Toby’s 3R Rant

About thirty years ago the western world passed laws to stop discrimination in recruitment against older workers, migrants, women, etc. Advertisers are not allowed to put age or gender preferences on ads. They can‘t even do it in a long-winded way by saying, ‘we are seeking a graduate with three or four years of experience’.

So, many people go to a lot of trouble replying, believing they have a chance. Their age is guessed (often wrongly) and they are tossed on the reject pile. Or the employer has to waste 30 minutes going through the rejection process.

What’s wrong with this? We’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds. Discrimination and a huge waste of time and resources.

We just drove the problem underground, we kept it hidden by attacking the symptom (the advertisement) and not the problem (ignorance and fear).

We fail to confront the ignorant and shine a light on their stupidity. They get away with it. Today, tomorrow ….

This should worry all of us,

Cheers, Toby

Imagine a giant fruit and veg market supplying a major city. One that works really badly. Totally sucks.

This market only opens at night and there are no lights to guide the thousands trying to find what they need. It has many hundreds of separate halls, each selling only a few things – some only sell root vegetables, others just stone fruit. And maybe 10 have apples.

Now, you’re trying to find small green cooking apples. One hall, somewhere, has these.

Each of the hundreds of halls is completely separate from all the others and when you go to one, the wholesalers only tell you about what they have to sell.

The people stumbling around in the dark have no idea what they’ll find in each sealed hall until they open the door and walk inside – what a waste of time.

Who owns these ‘halls’ in perhaps the most important market place in any country, the jobs market? Three types exist:

1. Recruitment agencies, there are thousands and each has a few jobs and a few candidates for sale – usually not exclusive to just their agency.
2. The many different newspapers with job ads in particular industries or sectors.
3. Finally, lots of job boards and many community sites that host jobs.

Total chaos.

There is a better market place and it’s here today – one that is brightly lit, fast and user friendly. It’s job boards – monster.com and seek.com.au. They will work if we stop sabotaging them with the thousands of other ‘halls’ that just get in the way.

Without all the clutter of newspaper ads and too many recruiters, you will find the ‘green apple suppliers’ in a few seconds: and then start the real job – spending time finding the best at a good price.

200 Australians have it in their power to make it happen now: the senior people in HR. Maybe a thousand in the United States and the UK, but still a small number of people. Forward this article to them, start making a difference.

Worth it? You do the maths – millions are in the wrong jobs and companies are screaming for skills.

Cheers, Toby

The questions people ask and what they really want to know are 2 different things.

For example, CEOs are regularly asked:

“Are you suffering from a talent shortage? Do you have a skills crisis?”

The answers are overwhelmingly yes. This concerns me because in a previous Rant I argued strongly that there was no scarcity of talent. That there were hundreds of thousands of skilled people looking for work or for more work. In other countries such as the States and the UK these skilled work seekers number in their millions.

So who’s wrong?

Well the Question Behind that Question, what the CEOs were really being asked, was:

“Can you find the resources you need to profitably achieve your business goals?”

Unspoken and unasked it was what the surveys were really trying to find out. And if a big majority answer “Yes” as they have for years, then there’s yet another ‘Talent Crisis’ story in the media.

But asking “Are you suffering from a talent shortage?” has two QBQs:

1. “What is your definition of talent?”
2. “Do you actively recruit from the pools of talented people who are desperate for work? For example older workers, university students, Mums, migrants and expatriates?”

Now if you define talent as Full time; younger than 40; and ‘People Like Us’ ….

Then good luck! You have a talent crisis. That won’t go away.

It’s surprising how many companies follow this narrow definition of talent while paying lip service to being more flexible. Their HR policies say what should be done – but for diverse reasons the people that matter, those making the hiring decisions, ignore them.

Now I’m a simple soul. I see hundreds of thousands of people who are seeking work, better work or just more work. And they are desperate and often bewildered - why can’t they get jobs they know they can do when there is supposed to be a skills crisis?

