Would You Call This a Professionally Well Handled Hiring Exrcise?
More than a question this is a case study for headhunters, employers, HR professionals and Management Consultants to solve...
A once reputed business organization is doing badly despite a buoyant market. Seeks a new MD through an exclusive mandate to an equally good head hunter. The headhunter zeros in on an industry professional with proven 'turn around' track record and calls him down for a meeting with Chairman.
In preparation for the meeting the prospective MD does an intensive home work on a SWOT for the company detailing its Share Value Pattern, Market Share / Opportunities, Possible revival strategies and suggested Action plan/s.
The Chairman (says he) is highly impressed by this no obligation analysis which was discussed in a high profile closed door meeting over an hour and a half. They close on a positive note and agree to meet again within a short period. The headhunter congratulates the candidate.
Two months pass. Not a word from either the company or the headhunter. He has an equally exciting alternate offer but thinks it prudent to check with the headhunter / company before signing up. Surprisingly e-mails / SMSs get no response one way or the other, from either. He signs up the alternate offer but out of curiosity checks the share value as on date. It’s gone down 17% since the date of meeting.
- Had they hired someone else or was the exercise motivated at getting inputs
- Was the candidate off beam in wasting his time over the analysis?
- Is it OK for a head hunter to ignore a status enquiry from a prospective MD under the shelter of industry adage ‘only successful candidates will be contacted’?
- Did the company and headhunter feel embarrassed to reveal the truth behind this drama, if it was one?
Answers (25)
Feedback should have been provided or at least a courtesy call/email to update on status. We, as in HR, Recruiters & Clients, have to remember that candidates have other opportunities going on and we should respect that they need an answer. Whether that be yes, no, or maybe. It is still giving the candidate the right to make their own decision.
Clarification added May 20, 2008:
Also, the candidate should not be hesistant to check in. If they do it frequently that is one thing, but 1 or 2 emails/calls to update are fine.
No, it's not a professional way for a headhunter or an organization to treat a potential client/candidate. However, many times situations like this are not the desired outcome of the company or the headhunter. In some recruiting/headhunting agencies the way that the organization is structured doesn't give the headhunter the time to get back to people. The recruiting or headhunting agency is designed to be a turn & burn organization where they are betting on the fact that people's desire to work and the need for a job will out way their poor customer service. I would recommend to anyone that is going to consider using an agency to do their homework to make sure they know who they are interacting with. They are not all the same.
I would think that the Head Hunter as a professional should have the ability to give the right feedback to the candidate even if the company has not given one back to the headhunter.
I think the candidate in this situation has delivered rightly as is expected to deliver to the best of your ability in an interview your perspectives of a situation analysis.
There is a possibility that it could be a drama, that one can eventually find out if they have hired another candidate in the position of the MD thru your own sources.
Regards,
Bela
Been on the receiving end of this phenomenon. It's pretty infuriating especially if at the onset the urgency is like they needed you 6 months ago and then suddenly total silence after a totally inspiring interview.
One instance was a 3 hour interview with 5 interviewers asking everything from Operations, Project Management and Client Management with a welcome on board we will send you the official offer in 4 weeks - then 3 months later you find out someone else got the job because the employer did not properly understand the clients needs.
Where was the we're sorry to inform you? And this is a MNC we are talking about in an extremely niche market - very disappointing.
I think the candidate at least deserves to know the potential employer has changed their minds despite initially giving affirmative indications. People who are looking to move are looking specifically and want to give their best not be left wondering what was the flaw in the whole exercise on their part.
First of all the behaviour of the employer or recruiter is totally unethical and unacceptable and but is usual occurance. Reasons could be varied. As in the present situation we are not talking of a normal case. Circumstances with the employer may be beyond the limits of revival for reasons known only to the emploer and he may be hesitent to discuss it in open with an outsider. it may also be due to internal differences with in management. They may be engrossed in some thing much bigger than just revival of the unit, something more pressing, probably, best answer is keeping silent.
Keeping silent means stage of indecision and should not be taken as rejection of candidate. Possibility of the employer being incompetent to hire under such circumstances can also not be ruled out.
