|
|||||||||||||||||
TOP STORIESGuest Comment: My life as a parasite3 July 2008COMMENTSOn another note, the whole GS thing - why do you think they invite so many firms to join their PSL? And guys this is not rocket science...... Read all comments »As a headhunter, I am a parasite who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. I know this to be true, since Geraint Anderson, the former Dresdner analyst now known to be City Boy, says so.
It's the latest of many attacks upon my profession. Are we really that bad? Yes.
How do I know? Well, at the Global Derivatives & Risk Management conference in Paris, our group ended up in a bar arguing about latency for algorithmic trading (which is what I did when I had a real job). In a momentary lapse of judgement, I let slip that I was now a headhunter. The guy sitting next to me jerked as if I'd stuck a pin in him, and flatly refused to rejoin the conversation, such was his loathing.
Over on Wilmott.com we read about someone whose career was capsized by a headhunter who "accidentally" sent his CV to his boss, and who is now sidelined.
One evening recently, I met with a senior manager at a bulge bracket who had been emailed so many CVs from one agency that day that it had taken down his inbox, causing real pain. So much for ‘search and selection’.
Why is it that bad? Here's the answer I gave him whilst pouring the wine: "You know that XX carpet bombs CVs, you know they lie, and change CVs, yet you still do business with them."
Apparently they also regularly tried to take out staff they had put in, in straight violation of their contract, and since they are an entrenched supplier, "nothing can be done".
But that is exactly why you hate me – even though we've never met, and I don't actually work for one of the carpet bombers. The same issue applies to candidates. Because I openly offer careers advice I get correspondence of this sort: "Is X bank really hiring an entry-level quant?” Of course not! Its headhunter is simply trying to get you to go for the interview in order to collect information. Some deceit is done with cunning and secrecy, but if you can't be bothered to research the firm you're trusting with your career, then frankly you deserve what you get. Repeat business in financial recruitment is the exception, not the rule – at least from the point of view of the candidate – and staff turnover at some agencies is at Indian call centre levels. Thus the agent cares only about getting bums onto chairs. The concept of a long-term relationship is alien to someone with a monthly target and no knowledge of the business.
I've done the CQF, but apparently most headhunters think Bloomberg is a skiing resort and that Black Scholes is some kind of upmarket shoe.
HR has a real opportunity to make this better: after each hire, ask about the quality of service the hiring manager got – some simple scale of 1-10 is enough. Then circulate the results. Bad agencies will feel pain very quickly.
Candidates can do the same: simply say, "I've read about you, goodbye", when they ring.
Until you do these simple things, stop complaining.
Dominic Connor is a director of P&D Quant Recruitment.
COMMENTSchristianald, Mon 07 Jul 08Hmm, good topic...My experience with recruitment agencies ranges from about average to downright dishonest!!! I used to get really angry about it, but now I just don't take them seriously... Add your comment »Neil, Quantitative Analytics, Mon 07 Jul 08Managers should be put back in charge rather than stupid HR ladies who look to their own needs . I find it interesting about all these "group" companies also. It is even more interesting that nobody is naming them. If there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, why do they all write under Anon and why do they not say their company names? Obviously a lot of illegal stuff is going on underneath the covers. I guess I will go onto Wilmott and do my own research. The City is not such a large place . Add your comment »DominiConnor, Mon 07 Jul 08I agree about "managing agencies", which is an idea so dumb, it is actually quite impressive.
Teds, Sales & Marketing, Thu 10 Jul 08Blah blah blah....
smizit, Trading, Fri 11 Jul 08Reading this, the only conclusion I can come to is that Bankers seem to be sore losers when the shoe is on the other foot and someone else is making just as much - if not more - money by putting their own interests before their clients and doing whatever it takes to close a deal with no regard for a client’s well-being. In fact disdain and disregard for a client’s well-being seems to be a pre-requisite for success for both Bankers and Headhunters. As Bankers, let’s stop having this air of moral superiority and stop pretending guys: We bankers care just as little about our clients by recommending dodgy investments, and silly mergers opportunities just to get some P&L. Add your comment »smizit, Trading, Fri 11 Jul 08Funny thing Christopher, everything you said about Headhunters can be said about Bankers. In fact here is what you wrote, put into a banking context….Wow applies perfectly to every trading desk I ever worked on.
Disgruntled, Investment Banking / M & A, Fri 01 Aug 08there are places like Greenwich Partners who absolutely ruin the reputation of good firms. carpet bombing cvs around without consent. a nightmare! Add your comment » |
|||||||||||||||||