The times, they are a’changin’ (Bob Dylan).

Or more accurately, ‘the times, they are a’cycling’.

I’ve been in recruitment now for 24 years. Exactly 50% of that time was in-house, the rest for boutique headhunters, hiring in a range of industries. Currently I handle consulting within ESG / Biodiversity / NZ and associated areas.

A recent scan of LinkedIn and business news will quickly draw your attention to tales of woe about the state of recruitment. Ghosting, excessively protracted interview processes, fake jobs advertised. Changing goalposts with role specifications. Agency behaviour. Inappropriate offers and probably most destructive of all, rescinded offers.

This is a shock to the system for candidates within ESG / Sustainability; for the last 4 years, the market has in the main behaved. New role availability has been steady, at times supply has outstripped demand, salaries have been on the increase and the variety of opportunities has been broad and dynamic. So what has happened?

Those with a few years on the clock will nod ruefully and recount previous corrections in the market. Those of us who have worked across multiple industries will know the cues, sigh wistfully and probably mutter ‘here we go again’ into a strong coffee. In holistic terms, when the market shifts to an ‘employer driven market place’, the same things happen. The added complication is technology which in recruitment has created two challenges; volume and interface. It is easier than ever to reach a broader candidate base and the interface is (in some situations) skewed towards useability for hiring teams managing multiple vacancies at the detriment of the candidate experience.

The stress that can cause those looking for work should not be underestimated; I have first-hand experience of the impersonality of job applications, the frustration of seeking feedback and the challenges of building relationships with key stakeholders in the process. In sustainability, an area of business that has historically been people-oriented and collegiate, this shift is understandably distressing. So what is happening? The explanations I will give are from personal experience rather than deep research, but this mini-guide should at least answer some questions and allay some anxiety. It won’t find you your dream job, but if it helps quell some irritation then that is a small step forward.

Ghosting

Ghosting is where you send an application and receive no feedback or communication beyond an acknowledgement. At its most insidious, this can be after multiple interviews.

There are 4 probable scenarios.

1.   You are stuck in a holding pattern
2. The authorisation to recruit has been blocked
3. There is a very high volume of applications, and the recruiter (internal or external) has processed the first batch quickly. You are in the second batch (aka the ‘if I don’t fill it’ pile)
4.  You are dealing with a recruiter who does not have a green light to send CVs / the hiring lead is prioritising direct applicants.

Holding Pattern:

In simple terms, you are deemed ‘appointable’ but perhaps not for the role you have applied for. This can be because there is an internal applicant who is going through the process slowly. It might be because another candidate is preferred, but the process hasn’t concluded. They may be working a long notice. In other words, the recruiter doesn’t want to reject you YET, or maybe ever.

Authorisation is blocked:

In a difficult market, companies can put an extra approval layer into the recruitment process. This may often sit within HR / Talent rather than across departments. There are occasions when a process is started following approval at departmental level, but when it goes up to finance / board one of 3 things can happen:

• ·         More information and justification is requested
• ·         Priority is given to internal candidates displaced through restructure / under thread of redundancy
• ·         The request is refused.

Naturally, it’s good practice to communicate this to candidates, but sometimes these decisions are sensitive, or temporary. In the main, a departmental head will want to grow their team but the process of exhausting all angles internally may slow the process down. We are seeing this within sustainability where roles have changed or been repurposed due to changes in legislation. This can be doubly challenging when budgets are cut or frozen.

High application volumes:

This is not an excuse for ghosting, more an explanation of what can happen. For ‘in demand’ roles and for companies regarded as highly attractive destinations, application numbers can be into the thousands. A typical recruiter will handle up to 30 live vacancies at any one time. So that can soon multiply to unmanageable numbers. When you get a big response, the following can happen:

1.      You work through the first 100 or so and prioritize the most suitable applicants and put them into the process with the hiring leads. The remainder just pile up. If there is enough in the 1^st hundred, you’ll probably just stop there. However you are always mindful that the remaining response may contain good candidates for this and other campaigns.