The recruiter could be more open under such situations but they have limitation as they have to depend on information made available by the employer. They would not like to project a negative image of their client and also land up with giving wrong information to the candidate. Best answer again is keeping silent and let the candidate take his own decision.
My only answer to your question is the candidate should be prepared for such situations and take well calculated risks in his own decision making. It may just be a good thing that he has not been rejected and also did not land in a situation which would harm his carer much more after joning and facing what was absolutely unknowm to him before joining.
Warm regards,
Virender
Alpana L
A-Level Placements&Mgmt.Solutions, alpana@alevelplacements.com or visit me at http://alevelplacements.blogspot.com
I personally feel both, the headhunter as well as the Chairman of the Company are at fault. This calls for a normal courtesy that atleast a candidate should be informed of the outcome of the interview. Its my personal experience that the Companies keep numb on providing the feedback and headhunter has no clue at all as to what to convey to the candidate. I usually take the feedback from the candidate about the interview. How the interview concludes, conveys a lot about the candidate's chances of being considered in the future or not. And believe me, in 90% of the cases it holds to be true.
But yes, the chairman and the headhunter have not handled this case in a professional way of hiring, and especially for the senior positions.
It was brilliant of the candidate to do the necessary preparation for the meeting. How I wish a lot more of them do that...
And needless to say, both the Chairman and the head hunter are on the wrong side of basic etiquettes. The Head Hunter owes it to the candidate ( for the simple reason that it is the head hunter who has made the candidate to take his time out )to be in touch and in case of information not coming from the client , to advice the candidate on further course of action.
There has been a lot of instances when the companies interviewing the candidates refuse to inform the candidate that he has been rejected and resort to "you are kept on hold" story. And also of the interviewers informing the candidate that the HR would get back to him for the next round and in turn tell the consultants that the candidate is in fact rejected...
It would definitely go a long long way if the company and/or the consultant send a nice polished mail to the candidate saying there is a problem of fitment and that let both parties continue with their own ways...
- Had they hired someone else or was the exercise motivated at getting inputs?
It is a public company; if they had hired a managing director it would have been announced.
The possibility of a setup is always there. To assume that the chairman thought all candidates will do such detailed homework and then share the findings is expecting too much.
- Was the candidate off beam in wasting his time over the analysis?
Do not look at it with hind sight. The candidate wanted the assignment and went there in good faith. He did the home work thinking that with this strategy he will land him the job. So the answer is ... No, the candidate was not off beam.
- Is it OK for a head hunter to ignore a status enquiry from a prospective MD under the shelter of industry adage ‘only successful candidates will be contacted’?
It is never okay for a head hunter to ignore his customers. The candidate is as much the HH's customer as the company. In fact the HH will not be successful if he can not identify and engage good candidates.
I would never work with a head hunter with ‘only successful candidates will be contacted' policy.
- Did the company and headhunter feel embarrassed to reveal the truth behind this drama, if it was one?
This one is difficult to answer as full facts are not known. There could be very many reasons:
- Company has serious problems
- Company is going through secret acquisition talks
- Head hunter has been fired
- Board has given the chairman marching orders
.... and so on.
What ever the reason it is highly unprofessional.
Shankar B
Lead Consultant - Strategic Business Initiatives & Innovation at Levi Strauss India Pvt Limited
Best Answers in: Business Plans (1), Starting Up (1)
Unethical behaviour , poor manners and very bad business practice leading to loss of credibility.
The business world is not a very large place in the end and word does definitely get around.
II don't think the candidate wasted his time. he can learn a lot from the interview. It takes a lot of energy to prepare an interview and especially the one you relly want to aim for.
From an ethical point of view and as a respect for the candidate, I find that appalling. Some people sometimes think that because they are in a certain position, they can paly some kind of games with others. So let the game be opened and transparent for all. Why not?
Even if a candidate was not successful, he should be provided with a feedback for his own best interest. As a candidate, we are "supposed" to be the customer and we expect to be treated with respect and dignity.
Unfortunately, the reality is otherwise. You will be amazed at the number of companies and recruiting agencies which don't give any feedback. I went through that and even put myself into question until I met a very nice lady head hunter who was very honest and fair in guiding me.