It was only when I learnt of the QBQ concept that I finally saw a simple way to explain the disconnect between the CEO surveys and the reality of abundant talent.

Now recruiting in these huge under-employed pools requires more than paying lip service to equal opportunity laws. It requires CEOs to address the real question and understand the real problem – HR cannot do it alone.

It requires new skills and focus.

Abacus has had those skills and focus for years,

Cheers, Toby

The sales pitch for giant Cane Toad Ads comes down to one word: Browsers.

The salesmen masquerading as your consultant then attempt to convince you that that newspapers will deliver them. Which brings us to the ‘browser’ sales pitch:

I learnt this pitch 19 years ago when I worked at a giant recruiter with hundreds of ‘consultants’: it was drummed into us at the weekly sales meetings. We were made to practice it on each other and in front of the mirror. You had better believe that this pitch is the foundation stone of Australia’s major recruitment firms.

The pitch is simple, plausible and seemingly valid: people read the front of the newspaper, and their eye is caught by an advertisement so they become interested in it and apply. They are argued to be better applicants because they are more likely to be happy in their current job and therefore likely to be good at what they do. And of course, would not see jobs where active job seekers go to look - online or in classifieds.

Who could argue with something so self-evident??

No surprises that I’ll have a go. There are 3 counter arguments that rubbish the whole sales pitch:

Firstly one that came to me at 4.30 a.m. on a recent Cold August Night, the hour when all good ideas roam in a fevered brain. In the 3 years since I wrote a version of this Rant in my book, Get Great People, I had thought there were only 2 main counter arguments. This final one is the Big Momma - the last and very large nail in what is now virtually a metal coffin:

That we have moved to a world of Free Agents and the Internet. Where people manage and assess their careers constantly (even if usually not particularly well!). A world where people under 40 (Gen x and Gen Y) consider themselves independent of their employers, even if they enjoy their jobs. That they have a life outside work, or in more extreme cases, that they have a life, and work is just a small component of that. Something that many of us Boomers have also come to believe and live our lives by.

In this world, the Free Agents browse 10 or 20 or a 100 websites a week (even I, a geriatric, am on at least 20 different sites every week). And one of the sites they go to is MyCareer, Seek or Monster. Just for a look. To keep in touch. Because you never know. And what about all those niche job boards attached to professional forum sites: LOTS of browsers on those. And what about the snowballing LinkedIn and Facebook and all the other social networking sites. Full of browsers. Full of recruiters.

And because it is so easy to apply for jobs with just a few clicks they are more likely to make an enquiry than that browser reading the paper in a cafe or their garden.

Now, if the price was about the same, the ad salesman just might have a point. But we are talking chalk and cheese on cost. Not in the same ball park. A hundred dollars versus many thousands.

So, you tell me:

Who are the browsers? Where are the browsers? And, in particular, where do the browsers go, who in this ageist world, are the most sought after by employers? Reckon there are way more of these valuable young applicants on the job boards and social network sites than there are reading the Early General News in the Saturday papers.

Maybe the ad salesman is looking a bit like a seller of dodgy cars - even before we get to the other two reasons ….

Secondly, we read the Saturday pages ‘eyes up’.

If there were only 2 or 3 job ads on a page, and they were designed to attract the eye, no problem attracting eyeballs. That’s the argument of all advertising agencies and media sales people and it’s completely valid.

With recruitment, all the ads are in a block at the bottom of the page. Or, even worse, they are on a whole page by themselves when you get towards the back! Great for browsers!

I can remember the incredible hubris one Friday when I was at a Mega Firm and we had sold a whole broadsheet page of ads - it was all us! We were so proud! We were the champions! But hey, didn’t we forget something: what sort of insane browser browses a whole page of ads!? Maybe a desperate job seeker?

The ads are all the same size and all look pretty much the same - even better they are now in color so stand out like the proverbial dog ba.ls. They are also conveniently located in the bottom half of the paper - so handy for folding the broadsheet in half as I lie in my deckchair on Saturday morning!

