Recruiter - weak link with employer

I have been working as a programmer for a long time and successfully, and I would like to correct the view from the recruiter described in the topic " Should I go to an interview with a recruiter? ".

Suppose, on the one hand, the “barricades” are an average normal employer who needs an IT specialist. It is really necessary, for the cause, “to work to work,” and not to sit on cuts and kickbacks.

On the other hand, a normal specialist, whose goal is to find a job that meets his internal criteria (salary, interest, team, etc.). Do not go to the interview to show your coolness, do not get the offer to blackmail the head of the current job - and get a job in a good company for a long time.
')
The mediator is a professional recruiter, who has a goal to close a vacancy in the company. Do not imitate the vigorous activity, do not fill the "base", do not conduct a lot of senseless interviews - namely, to close the vacancy with an adequate professional who most likely will not fly out (or run away) from the probationary period.

So, let's go through the points of view of a professional recruiter from the topic " Should I go to an interview with a recruiter? "

1. According to the recruiter, the candidate considers “I do not want me to be judged by appearance”

Not yours.
As a candidate, I want to be evaluated by all necessary means, incl. in appearance. I am for complete transparency in relationships, and these relationships begin from the moment of the interview.
But I do not want this assessment to be conducted by HR.
The reasons are simple:
a) a candidate is assessed by a recruiter, with whom he will not have to work any further.
b) a candidate is assessed by a person who is far from his field of knowledge.
c) the candidate does not have the opportunity to conduct a counter evaluation of the employer.

So the opinion of many candidates will be more like this: “I don’t want recruiters to rate me, I want professionals to work with me.”

2. "Personal evaluation"

If the candidate is an adequate professional, then your personal assessment will not do anything. It is impossible to understand whether this candidate will fit into the team, without trying to bring this candidate and the team together, or at least the candidate and the team leaders.

The desire of companies to save time for expensive professionals is understandable. Time is money. Only this statement is true for the other side of the negotiation process - for the candidate. If you add to 40-60 minutes of communication with a recruiter 2 * (30-90) minutes on the road back and forth (for a large city) - the losses look very significant. The candidate does not get anything from the interview - the recruiter works as a one-way filter.

Conclusion: the only thing a recruiter can do is to conduct a primary screening inadequate, while, alas, the candidate is not given a similar opportunity.

3. "Testing technical knowledge"

The fact that the recruiter is able to enter sql-ex.ru and drag off the task of the training phase is good.
It’s bad that a recruiter makes a candidate write any tasks on a piece of paper. It is bad that a recruiter cannot even understand the approximate level of a specialist. It is bad that the recruiter's conclusions are based on the results of the performance of children's tasks.
There is no other way to reliably assess the technical knowledge of a candidate, except for how to conduct an interview with technical specialists.
Yes, it is clear that the time of techies is expensive. But on the other - no way. I will give an analogy as an argument: If you need to make a hole in a concrete wall, take a punch, or at least a hammer drill. No need to pick a wall with a screwdriver or knock on it with a hammer - spoil either the tool or the wall.
I think after the “technical” interview from the recruiter, the desire of a good specialist to get a job in a company (which he hasn’t even seen at this stage) will cool down a bit.

Conclusion: Do you want to test technical knowledge - look for how to minimize the cost of verification by professionals.

4. "Identifying the interests of the candidate"

If a person has already come to you for an interview, then he is already interested. And that means that he already asked a number of initial questions over the telephone and almost certainly read about the company on the Internet. Since the recruiter does not work in the company where the candidate wants to work, as he had never seen the project, he cannot answer most of the candidate’s questions about the project and the company. It is not possible to determine whether a candidate is interested in a project or company. In fact, how can you determine this interest if it does not provide any additional information? And the candidate has already received general information.

Conclusion: acting as a spoiled phone, it is impossible to give the candidate comprehensive information about the company, the team, the project, the processes existing there, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the company will be of interest to the applicant.

5. “To go or not to go? That is the question! Question about +1 interview. "

Yes, +1 interview usually stops, because from the point of view of the candidate, you spend an average of 3-4 hours taking into account the road, and in return you get nothing. Of course, the dream employer may be hiding in the rear, while his recruiters are fighting at the front. And you have to use your chance! But a technician does not bite on this bait. He understands that the probability of finding a good employer does not correlate with the presence or absence of an additional interview with a recruiter. Therefore, it makes sense for a candidate to first try to resemble interviews with direct employers. And only then, if there is time, go to the recruiters. That is, for a candidate, the presence of an extra link only pushes the company back into the interview line. Of course, this is not about finding a job for a corporation of good or evil, but talking about ordinary companies competing with each other for techies.

Conclusion: The question is not to go or not go to the candidate. The candidate will simply postpone your vacancy “for later”. An applicant will come to you, if he has already interviewed all the direct vacancies he is interested in. Or it will not come if the queue does not reach your vacancy.

6. “Why not immediately confess what maximum amount I can give?” “And why not immediately confess how much I get now and how much I want? "
These issues from both the applicant and the recruiter can only talk about their immaturity, and are unlikely to need to be discussed.

4. "Will the cool specialist, who knows his own worth, come to HR-y?"

Yes, of course, the fact that the “cool specialist” will not come to the recruiter is a myth.
But you must understand that he will only come to the recruiter last.
First, he will sort out all his contacts. Well, how does one of the former colleagues / authorities have a tasty job open?
Secondly, he will call those companies that interest him. And / or, will respond only to "direct" vacancies.
And only thirdly, he will come to the recruiter.

Advice or suggestions for recruiters from applicants:

Give the applicants something so that they do not think that they have wasted time.
Become a “insider” for the applicant in the company. Share with him information that he could not have obtained from public sources (of course, I do not call for blurring company secrets)
Check with the employer for maximum details about the job, project, team, processes. If the applicant has asked you a question that you cannot answer - ask the employer a question, call the applicant back and give him the answer. Do not remain indifferent.
Be as open and honest as possible, be human, do not speak with catchphrase phrases.
Do not be afraid to tell the applicant the name and address of the company. If he wants, he will find them himself in your job, but you will lose confidence.
Do not try to pretend to be technicians and technical tasks - it looks poor. Look for another way to quickly / cheaply assess the technical training of a specialist.

And finally, do not confront the applicant. Even if the candidate considers you an enemy, it is in your power to make him an ally. After all, your goals - job placement and job closing - the same.