Sundaresen
Arnab S
Head - Entertainment & Projects at Living Media India Limited
Best Answers in: Advertising (3), Business Development (3), Organizational Development (2), Planning (2), Professional Networking (2), Event Marketing and Promotions (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Lead Generation (1), Sales Techniques (1), Business Analytics (1), Branding (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
A very "regular" occurence, I must admit!
Happened to me too, more than once!
My takes:
- It's most likely that someone else was hired. The objective "was" to appoint a new MD after all. I do not think that the exercise was motivated at getting inputs. At least I'd like to think that way.
There is a definite possibility that the analysis, or at least some part of it, was also used as part of the revival blueprint. But again, there were no obligations & strictly speaking, the chairman was free to do so.
The candidate was absolutely bang-on.
What s/he did was extremely natural for a "good" manager.
S/he let his mind focus on a possible business opportunity, expecting a role in the same.
The closing on a positive note however, may not be very true.
Most "professional" senior managers (chairman in this case) are trained or seasoned to convey "positive" vibes at the end of such interactions, unless a certain meeting goes really bad. This is both "diplomacy & corporate image" objectives.
Headhunters, unfortunately (I have answered on these lines earlier, to sudarshan), almost always fail to convey "bad news".
I haven't understood, till date, why!
As a policy I always make sure that ALL rejected candidates are made aware of the outcome. In many cases, when recruiting senior managers, I even do it myself.
The HH in this case first "congratulates" the candidate & then goes incommunicado! That's not a transparent behaviour at all.
However, there are times when more than one agency is put on a single job. In this case though, that looks very improbable.
Not only has the HH managed to alienate a good resource, it has also managed to harm it's long term business prospects. The candidate after all WAS a senior & likely to be in a decision making position, then or later.
Embarrassed? About what? Don't we all know that we cannot win every time? Yes, we do feel bad when a very "positive" interaction has such a disappointing end or no end as in this case!
Then again, why create bad-blood when there's absolutely no need to?
This is definitely a case of quite an unprofessional, mishandled hiring exercise.
We all seem to be so short-sighted most of the time!
This organisation may soon need to deal with another which has this "candidate" at the helm!
The chairman may willy nilly find himself/herself at the other end of the barrell, sometime later!
Courtesy & ethics cannot afford to take a back-seat, ever!
Arnab S also suggests these experts on this topic:
We do not know here where the bottleneck in providing feedback was (the company or the head hunter). As a recruiter, I see to it that the feedback reaches either the candidate or the headhuter within maximum 48 hours of the interview. It is extremely unprofessional for any organization to witheld the feedback.
In this case, the candidate should have also regularly followed up with the headhunter.
The case here is a ‘standard’ and a common example of unprofessional demeanor practiced both on parts of the organization and the headhunter.
In my experience of being a headhunter, a pontentail candidate and a hiring manager, what has been appreciated most of all these roles was my ability to communicate facts clearly. As a headhunter one needs to play a role of a catalyst and facilitate the hiring process. Its very important to ‘close the loop’ and bring things to a logical conclusion. Agreed, there are uncertain times, things are put on hold etc but these are times when I see the need for the headhunter to play a crucial role by communicating effectively, winning candidates confidence to be able to pick up the threads in the future.
As a potential candidate, one is expected to be informed of the organization that one is aiming to join. And this only helps candidate to improve his marketability during the interview. I am in the job market to explore opportunities and not mere scout around. Since this involves time and money, I treat this with seriousness, and expect the same or less seriousness from people involved. And when I find the basic courtesy lacking, makes me wary of these recruiting agencies and headhunters and there by killing a potential hire for good.
Its not clear in this case, if the organization has given its feedback and the headhunter has been hesitant to convey the same to the candidate for reasons best known to him/her. Since this is a strategic role, and the company is going though troubled times(share value down by 17%), its quite possible that the organization has put the role on hold until things stabilize. I personally think its naïve to think it’s a set up.
In either or all situations, its INDIVIDUALS who make decisions(good or bad) and clear COMMUNICATION with conviction brings credibility to the individuals.