So after 30 years of such ads, those browsers know where the ads are - they know to keep their eyes focused on the top of the page. That is where they find what they are looking for: something interesting to read.

I don’t have any major research to quote, but I have talked to a lot of people - it is quite common to read the Saturday papers ‘eyes up’. Don’t you?

Thirdly, the Saturday papers are now conveniently divided into sections.

The sections help readers find the bits they want to read. And in what order they want to read. And of course it helps in selling ads to particular demographics (now there’s a thought: recruiters could place ads in sections that attract who they are trying to employ?!)

With the sections, many of us have developed very idiosyncratic ways of reading. Take how I read the Saturday SMH (apologies for those who don’t live in Sydney):

I start with the front page; quick glance at the back page for some scurrilous gossip; Mike Carlton and Peter Fitzsimons for a laugh; rugby news; the rest of News Review; Spectrum; and sometimes the Good Weekend. And finally, if I get through all that, I turn to the news bits where the recruitment ads are - pages 2 to about 20 - and religiously keep my eyes up. But most weekends I don’t get to it.

Again, no research on readership that I can quote, just an informal survey of professionals; but it is common practice to read selectively. Of course the newspapers do lots of market research, which lead them to create sections in the first place.

So, three strong reasons that rubbish the browser sales pitch - just tell the advertising salesman masquerading as a consultant to go and spin his B.S. to someone else.

Love to hear your stories of ‘consultants’ trying to sell you ads. Or, even better, a recruiter defending them!

Cheers, Toby

P.S. For more on this topic and some wonderful examples of the behaviour it drives

Corruption hunters follow the money trail. They learn who benefits. They explore how far the corrupt will go to protect their scams.

It’s the same with unprofessional behaviour and secret commissions ….

Bob’s story

Bob runs a great manufacturing and exporting business but his accounting affairs got a bit complicated recently, so he decided to get a top flight accountant to sort out the mess – he went to Simon, a partner of a Big 4 Firm. Simon charges like a wounded bull but it’s a big prestigious firm so Bob decided he must be worth it.

Simon recommended some software as essential to solving Bob’s problems, and while it’s WAY more expensive than all the competing products, Simon said it’s the best. It added $12,000, about 40% to Simon’s quote which didn’t thrill him. But what Bob knows about accounting is not worth knowing – Simon’s the expert so he signed the cheque.

Would Simon’s advice have been accepted if Bob knew Mega Firm was trousering 25% of the $12,000? And Simon was personally putting an extra thousand in his own pocket?

Might Bob have explored the alternative products, most costing less than 10% of Simon’s?

Undisclosed commissions are considered dodgy in the accounting profession – but are everyday practice in recruitment.

When a recruitment consultant from a big firm says that solving your problem will need an advertisement at the front of the newspaper that costs $12,000, the reaction of most employers is like Bob’s: It’s a lot of money but he’s the expert and good people are hard to find. Better write a cheque.

And yes Josephine, recruiters do take commissions for selling ads – they buy wholesale and sell at retail. And some have used dummy invoices to conceal the practice from their clients. And some firms have paid their ‘consultants’ up to a $1000 for selling them.

Does that motivate the ‘consultant’ to hard sell an ad? Maybe a little.

What about if their commission structure was linked to selling 3 ads every quarter – and they stood to make an extra $10,000 or even $20,000 a year if they sell them?

How much pressure will the ‘consultant’ put on their client to buy an ad when they are one ad short of their quarterly quota? With THOUSANDS riding on it? The client will feel some heat. Lots. (To feel the pressure, read all about Friday Night Specials - go to the end of the article that opens)

In the big firms, nearly ALL their strategic focus is on selling the giant ads which gives millions a year in free publicity.

But hey, it’s not free publicity! They make a cash profit!