2.      You set extremely rigorous screening criteria. Modern Applicant Tracking Systems will ‘score’ candidates against their CVs. You will only process those meeting the required threshold

So why are you ghosted? Honestly, sometimes you are not – although ATS systems are sophisticated, they are not without their flaws. If data is scraped from your CV, it may not work effectively (e.g. a typo in an email address). The system will send update emails and if they bounce back, the recruiter rarely has the time to fix this.

If you are ghosted, whilst not good practice, there is not much you can do to change the outcome. It’s also true that big and prestigious firms are able to set the rules of the game to some extent. I don’t agree with this, it’s just how it is.

You are dealing with a recruiter:

In a good market, recruiters find and settle into their area of business and spend c.70% of their time delivering, versus 30% developing new business. When a business area is buoyant (e.g. ESG in 2021), agencies will see the opportunity to open new markets and begin selling into that space.

When the market turns, recruiters will spent 80-90% of their time selling, or trying to sell. This creates some difficult behaviours for all concerned. It is always hard (Farrell Associates is no different here) to differentiate yourself from competitors as we all do similar things. To win a client from a competitor, the process is as follows:

• -          You identify a company within your target vertical
• -          You identify the hiring lead
• -          You try to uncover the vacancy
• -          You try to convince the hiring lead that you can fill it faster and better than their current supplier
• -          You try to get candidates interviews quickly.

Most contingency agencies levy a fee only on a successful placement.

Clients will often use preferred supplier lists. Unfortunately PSLs are not always effective, so there are situations where a client might instruct an agency to send CVs as a ‘back up’ or where there are concerns about the quality of a shortlist. Agents subsequently have a short window, sometimes just hours to find someone to add to the other resourcing strategies.

This rarely results in placements, but when it does, it can open up relationships that last for years. When agencies are hungry (now), they will act fast and aggressively whenever they uncover a need.

If you are one of those candidates, this can be challenging. If the agent is successful in securing an interview, it’ll all happen very fast, but the odds are stacked against you if that agency is not an existing preferred supplier (you should always ask this). Once the window has closed, the agent will move on. Sometimes there is no meaningful feedback worth sharing, however it is never good practice to ghost.

What about fake jobs?

This is complicated, and not what it seems. Firstly, the media companies (Totaljobs, Monster etc.) incentivise customers to bulk-purchase advertising. It is also rolled up into deals with applicant tracking systems. A lot of companies also use aggregators – these are providers which multi-post one advert on multiple sites, funnelling CVs into an applicant tracking system. Responses to adverts can vary massively depending on how you list them. Changing the location, sector drop-downs or keywords can pull in different applicants. As a result, recruiters (inhouse and agency-side) will often place multiple adverts which all pertain to the same role. So they are not, strictly speaking fake, just a way of ensuring you cover your bases.

Good recruiters also build talent pools and listen to the market. This might be for existing clients (or internal teams) or for expected clients and part of resourcing plans into the future.

Consider, for example that a business is at final stage tender for a new contract. If they win, it will need rapid recruitment across a range of levels. However decisions may be delayed or go against that business.

One cost-effective way of doing this is to place adverts to attract applications you may need in the future. Honestly speaking, a good profile can open a client relationship you are trying to win.

So whilst there might be no job right now, that doesn’t mean there will never be. These are fairly easy to spot – look out for generic language, non-specific skills requirements, multiple locations etc.

Unfortunately throughout this activity, recruiters forget that it is real people and their lives they are dealing with.

Long-winded Application processes

This is a very, very tricky area to explain, because it has many variables. The context is usually that mistakes have been made previously, usually when the market is candidate driven. In other words so great has the need been for people (and quickly), that certain corners have been cut.

Within ESG and sustainability also, particularly in areas like financial services, some firms hired from outside of their sector and it caused unforeseen issues. You can argue the toss about appropriate inductions and support, but the knock-on effect is that the selection process then changes to try to avoid repeating past errors.