Clarification added May 22, 2008:
The learning points in my opinion here are:
For the Chairman: It is the personal credibility/image of the Organization/chairman and not the candidate's selection or rejection that was vital and missing communication has put a question mark on that.
For the Headhunter: They represent an industry of Recruitment / Executive Search professionals and the remarks here, by some of them above, from all over the world should be taken as a feedback to improve the offerings or else the entire industry looses credibility on account of lack of communication.
For The Candidate: While being proactive by preparing for the meeting what could have also helped was to do a small reference check on the company and the Headhunter before agreeing to a meeting of this importance. It would have been worthwhile to spend some time on personal risk management.
Hope this helps.
Lawrence C
Author and Speaker
Best Answers in: Quality Management and Standards (1), Supply Chain Management (1)
The unresponsiveness of headhunters and corporate HRs is rude but nonetheless out of the job-seekers' control. So leave it alone and find better service elsewhere.
This kind of interview happened to me. A manufacturer of mobility assist vehicles was looking for an industrial engineer. The GM took me to the shop floor to take a look around and ask questions. After less than ten minutes (I knew in seconds what the problems were) he solicited my feedback.
I'm sure he knew the problems as well. They were painfully obvious. The floor layout was highly inefficient and there was WIP everywhere. And I mean HUGE WIP.
So then he starts pumping me for solutions. I told him I would be glad to do that as a paid employee but otherwise my professional services were not free. He promptly ended the "interview". I gladly went home.
It's an unfortunate sucker punch that many interviews are like this. Solicitation of free information is just bad management and poor judgment on the part of the manager who takes the quickly-gained advice. If problems were that simple that a ten minute or even an hour and a half meeting could solve them, then we'd all be filthy rich consultants.
So why did the share value drop 17%? My guess is the company was fishing for a cheap solution and they got exactly what they paid for.
My dear colleagues, we work hard for our reputation, professionalism, experience, and results. Don't give it away except for charitable causes. Otherwise, corporations pay cash.
Lawrence J. Caldwell
Lead System Engineer
Author & Speaker
Links:
Dean E
Operations/Logistics Program Manager at Siemens Government Services
Best Answers in: Exporting/Importing (9), Government Policy (7), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (7), Government Services (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Planning (3), Government Contracts (2), Social Enterpreneurship (2), Supply Chain Management (2), Biotech (2), Using LinkedIn (2), Commercial Real Estate (1), Purchasing (1), Regulation and Compliance (1), Education and Schools (1), Job Search (1), Mentoring (1), Auditing (1), Corporate Taxes (1), Economics (1), International Law (1), Customs, Tariffs and Taxes (1), Employment and Labor Law (1), Labor Relations (1), Manufacturing (1), Packaging and Labeling (1), Personal Taxes (1), Wealth Management (1), Market Research and Definition (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Professional Networking (1), Small Business (1), Green Business (1), Energy and Development (1), Green Products (1), Telecommunications (1), Software Development (1)
Looks like the firm used this as an exercise to get some free consulting.
Should of, would of, could of...not to circumvent your issue Mr Bhan, this is far larger than the issue you have brought to the table...In my humble opinion the issue is one of respect, power positions and interpersonal skills and as you well know is not restricted to the issue of candidates for a particular job posting. This extends into contract bidding, requesting proposals, right down to responding to any type of communication.
All of us on this forum I am sure, have experienced extended work effort within unreasonable time frames with the end result being a range of emotions from disbelief to curiosity including dissappointment and downright anger when the end result of our efforts have not been recognized or in some cases rewarded.Every industry segment could recount these personal horror stories.
For me the biggest loss is the opportunity of receiving feedback so that I can learn and improve whether that be my product or strategy or communication process and how I manage my expectations. Don't misunderstand my comments here for I am not saying this is acceptable to me..it isn't. There is no exception to any situation that any of our colleagues have recounted.
Perhaps it boils down to lessons learned and choosing who I will do business with in the future or perhaps the satisfaction that I produced the best I could, met my standards and that just wasn't what the client was looking for.