So you’d better believe they care. Reminds me of a pride of lions - with the dominant firms holding the front of the paper (the high ground). The young males constantly challenge them for the prize, inching closer to the front of the paper (the front is better than sex for these lions!).

It’s full on warfare - has been for about 30 years. Winners: large recruiters. Losers: employers!

Their position at the front of the paper underpins everything the big firms do. It gets them huge profile and market position. All paid for by naive clients who believe the ads are useful as an expert told them.

No. Just a salesman.

WHY ARE THE GIANT ADS THE SAME AS THE CANE TOADS that have invaded Australia? They are ….

Bloated, ugly, destructive and shouldn’t blo.dy well exist!

My argument against Cane Toad Ads?

They don’t work; they only benefit the big recruitment firms; they damage our economy; ruin careers and damage lives; and they promote unprofessional behaviour due to the secret commissions paid.

Why don’t they work? We’ll cover that in the next Rant, just assume they don’t for the moment - but if you really need to know, the reasons are here.

Why do they cause so much damage? Well, newspaper ads fragment the market in an area where the internet is perfect for the INITIAL matching of people to jobs. Fragmenting makes it more inefficient so companies find it harder to find people. And people find it harder to find better jobs.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE THEORY OF MARKET PLACES. An efficient one always has lots of buyers and sellers in one place.

Now this is complicated to explain in a Rant (for a fuller but still simple explanation), but here’s the Very Simple Guide: Think about a boat show – like the one in Sydney at the moment. Not surprisingly, they put all the boats in one place, Darling Harbour.

Imagine the chaos if we scattered them over 10 different locations, with a random mixture of different boats at each?

Well, that’s recruitment. Twenty or more different ‘market places’ for each type of job including: newspapers, large recruitment firms and the internet. The only place ads should be is the internet – and Cane Toads are the main blockage to this efficient market.

Do you think big recruiting firms would spend so much time and money pushing Cane Toads if their rewards weren’t huge?

Come on HR! There are better uses for your company’s money. Stopping the Cane Toad Gravy Train is a giant stride towards making the recruitment industry more effective.

So far there is no magic bullet for real Cane Toads – but their is for the recruiting equivalent. A bullet a mere 200 people have and can fire at will.

Who? The 200 HR managers in the organisations who buy Cane Toad Ads.

Just say no. Today.

It’s worth billions to our economy. And a huge growth in happiness.

Cane Toad Ads are a naked, very ugly emperor with no reason to keep living.

Humans are animals and animal behaviour is hard wired and mostly predictable. One behaviour in particular:

People always choose the easiest way to get what they need. Which doesn’t mean our needs can’t be complex or irrational or altruistic. Just that given a choice we always choose the easiest path.

Now job seekers who have had 40 unreturned phone calls would argue, but recruiters are human beings. They will find and choose the easiest path to make the money to feed their kids and to support their favourite charity.

The point of this Rant is to look at the way most employers work with recruiters: They brief 3 recruiters for the same job.

What the recruiters then do is totally predictable: All 3 focus on the low hanging fruit, the active job seekers who are doing the rounds of recruiters and applying to ALL the online job ads. They are easy to find, and each firm races to put ads up so they can find them first. The screening can be quite perfunctory as the race is to get their resumes in first.

Why is it predictable that they do this? They are all on contingent fees, so get your agency brand onto the person who is hired and it is $20000, lose the race and it’s a big fat nothing.

That’s the first hard wired, predictable behaviour. The second is the bit that seems to baffle many employers and HR managers.

None of the 3 recruiters will invest the 3 to 4 days of hard work to dig out some high hanging, quality fruit as they have only about a 20% chance of getting paid for their efforts.

Why just 20%? Because after a week of talking to candidates, other agencies have heard of the role, and they have talked to some other low hangers. And because there is sometimes an internal candidate who gets the job or perhaps the position is restructured.