As a result, hiring teams tend to demonstrate caution and rigour in selection. Personally, I would look at this as a good thing in most situations; moving jobs is always a big decision. If you are out of work then yes, this can seem like an unnecessarily painful timeline, but it’s still important to make the right move even if your needs re increasingly acute.

I’ve read that some people feel that asking for tests / situational exercises and or presentations is essentially gaining free consulting. In 24 years I have never once seen a situation where this has happened. Usually any tests are designed to replicate as closely as possible the role.

Changing goal-posts

Recruitment can take a while. This is due to diary management as much as anything, especially when multiple stakeholders are part of the decision-making process.

Where roles are newly created, a hiring manager may not have fully scoped out what the role should do. They may not even realise this until they start interviewing.

It is fairly common for the brief to change subtly as a process progresses. This is because clients adjust the parameters based on:

• -          Available talent
• -          Existing resources
• -          Most pressing priorities
• -          Budget

Often all of the above crystalises as the process progresses and they meet people at interviews.

There may also be external factors influencing this; legislation may change, or a new contract win might shape priorities in a different direction.

It is not, as some people believe. an underhand way of trying to get more for less. If anything, they realise that they have positioned it wrongly in the first place. This does waste people’s time but as a recruiter, this is also why you might not reject people immediately from your original response.

Inappropriate Salary offers

Again, there is a lot going on here.

Firstly, a job may carry an ‘up to’ figure, based on internal job bandings. However, some companies (wrongly in my view) will stipulate that anyone coming into the organisation should start on the bottom of that band.

Secondly, there is a general assumption at all stages that people are not honest about their current earnings. If a candidate says they earn £100,000, the truth could be 10% or more less. A hiring company will table an offer based on what they think a candidate is worth to them. If that number is lower than expected, then it can be a negotiation point. It can also be indicative of the availability of people – ‘take it or leave it’.

Thirdly, during the process a department might be put under pressure to save money which can result in salary depreciation. The role may also change shape somewhat, changing the way it is renumerated.

Unfortunately the only way to handle this is through honesty and transparency. Also consider an offer as an entry point. If the offer is appropriate, albeit lower than your aspiration, then it might give you that starting point in an organisation to develop both your career and earnings.

Mistakes to also happen; I once had to call a candidate to change an offer downwards by £15,000 because the wrong numbers had been sent internally.

Some recruiters (agency) might also quote a higher number to attract an applicant, then back their negotiation skills to bump up an eventual offer. This is seldom effective, so properly fact-find the package value when you engage.

Rescinding offers

Thankfully this is extremely rare. It happens because:

• -          References are taken and cause some concern or the candidate does not have the correct immigration status to employ them
• -          A role is filled internally due to a restructure
• -          Authorisation to recruit is removed
• -          The company’s financial performance is behind expectation
• -          A change of management results in a recruitment freeze
• -          An offer was made in error (very rare).

Sometimes the reason is commercially sensitive, so you may never got adequate feedback.

Regretfully there is rarely anything you can do about it. However, unless you feel you have been poorly treated, it’s important to maintain relationships where you can. They liked you enough to make you an offer, so if the role does come back, keeping in touch might result in another opportunity.

Overall, when the market switches to become more employer driven, this can negatively impact jobseekers, but these cycles are always temporary. Unfortunately, a lot of behaviours and attitudes are formed when the cycle was the other way around. This does not make it right, far from, but 3 years ago, all the discussion was about candidates not turning up for interview, demanding excessive pay increases or special terms. For example, I had a candidate demand part-time working and a 25% salary increase, home working and 10 more days annual leave following his final interview all of which was outside of the company’s standard offer and not part of the initial discussions.

As a result, organisations and recruitment professionals have developed safeguards, introduced technology and personally, have build coping strategies, some of which adversely affect those looking for work.

But it will change. It always does!