I also believe it is just as important for those of us on the receiving end of this unacceptable behaviour to provide professional feedback..for what we permit we promote. I wonder how many of us have taken the time to respond to the perpetrator when the emotion has settled? Just some thoughts...
Regards,
Jo
Susil S. D
Founder & Chief Mall Mechanic™ at Beyond Squarefeet™ Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
Best Answers in: Small Business (1)
Well I fully Agree with Dean Ekman, many companies use such opputunities to get info / solutions to problems they are facing & since the candidate is being interviewed, he/she puts the best of his/her efforts to get the right solutions/suggestions. I have also been through such similar situations quite a few times....infact in some cases i have made full fledged presentations to companies, which have later used them in their business plans.
however, through such forums we must take up such matters & let all know to be a little careful.
Companies also have to look at potential employees as their brand ambassdor, as the candidate will talk about it.
nevertheless, we need to move ahead & take these things as learnings....
1. Had they hired someone else or was the exercise motivated at getting inputs?
Ans: To answer this question in affirmative or negative will be pure speculation. Only the hiring company and may be the headhunter know the real truth.
2. Was the candidate off beam in wasting his time over the analysis?
Ans: I think the candidate was absolutely right in analysing the company before his/her interview. Even though he/she was not hired, his/her analysis was not a waste because I am sure he/she learned few things about that industry/company that would be useful in his/her future career.
3. Is it OK for a head hunter to ignore a status enquiry from a prospective MD under the shelter of industry adage ‘only successful candidates will be contacted’?
Ans: No, it is absolutely wrong on the part of headhunter to ignore to such status requests. Headhunting for such C-level positions is a very refined process and requires professional approach and that includes fair and honest feedback to all the candidates.
4. Did the company and headhunter feel embarrassed to reveal the truth behind this drama, if it was one?
Ans: Don't know. But in either case, the company and headhunter were not professional in their dealings with the prospective candidate.
Tim B
Architect at Science & Technology facilities council
Best Answers in: Change Management (1), Career Management (1), Enterprise Software (1), Databases (1)
The agent/ headhunter never rings you back unless you are successful the candidate should know this. First rule of contracting 'take the one in front of you'. So get over it and get on with the work at the alternative, they could always apply at a later date.
Many things change budget, political climate, internal candidates, annual reporting etc.
The behaviour of the head hunter is nothing new, generally speaking. I too have similar experience. I must say that both head hunter as well as the company has behaved unprofessionally. I hold head hunter more responsible for the lack of depth rather than the company. It is easy to find fault with others and it is most simple thing to do. And resign to the fate. On the part of the candidate, couple of telephone calls and / or emails would make head hunter realise his lack of professionalism.
Ajay K
Global Professional in Strategy, Marketing, Business Process & Performance
For an executive mamangement position, such a behavior is unprofessional (& surprising) on part of the headhunter company. The hiring company however need not have communicated directly.
Following are some contextual aspects:
(1) DEVELOPED economy: extremely rare occurence for middle to senior level position (US, Germany, Switzerland especially). Communication is very highly valued in these three example countries.
For lower levels, it is a "declared norm" (in the US at least) not to respond for cost considerations. Example, if we want to go to the next step, you will hear from us in 2-weeks.
(2) DEVELOPING economy: Not an unusual occurence in a developing country (e.g. India, China) where communication is not valued much, and therefore the lack of it is not considered unprofessional. Things are changing fast, yet this gap exists.
My answers to your questions :
- Had they hired someone else or was the exercise motivated at getting inputs
# The exercise could have been conducted in order to gain inputs from others. At least, thats what it looks like.
- Was the candidate off beam in wasting his time over the analysis?
# No, you gain some you lose some! this is one of the times he lost!
- Is it OK for a head hunter to ignore a status enquiry from a prospective MD under the shelter of industry adage ‘only successful candidates will be contacted’?
