Number of View: 1514

The notion of charging someone to get back into work is an area so littered with minefields that even the most experienced ballistics expert should be sure to remember his hat.

 

In an age of social media benevlence, is it right to charge the needy?

Jobseekers lamenting their current fix shake their fists in utter fury at the irreverence of the idea, whilst recruiters and those in the ‘back to work brigade’ harrumph in unison that ‘this life ain’t free, you know’. So what to make of those who charge for job-seeking services?

If you have ever lost your job from a corporate organisation you may have experienced the compensatory cushion that manifests itself as an outplacement; a paid-for scheme where a company helps its redundant employees through the redundancy transition, re-orientating them to the job market. Typically, outplacements include anything considered an aid back to work: CV-writing; career guidance; psychometric testing; financial advice; on-going support; and lots more besides.

Outplacements

Janet Davis, owner of career management company New Life Network adds, ‘Group outplacement providers may provide whatever the employer of their unfortunate clients has agreed to pay for. Sometimes the cost per head is very low meaning that much of the service has to be group-based with online tools and prescriptive menus and manuals. The higher up the chain, the more one-to-one time is available (purchased) and the top Exec Career Transition people do a great deal more than help someone with their CVs. At the top end they teach people how to reverse headhunt.’

Stand and deliver

Generally speaking consultancy companies offering outplacement schemes as their business model, whilst by no means eulogized, are at the very least moderately valued by those who have witnessed the services. Some programmes offer superb advice whilst others fall short, indeed encapsulating a recruitment analogy of the highwayman who stole jewels from a horse-drawn carriage of a Duke and his mistress. At least Dick Turpin had the courtesy to wear a mask!

One commentator exclaimed the following: ‘My experience of working through two recessions and the dot com boom/ bust has led me to the conclusion that any offering that has the word ‘agency’ attached to it is typically first against the wall. Recruitment agencies are absolutely no exception and this initiative would only, in my view, speed their demise rather dramatically.’

What’s in a word?

Whilst the above comment may be somewhat of a sweeping statement it does raise an interesting question: what if a recruitment ‘agency’ were to re-brand as a recruitment ‘consultancy’? Would their imminent demise then be curtailed, or even halted altogether? Certainly the word ‘agency’ conjures derisory connotations in light of its more sophisticated ‘consultancy’ cousin but should recruitment businesses be tagging additional services to their existing proposition at all? The cynics point to this as exploitation of the out-of-the-work and sneer at those piranhas with a perceived propensity to snap up the weak.

But quite what constitutes additional services and which of these, if any, could or should be chargeable? Described by one observer as ‘careers training’, recruiters are apparently trying to make money through a range of bolt-on products, all of which are considered operational outside their usual practice, which is, of course, job-matching. In a climate where applications-per-job have reached an unprecedented level recruiters are being swamped with calls and emails from jobseekers eager to establish their position in the process, trying every which way to ensure their application is top of the pile.

With so much reactivity and, therefore, administrative hurdles to negotiate is it not now reasonable for recruiters to begin charging for their time in the same way your solicitor or accountant might do? A solicitor is hardly likely to offer you free litigation advice. He’ll charge you for it. In fact, he’ll charge you even before he’s opened his briefcase. So should a recruitment consultancy be expected to re-write a candidate’s CV as part of their application? There are lots of CV-writing companies in the public domain all, quite rightly, demanding money for their services but jobseekers expect this free of charge from their recruiters. ‘They should be concerned with representing me to the best of their ability’, they exclaim, ‘and if this means developing my CV and so enhancing my chances of an interview, then I would expect this as part of their job’.

Time is money

This is a fair point but as Gareth Jones, Leader of recruiter Courtenay HR suggests, “[in an industry where time very much is money], there is neither the inclination nor hours in the day to spend (re)-writing CVs. You would be there all day. That said, I do think charging jobseekers for accentuating their CV is very much a conflict of interests. It could be seen that you are simply taking a couple of hundred pounds from someone with little or no intention of ever representing them for a job. I encourage my team to represent their candidates in the best possible way but this should ideally fit with existing services, rather than expansions into other, albeit related, transactions. On the question of charges and services, I think we can already see that across the economy we are moving more towards individual responsibility for a lot of things that require us to put our hands in our pockets where previously it was provided for or at least subsidised. I envisage this trend continuing.”

