionals, and not for others?

Here is the fundamental difference, a time critical position in the construction industry so often leads to filling an urgent vacancy which results in the appointment of a “temp to perm” or “freelance” applicant, and many companies seem to get this right when they are recruiting on this basis simply due to the desperate urgency for these types of positions. Normally this method of recruitment does not require a contract of employment to go through several key signatories which ultimately delays the process of bringing a new face into the business, so the pleasant matter here is that the applicant generally speaking will receive a purchase order or instruction of some sort (depending on their status as either sole trader or setting up their own LTD company), allowing them to proceed with their services. In other words this is a very quick turn around and within a few months this individual could be potentially working for the company on a permanent basis, who knows.

Unfortunately conversely to that, it can actually take a few months to hire a professional of any level (not including their notice period even) due to some costly mistakes which do tend to hold things up a little longer. A common pattern which I find on a regular basis amongst hiring managers and companies, is that one or two of the first interviewees haven’t been right for the company for whatever reason, it is worth noting the majority of processes do undergo a trial and error period with the strength of candidates being seen for the position, say varying protocol related beliefs, not the right fit for the team etc, following on from this a candidate has then come in and interviewed incredibly well and the hiring manager offers feedback and talks about the candidate being an extraordinary for the position. From the hiring manager’s perspective, they could view this as a position of strength, and now it’s a case of the recruiter interfacing with the candidate to gather their feedback also, hopefully positive. Both parties ultimately happen to share extremely positive feedback and so often the hiring manager at this stage can have a real dilemma on their hands, which results in naturally being overwhelmed when they have a hectic schedule at work as it is.

This particular dilemma relates to a decision required which involves either continuing their interview process (they may have one or two others arranged within a few days or the following week) or they could opt to strike whilst the iron is hot and progress things with the candidate (obviously this could either be a second interview, coffee chat, system training or verbal employment offer etc, very much dependent upon level and type of role). The latter is by far the most effective method in retaining strong enthusiasm and interest from the candidate who fully met the criteria. The risk of taking the first option means that the applicant would have in their back of their minds an element of doubt, perhaps confusion or frustration as to why the company reported such positive remarks but without any action, perhaps demonstrating lack of commitment and a question mark against the company’s statement of intent to progress things or bring them on board. This rarely can be argued and is very often naturally how it portrays to a candidate who was interviewed successfully.

Please note this article is not suggesting that the first option does not ever work however typically if the hiring manager does not “make their move” within 48 hours then the chances of that candidate who was very keen and optimistic about the joining the business will inevitably deteriorate and during that time frame the candidate will return to the market due to the frustration, when prior to this they would have been potentially happy to “remove themselves off of the market”. In essence this is actually when a hiring manager or a company are indeed in a position of strength as the risks of losing a strong candidate are at its minimal peak.

I am not in any way suggesting that offers should be made immediately, as the blueprint of the role may require 3 stage interviews. There is a skills shortage in our industry so there is every chance you will risk losing the candidate either to a counter offer with their current company, or worse, to a competitor who demonstrated the necessary intent and endeavour. The outcome of this common theme is that the company has to continue or re-commence their search, and spend more time on hiring for a role which could have been already secured or one of imminence. This always reverts to “time and money” being squandered.

A recruiter sentiment study as to why most candidates reject an offer?

A recruiter sentiment study has shown that the largest proportion of candidates rejecting an offer was not due to a counter offer which we may all believe, however instead the leading cause of candidate declining an offer was by the candidate accepting another job offer. Notwithstanding that any candidate could be a risk and not end up being the right fit as with anywhere in any discipline, my advice to my clients is to be the ones who get it right and reap the benefits as opposed to missing out to a potential commodity to a competitor.

If you would like to know more about topics such as this or share your own experience, whether you are an employee, candidate, hiring manager, business owner, or even a recruiter then you can contact me on the following, and I would be very happy to hear from you;

Sam Nassiri

NASCO SEARCH

Mobile: 07505 900301

Email: samnassiri@nascosearch.co.uk