As pointed out in last week’s Rant, any experienced recruiter can dig out candidates if they put the time in. Predictably they won’t bother if you brief more than one firm. Would you in their shoes? Employers think they are ‘testing the full market’ or ‘keeping the recruiters honest’.

No. Just predictably not getting value. And wasting a lot of their time looking at candidates who only barely match the brief but have been put forward because the agency wants that $20000.

Next Week - there is no next week! We are going fortnightly, and the next post is:

“9 Hard Questions to Uncover a Recruiter Worth Partnering With”

Cheers, Toby

It’s a hot February night in 1994 and a bunch of recruiters are drowning their sorrows in a bar overlooking the Sydney Opera House.

It had been a long day at a Human Resources conference where the last session was on ‘Working with Recruiters’. This had morphed into ‘Let’s bash Recruiters’ – 3 senior HR managers politely but bluntly dumping on the industry.

One sorrow drowner was an industry veteran and Peter said something 14 years ago that stayed with me:

“Most employers see our role as just finding people – simply sending in resumes. The real value we could provide is reducing the RISK of making a wrong hire.
But in our industry 95% of recruiters offer their services for free so employers don’t know this is an option. That this is a service that could be included for the same price they ultimately pay.
It’s very hard to sell our services and seek a commitment when employers can just ring these contingent recruiters, pay them nothing and they start work. But as we know, such recruiters work for themselves and not in partnership with their clients - it’s all about the fees.
The big firms attract a lot of candidates because of those giant advertisements their clients pay for. So they are good at getting candidates and sending them out to many clients at once.
No wonder recruiting has such a bad reputation!”

We returned to our drinks and frustration, but those words stuck as they explained the problem so neatly.

Size mattered 14 years ago but here’s the thing …..

Online a small recruitment firm is now as big as it wants to be. If you can work the search engines and networking sites and specialise in a field, you can compete with the big firms. Boutiques can just as easily find candidates.

In this brave new world, what do employers REALLY need from recruiters?

They need a warts and all discussion of the shortlist and advice on who is really the best candidate. But employers get unbiased advice only if their recruiter gets paid something regardless of who gets hired or even if no-one does.

You don’t pay your accountant or architect contingently, why is a recruiter so different?

Well there is often a good reason - many are just sales people and expert advice is beyond them. How to find those who don’t just sell bodies is next week’s Rant. It’s certainly not the ‘English backpacker’ who is so pervasive and damaging in our industry: their motto is “sell hard, not here next year to clean up the mess!”

The world has changed and there are more recruiters who work in partnership with their clients. There are MANY more who would like to help their clients reduce the risks of hiring the wrong person – they know hiring is hard and teamwork is critical.

Employers now have the choice to work this way. To decide not to brief multiple agencies for a single job (we’ll look at how that destroys your Employment Brand in a future Rant).

Why pay for a service and get less than half of it? In fact, why pay the entire fee when the person starts – what about the recruiter holding some back for retention? Abacus does this – why don’t more employers demand it?

Next Week: Recruiters who don’t just throw bodies – how do you find them?

What’s your view of younger workers. Our research shows most employers think they are disloyal, demanding, impatient job hoppers (and that’s ignoring the expletives).

Positive (?) comments include “Great if you can keep them”.

Why so negative about the young? It seems to be a combination of:

• Not understanding their major difference to previous generations: they will walk from bad jobs much faster than Boomers.
• Easy excuse for employers to cover up their mismanagement; and for recruiters to cover their mistakes with “Well, you know what Gen Y is like. They just won’t stick with a job!”
• And just because every generation in history has done it (And why not? They have youth. They deserve it!)

Does it matter that we demonise them? Well, yes.

• Employers are less keen to hire them, contributing to the (perceived) skills shortage
• It excuses employers from addressing the real issues of why they leave

Now, modern society is great at creating a ‘syndrome’ and then sticking a catchy label on it. A consulting industry grows up to fix that syndrome. So now we have Gen Y experts who will come and sort you out - for a nice fee naturally!