# It is extremely unprofessional for the headhunter and the company to keep the prospective candidate MD off the status. (In my opinion, this can and does happen mostly in India - purely an opinion - not a fact/observation) and is commonplace. There are so many "potential candidates" that HR managers/recruiters do not care anymore for individuals. It is business as usual! Employers and Recruitment professionals need to understand that they are in the people business and professionalism goes a long way. People do not hold one job for a lifetime. If situations of this sort are handled well by employers/recruiters/headhunters, they will have a "potential candidate" for a long time to come. People will come back, even if they do not get a job via these professionals. But they will come because they were treated well - professionally and were cared for. These practices go a long way.
- Did the company and headhunter feel embarrassed to reveal the truth behind this drama, if it was one?
# I have never understood why! if at all they do feel embarassed!!! What is the big deal? I mean, why can't you just say that we found someone else who suits the job better. OR... we think your demand for the greens is too high. We'd like to have you if you're willing to negotiate.
Beyond me !
First, the 17% valuation decrease may have nothing to do with any recent event since the interview. I would not make the assumption that this is connected with this situation, and most likely is not. It could have influenced the "not to hire", but that is speculation without any facts.
Second, the MD is performing his due diligence to prepare for an interview. What is revealed is at the discernment and free will of the interviewee. No NDA was signed in this example, so there should not be any assumptions made about the information freely shared. That should be considered by anyone interviewing at that level.
Third, the lack of feedback from the company and the recruiting company exposes character qualities of both. We all deal with less than perfect organizations and people. The candidate should be less concerned about the actions (or lack of action) of others, but more focused on how we respond to it. In this case, the MD insightfully moved on with the other offer.
Fourth, whether the company and headhunter felt embarrassed or not is not revealed in the example, and it is presumptive to think they were or were not. That again is a character quality that we do not control, and in the end, does not influence anything very much. Usually, we all feel gratitude when we find a "better" organization to go to.
Again, I would not make the link to lack of feedback with the 17% drop in valuation. There are many, many reasons that the value dropped that could have nothing to do with the analysis or events since the interview took place. It could have been a rating reduction, a financial report, insider sales of the stock, general market slump, etc.
Donal C
Senior Manager Anti-Fraud, Fastrack Claims at Quinn Direct Insurance
Best Answers in: Compensation and Benefits (1)
I will focus my response on the candidate, as most of the other responses rightly commented on the bad practise and ethics of both the Headhunter and the company and why they perhaps did what they did. The risk both have taken in behaving as they have is in damaging their reputation. Perhaps the 17% drop in share value is reflective of that or perhaps the 17% drop in share value is reflective of a change of priorities for the chairman. On a personal basis would I use a headhunter again after such an experience, No. Would I relate the bad experience to others, probably.
From a candidate perspective, the reality of participating in any recruitment exercise is "Cavteat Emptor". The candidate made the decision to trust the headhunter, to do the research/analysis and to openly share at the 1.5 hour closed door sessions. He also made the decision not to follow up afterwards for two months and when he did, two months later he did so by email and SMS. Lessons to be learnt...
1. Participation in any recruitment process is a risk/reward exercise.
2. Check out the headhunter before hand and make a judgement call whether to use.
3. Always be prepared as regards research, but be cautious in what you share. Better to tease than over sell and do lots of questioning and listening. (from your case study sounds as the candidate spent 1.5 hours sharing his analysis and opinion, but not listening and understanding)
4. Recruitment is a courting process which involves you as a buyer of the opportunity, but also as a seller to the prospect.
5. If you feel that you have built a good rapport with the representative of the company, then get their contact details, thus facilitating a direct point of contact for the future.
6. If you are truly interested, then follow up, again remembering that you are selling as well as buying!
7. Learn from every experience
Prabhat M
Recruitment Manager (India & APAC) @Visnova Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(pmishra@visnovasolutions.com)
It is an extremely SAD situation to face . and unfortunately it happens on most common basis . At the first place i can not imagine a recruiter or headhunter who doesnt realise the value of relationship building that too with the potential Managing Director . On the other side we have respected and highly reputed corporates who have loads of strategies and workshops but coming to the execution level not even 30% . I often wonder why these companies not able to define rejection feedback mechanism which is more important then figuring out number of offers rolled out in a calender and get so called browny points from thier bosses.
indeed a matter of great concern becoz HR & recruitment is to deal with human and most importantly with thier career which is second important thing after being live.
