Last week at the CareerXRoads Colloquium, Mark Mehler (someone who gets it) asked me (I kid you not): "you are the one that gives candidates feedback, right?". My response was something along the lines of "yeah that's me and I hope I am not the only one." All along, I have considered this part of my brand. When someone interviewed with me, they got actual feedback. I know that many, many recruiters don't give feedback claiming "legal reasons" or do the "we decided not to fill the position at this time" or the radio silence thing. That's just not me...never has been. I have just always felt that, when declining candidates, I could give them some kind of feedback that they can do something with, and there are other recruiters like me here. And I would want someone to do the same for me. I've gotten the lame responses myself. Both times, they "couldn't meet my salary expectations". Hope they are kicking themselves right now ; ) Anyway, I personally think that the key for the recruiters is crafting the message in a way that doesn't offend the candidate...make it about skills, make it a productive conversation.
So now that I have heard from so many people from the HP Alumni group and have been told that they are talking about me in a good way, some of my other work-style traits are becoming part of my public brand. What they are noticing is that I get back to everyone that sends me an e-mail. Even if the response has to be short. Not trying to toot my own horn...this isn't some magic skill...pretty basic stuff. I treat people like people and I do what I can to get the resumes into the right hands. I recently read in my USC Trojan Family Magazine a blurb stating that you are more likely to be declined for a job after an interview because people are doing it via e-mail (this was viewed as a win because most people never get a final answer). What the?
OK, soapbox time. Recruiting is a people oriented job. Bad recruiters have given us all a bad name. This has led to low expectations, evidently. Of course, technology has caused an incredible increase in the number of applicants for jobs. But my perspective has always been that if the person sends the e-mail to you and addresses you by name, you need to get back to them with something that proves that you read their e-mail. And if someone took the time to interview for a position, they deserve a phone call with the results. I'm sorry, it's just sad that the minimum requirement is being lauded because so many recruiters don't meet it. Frankly, it's pushing the perception of recruiter performance to the extremes. The bad are worse and anyone that is human, real and responsive is *great*. Used to be that that's what it took to be a recruiter in the first place. Guess that's not so any more.
Anyhoo, I am not alone. There are other recruiters like me out there. And in here (at Microsoft).