What a waste of money. With managing Gen Y, knowing just one thing is critical: they want the same things from a job as everybody else. It took some public humiliation for me to understand this ….

Last year in a hotel down on the Yarra I was on my feet in front of 45 HR Managers imparting wisdom about recruitment. I get to the module ‘Creating jobs Gen Y want’ and deliver my first pearl of wisdom.

A grizzled old HR manager interjected “But I want that in my work, so what’s different?” I made my 2nd point and he did it again.

It took 3 interjections for the penny to drop. Age doesn’t matter, we all want the same things from a job.

What may vary is how much of each ‘bit’ we want - the relative weighting we put on it. For example, the young seek more fun at work than Boomers as they don’t separate their work and social life as much. Also, what each see as fun differs a little, but fun remains key to both groups.

So, they essentially want the same things from a job as the oldies - however, there is one BIG difference that really damages employers, that leads to the demonisation ….

They won’t put up with being badly treated at work. Unlike boomers, they are out the door, fast.

The flip side of this is one of the great things about Gen Y: manage them well and they are amazing. The forces that shaped them when they grew up means they only know change and it doesn’t scare them; and of course, new technology is second nature. Two major hurdles for the rest of us in today’s world.

In the professional world, our first, and most expensive, exposure to the Ys is when they graduate and start work. This is where your money hits the road – our next Rant is about why Graduate recruitment is such a mess.

What’s the best way to learn how to manage young graduates and get them to stay? Hire them while they are still at Uni and give them real jobs that help to make your company money. Jobs where they learn what you do, and build relationships with your people. Jobs that are boring sometimes, but not compared to burgers or other menial jobs. Give them the same work when they are graduates (costing your company about $100,000 a year) and watch them get bored and walk.

At Abacus we have specialised in the area of part-time undergraduate recruitment in professional jobs. It is a better, lower risk way of hiring graduates. And a low cost, productive resource for your team. We call them SMARTS.

To learn more: http://www.abacusrecruit.com.au/smarts.pdf

So what do Gen Y want? Well, what we all want from jobs, but they actually expect it and walk without it.

Accused by Boomers with being demanding and fragile, it’s more that they value feedback and input. It’s not that they are slackers or easily distracted as much as they want to enjoy work, and they value lifestyle and balance. Also, they are on-line a lot. There is a real blur between their social and work lives, both online and offline.

Now, you can’t give them everything that we discuss below: some of these are privileges to be earned, they are not a right. A critical part of managing the young is about controlling their expectations. And managing them well and keeping them with you and productive is rarely about the money.

The specifics:

• They want a workplace where they can belong, which is stress-free and social. One which values the triple bottom line - not just profits, but also the environment and people (socio-economic concerns).
• Make the workplace fun: perhaps a relaxed dress code, fun photo boards/noticeboards, regular celebrations (birthdays, achievements, new clients), supporting their favourite charities etc.
• They don’t respond well to a lot of rules, managers who say “because I said so” or “that’s how we do it here”, who don’t say thank you enough, or sterile, lifeless offices.
• Training that helps their career not just the work they are doing for you; meetings where they can participate, interact - and have some food.
• They value feedback: from handwritten notes or cards (unusual, so it stands out), non-cash rewards (movie tickets, itunes vouchers etc) to formal recognition (certificates, references). Negative feedback? Absolutely; but always constructive, ask permission to give it and do it immediately so it’s relevant.

The reality: There will always be lower retention rates for this generation but it can be improved.

Some tips for improving retention and keeping them for the long haul:

Accessibility: take the mystery out of how you make decisions – the young grew up in smaller families where they were involved in family decisions. They expect it.

Variety: give junior staff greater responsibility and more variety in their work. For example, let them manage a project such introducing a new piece of software; give presentations; and organise staff events (they’ll do stuff they enjoy – get used to it!).