The most professional recruiters succeed because they invest the time to understand their client’s business and cultural needs and their candidate’s background and expectations. In doing so they maximise the potential for placement – by sensing how well a candidate will fit a role or company.

Payment [to recruiters] should be by results and in return for the fees charged, companies expect them to properly assess candidates, filter out those who clearly don’t fit and long-list those who do. This should involve meeting candidates face-to-face, evaluating and understanding what makes them tick as well as validating their CV. To do this well requires a high level of communication skills.

Smart recruitment

In reality, the standard varies enormously and can be surprising. We’ve all witnessed low-level agencies supplying secretaries who adopt a very professional approach and alleged head-hunters who don’t. However, in general the high-end [executive search firms] are good and the ‘CV shifters’ are poor. Candidates should not have to pay for “standard” services, such as CV-tuning and interview preparation. Smart recruiters will want to invest time in the best candidates, not just in terms of a placement, but because today’s candidate may well become tomorrow’s client.

However, Gareth Jones believes the challenges and pressures imposed on today’s recruiter make the job much harder than in previous times. The demands, he suggests, go ‘right up the chain’. ‘Some of my clients’, he said, ‘command a 48-hour turnaround on CV applications. Whilst we endeavour to ensure we meet all our candidates, these time restrictions make it very difficult to undertake the consultancy services for which SG Group is synonymous. It is during these consultations that we examine our candidate’s goals and map out methods to manage their expectations. We certainly do not charge for this.’

With no barriers to entry the recruitment market ranges in quality from agency to agency, but even more so from recruitment consultant to recruitment consultant. But would you back any agency with your money? As one jobseeker observes, ‘Recruitment Agencies are only as good as the vacancies they have on their books. If you’re prepared to work in a variety of roles, across a large geographical area – how would you choose? Certainly if I had to pay for the service I would expect the REC to have more power and checks over their members to guarantee a level of service I would expect to receive.’

Treading with caution

So if recruitment agencies are to become consultancies and offer innovative features to really benefit and promote their jobseekers they ought to tread carefully. With businesses such as The Ladders already providing an example of a recruitment platform charging for ‘premium services’ and following the release last year of  Trinity Mirror’s jobseeker proposition, Workthing+, – billed as ‘serious tools for serious jobseekers’ – it is obvious career management sites are beginning to take hold. However, given the bad name often attached to the staffing industry there will be a natural pessimism amongst jobseekers to engage in anything deemed so deliberately a ploy to elicit cash from the needy.

So where does all this leave the millions of jobseekers in the UK today? What would happen of all recruitment companies started charging for CV-writing, career advice and consultations? In a buoyant staffing market money should be made on the production of the end result: matching a jobseeker to a job. But in a struggling market is it not fair that recruiters earn money before the speculation begins? There is a enormous opportunity for agencies to take advantage of the current downturn and so far these have been largely met with measured resistance. But with agencies falling by the wayside on a weekly basis perhaps it is time they looked at diversifying their product offering. Perhaps they are owed this chance?

Delivering solid proposals

Organisations basing their business models on outplacement consultancies have a place in any market, including one in downturn. Their services, whilst remaining open to conjecture, are, at least, tried and tested and, significantly, expected; certainly within the mid-high salaried professions. For recruiters to compete without the shackles of cynicism they will require an unwavering proposal and an even more solid delivery programme. As for the paid-for services gaining momentum in the recruitment supply chain? ‘Well, it already has,’ says Jones. ‘Whether that is a good thing has a lot to do with who is offering the service and the quality of it.

Simon Lewis | Editor | Only Marketing Jobs

Related posts:

1. Future bright for jobseekers, says TV’s recruitment Dragon
2. LinkedIn to charge jobseekers for ‘premium’ services
3. Marketing jobseekers use ‘old boy’s networks’ to secure employment
4. Job boards versus recruitment agencies: the gathering storm
5. What next for the marketing recruitment industry?
6. Jobseekers need to learn a little respect
7. Where do jobseekers turn now the market has picked up?
8. The top 20 recruitment myths and why they are all untrue
9. Unemployed UK jobseekers are “fools”, claims new guide
10. Why are recruiters ignoring me?