10 August, 2013 4 Comments
A few times a week I get emails from recruitment agencies, they are are pretty much all along the same lines. The email seems to be a standard template that tells me absolutely nothing of importance about the job and gives me next to zero incentive to find out more.
I’m in a pretty great job at the moment that I’m really enjoying, so I’m not actually looking to move, but had this been maybe about a year ago (before things got restructured) I would have moved if anyone gave me a reasonable incentive for doing so. Based on the generic emails that say nothing of consequence that recruitment agents send out it is better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. And I really don’t know.
So, here’s an example of something I received earlier this week:
To: Colin Mackay
Subject: Possible Synergy
We’ve not spoken before, I’m a head-hunter in the <technology-misspelled> development space and your name has came to light as a top talent in the <technology-misspelled> space.
I know your not actively on the market and I would not be contacting you if I didn’t feel I had something truly exceptional.
My role not only gives you interesting programme work in the <technology-misspelled> space but also strong career progression route in a growing business, work life balance, supportive environment, stability and a final salary pension. <name-of-city-I-live-in> based role.
Are you free for a discreet chat about this, what is the best time and number to call you on?
This tells very little. She has at least identified that I work with the relevant technology (although sometimes I think that might just be a fluke given the number of emails I receive about things that I’m not remotely competent in) and the city I live in, so I suppose that’s a good start.
Pretty much every recruitment agent send out something similar. Every email I receive says the job is “truly exceptional”, “exciting” or that it’s an “amazing opportunity”. Those words are so over used that more often the email gets binned at that point. A lesson from many a primary school teacher trying to improve her pupils vocabulary is that they can’t use the word “nice” any more and they’ll get marked down if they do.
Nothing here sells me on the idea that change would be a good idea even although they acknowledged I’m not actively on the market.
The agent did not mentioned the type of company. Even if they can’t mention the name of the company at this stage the following would be useful: Is it a software consultancy? a digital agency? a software house with a defined product? An internal software department in a larger company? Which industry is the company operating in?
Some of the answers might turn me off, but it is better to know now than waste time to find out later. Some of the answers may pique my interest, which is obviously a good thing.
They mention the “<name-of-technology> space”. For the moment, we’ll ignore that it was misspelled (lots of technologies have strange ways of spelling or capitalising things, but it doesn’t take long to find out the official way).
They don’t really define what “XYZ space” actually means. There are so many subgroups of technology in that “space” that it could mean anything, including things I’m either unsuitable for or have no interest in. What’s the database technology (assuming there is one)? What is the front end technology (assuming there is one)? Or is the role wholly at one end or the other (e.g. mostly in the business logic or mostly in the front end)? What tool sets and frameworks are involved? (e.g. Visual Studio 2012, include version numbers. I’m interested in progressing forward, but if they’re still on Visual Studio 2008 I’m not interested and it would be better that you know that now). Is the company all single-vendor based (i.e. only using a tool if that vendor produced it) or do they use technologies from third parties (open source or commercial)?
There is nothing about training in the description they’ve provided. That would be a big bonus to me. I already spend in the region of £2000 a year keeping myself up-to-date (books, on-line videos, conferences, etc.), it would be nice to find an employer that is genuinely interested in contributing in that area beyond buying occasional books or giving me the occasional day-off outside of my annual leave to attend a conference that I’m already paying for. After all, they are the ones benefiting from all that training. However, occasionally emails do mention training, but it is sometimes couched in language that suggests a reluctance (e.g. “as an when required by the business”), but it’s there because the company or agent knows it will attract potential candidates if they mention training.
If the prospective company doesn’t provide training then I’d remind them that it is “Better to train your developers and risk they leave, than keep them stupid and risk they stay”. If the prospective company has a really negative view to training then I really wouldn’t want to work for them – I have already worked with a company that seemed to proactively provide disincentives for any sort of training.
Finally, there is no mention about salary. While, on the whole, I’m more interested in other things, I do have a mortgage to pay. If the salary won’t cover my bills with enough left over for a nice holiday (it’s no fun sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle on days off) then that would be a showstopper even if all other things were perfect.
Also, stating salary as “£DOE” or “£market rate" is equally useless. Companies have a budget. They might say “£DOE” (depending on experience), but if it goes above their budget then that’s all they are going to offer. If that is not enough then it is better to know that up front than later on.
I’ve also been in situations where I’ve felt that the recruitment agent knew my salary expectation wasn’t going to fly with the hiring company, but strung me along for a bit until finally saying that they rejected my CV. It would be better to let potential recruits know up front without wasting everybody’s time.
While providing more information up front might reduce the interest from some potential candidates, at least they are not going to waste their valuable time and the recruitment agent’s valuable time pursuing something that is not going to come to anything. On the other hand, providing more information might be the catalyst to getting someone who is not actively looking to sit up and think about making that change.
Certainly, if I keep receiving the generic emails like the one above, especially that acknowledge I’m not actively looking, then I’m never going to look unless my current employer does something to make me question why I am there.