Understand the revolving door: if they leave for a new job, or further study: keep in touch - they may want to return. They rejoin you with new experience plus both sides know each other – great for your productivity. Always allow for the big overseas trip: applies to Australians as well as most European countries: let them go, welcome them back with a gift. The ones that travel are often the very best.

A final comment: young people now travel in packs, with highly developed networks and a strong sense of individual and group identity. They have a strong personal brand. Your employer brand must recognize, accept and embrace this.

…..

12 Self Evident Propositions

Preamble ….

• Yes, there are minor exceptions to each Proposition.
• Yes, each could be expressed more tactfully and qualified with more words (as I have in my books and media articles).
• But words just remove the spotlight from the significant problems of a self-serving industry. Direct and blunt is harder to ignore.

The Propositions:

1. That there are only small pockets of skills scarcity. Six powerful groups continuously promote a Skills Crisis for their own self interest. However, there is scarcity if you continue to follow most other employers and do what has failed in the past – insanity says Einstein.
2. That there are major untapped and ignored pools of talent which are often discussed in the media. However, just knowing they exist and paying lip service to hiring from them will not get an employer the best from any pool: it requires focus and changes to your processes.
3. That people who are paid on commission focus on money. A commission sales person is not an advisor or consultant. How your suppliers are remunerated matters if you want uncompromised advice to achieve your goals.
4. That virtually all recruitment ‘consultants’ are paid by commissions. Even recruiters who are paid a base ‘salary’ – given their performance is only judged by the revenue they produce, the ’salary’ is just an advance on their commission cheque. They remain commission sales people.
5. That recruitment has a huge staff turnover (ironic given their role) because recruiters who can’t generate sales don’t survive. Turnover matters as employers need advice to hire well – but many in the industry are inexperienced with no time to learn skills.
6. That recruiters have the ability to improve the perceived quality of their product and can unethically profit from it. It simply involves not revealing something negative about ‘their’ candidate, something they can later deny knowing about. Clearly large commissions payable the day the candidate starts work severely aggravates this problem.
7. That the recruitment industry is remunerated by a candidate joining an employer so it’s what they focus on. Their earnings are unaffected by how long the employee stays.
8. That the guarantees provided by the industry are virtually worthless. Their fee was paid, now they have to replace for free. In a world where there are thousands of recruiters and many thousands of potential clients, lip service is often paid to the hard task of replacement.
9. That large, expensive advertisements in the front of newspapers primarily benefit the recruitment firms. The money trail always reveals the truth: Some big recruitment firms pay substantial cash incentives to staff for selling ads. It’s not altruism but clever commercial logic that disregards the needs of their clients who pay for their PR.
10. That the majority of career advice is delivered by those who the public believe are the experts - recruiters. But they are people with an agenda. Whose advice is often tainted by blatant self interest (big dollars if the person takes their client’s job) and often by ignorance and inexperience (high staff turnover). The cost to people’s wealth and happiness is colossal.
11. That the anti-discrimination laws passed more than 20 years ago made discrimination on age and gender worse. The laws drove the problem underground – it was removed from advertisements, so ‘undesirables’ were encouraged to apply but then they were quietly and discreetly weeded out. So now we have both discrimination and a huge waste of time for both employers and applicants.
12. That virtually any employer, small or large, can find star employees if they follow some simple processes and ‘think different’.

The Goals of the Recruitment Manifesto

• For the majority of recruitment firms to become ethical professionals who work in partnership with their clients and be rewarded for services rendered and retention

• For people to manage their careers and find rewarding employment with less hindrance from ignorance, greed, prejudice and poor information flows

• For good employers to learn of recruitment firms that follow a different model – one based on retention, professional salaries and ethics.

The Methodology to Achieve the Goals

• Bringing the secretive and self serving recruitment industry practices into the bright light of day

• Promoting the internet as the best method of matching people to jobs – and clearing transaction driven recruitment agencies and newspapers out of the way

Providing the information and resources that employers and employees need to make good, informed decisions