Fixing recruitment

	The recruitment industry is hilariously broken. It's hard enough for me, a full-time developer, to determine if someone else is a good programmer, so how could I expect a recruiter who has no skills in programming to do it? I'm paying for someone to perform what is essentially keyword matching heuristics between my job description and a candidate’s resume. This process is poor at best with the opportunity to go stupidly wrong (like when I get sent Java developers for a JavaScript position).
	You can make the argument that recruiters are there as a first pass filter, to strip out all the people that apply for jobs regardless of whether their skills match. At around 20% of what I'm going to pay for someone's salary, that's an expensive filter.
	On top of that, don't forget about the incentive structure where recruiters are encouraged to place as many people as possible, as quickly as possible – the recruitment "numbers game".
	In their defence, recruiters make the argument that their profession is one of human relations. Please. If that was really true, why are they almost universally despised? Why are so many “recruitment professionals” failing at the one skill they really need to have?
	It comes down to one problem: transparency. A lack of transparency about who you'll be working for. A lack of transparency on how much the recruiter is being paid. Recruiters control information. Try submitting your CV to them as a PDF and watch them bounce it back wanting a Word version so they can remove your details from it before sending it off to a client.
	Fixing recruitment requires introducing transparency. If you want to differentiate from all the other people in recruitment, then make your dealings transparent and provide value in other areas – such as actually determining if someone is good! With Dragonfly we're trying
	change happen for full-time recruitment.
	SAMUEL RICHARDSON

view raw Fixing recruitment hosted with ❤ by GitHub