Selling the job accurately

Peter Crush

New research suggest some candidates feel recruiters ‘mis-sell’ jobs to them. What can the recruitment agency do about it? Peter Crush finds out

As important dates go, spring 2013 was a significant one for recruiters. It was at this point (for the first time since 2008), that the number of job vacancies broke the mentally significant half-million mark. After years of pain, buoyancy was back.

Finally, it seemed there was something to smile about. And yet, could it be that as recovery returns, there are new problems to face?
One recruiter thinks so. In last month’s Kelly Global Workforce Index was the worrying finding that of people it polled who had changed jobs in the last 12 months, 45% now said they regretted it. And it wasn’t them realising that the grass isn’t always greener either. What makes the findings worrying, it argues, is the fact disgruntled job switchers are pointing the finger firmly at the recruitment
process, claiming the roles they moved into were ‘mis-sold’ to them.

Debbie Pettingill, director, Kelly Services (UK & Ireland) says “misrepresentation of job role or company culture” is causing “dissatisfaction from new hires”. Twenty per cent of people surveyed said their new job was different from what was expected. This included finding the work less challenging than they were led to believe it would be. But is it really so endemic, are agencies or their clients to blame, and what steps should be taken to stop it?

Certainly it’s an issue agencies know is delicate. “As a partner to clients we want to present a role in the best light possible,” admits Kim Williams, director, Lloyd Recruitment. David Waterfield, head of UK recruitment at oil and gas sector specialist Air Energi, adds: “We walk a difficult tightrope because you always have to manage the expectations of two customers – your candidate and your clients’.”
While both distance themselves from saying deliberate mis-selling exists, both say they know candidates who have been left unhappy with their new jobs. They agree agencies must have a greater gatekeeper role.

Williams says: “I’ve seen lots of candidates who have been sold a particular image of a job, often because agencies have felt the pressure simply to fill roles to meet branch targets.” She adds: “For the candidate, though, who’s taken a leap of faith to change roles, this is not helpful. We prefer to think of ourselves as promoters, rather than sellers of a role, and draw a line there rather than at selling or over-selling.”

Simon Conington, managing director of engineering recruitment firm BPS, says agencies simply need to be honest. “We will help with writing job specs, and will obviously want to present a job and a company in the best way we can,” he says. “But we’re careful to draw the line at misleading people, and at the actual engagement phase – actually talking to responding candidates – that’s when we’ll be honest and present the good, the bad and the ugly to people.”

So important is the right match, that increasingly Conington’s consultants now actually sit-in with a client on an interview, to ensure clients chose those with the best fit. “Often a client picks people they like,” he says, “not the people who are most capable, or who will stay, and will fit in. We now sit in on around 70 to 80% of interviews, and we feel it acts as a good safeguard for all concerned. Proof of this is that we have increased retention rates of joiners by 30%.”

Like Conington, Williams says she is able to have some influence writing job descriptions. She says she’s more accurate because she has built long-term relationships with clients, whereby she knows the business well. “We’d change words like ‘fast-growing’ or ‘fast-paced’ – words which are liked by clients, but which if wrong can give people the wrong impression,” she says. “We’ll use ‘established’ [not growing] if that’s the truer picture. Otherwise, a few wrong words can create the wrong impression.”

Clients could well listen to this advice. According to a study this month by Futurestep, job-hunters frequently experience what it calls ‘phantom innovation’ – promises of ‘innovation’ (a word that’s another employer favourite to describe themselves), with 44% of the poll admitting they are “likely” to look around for another role if innovation fails to materialise.

But should blame rest with over-excited clients pushing job descriptions that don’t match reality? Even if it does, argues Christopher Clarke, associate director in private practice at legal recruitment firm RedLaw Recruitment, agencies should still be brave and take it upon themselves to accurately convey the culture of the business.

“In our sector – law – job descriptions are less likely to be sexed up, and they are normally quite functional – including size of the firm, clients, career.” he says.

“That said,” he argues, “candidates should rightly be relying on us to tell them about the job behind the job description – whether, in reality, they will fit in, or whether they’ll really be expected to work excessive hours based on previous placings, or have a poor work-life balance.” He adds: “We’re not afraid of saying this to candidates. It’s about being transparent. If a firm works crazy hours we’ll tell people.”

Where RedLaw is fortunate is that it has plenty of other alternative jobs to offer candidates. “If someone replies to one ad, but we think they’ll fit in better elsewhere, we can channel them to a different client or role.” He adds: “It’s where an agency might only have a few jobs that candidates run the risk of being pushed into those jobs because that’s all there is.”And some fear that as an upturn returns, increased volume means agencies could start cutting corners: “Recruitment is never 100% scientific, but I do fear that as the market picks up, bad practice could start creeping back,” says Conington. Often, clients put pressure onto recruiters to ‘do their job’ and find that perfect person, so cutting corners can driven by client behaviour. So what we as a sector need to do is stand up to clients more and enforce more self-policing.”

And of course, perhaps agencies shouldn’t forget one important thing – the responsibility candidates themselves have to research who they’re likely to be joining too: “People need to do their own homework, and we can’t do it all for them,” says Air Energi’s Waterfield. “However, if we can see they are really unhappy and hope a new role will solve their problem, it’s sill up to us as agencies to recognise this, and be able to give them the full picture.”