I've now been in marketing recruitment for over 20 years. I'm feeling old - a fact substantiated by my new reading glasses. And recruitment has changed hugely over the years with the evolution of technology (imagine in the very old days confirming interviews by post and not being able to get hold of people until after 6pm on a landline! - note, I'm not that old). Tech has mostly helped recruitment - databases instead of little black books, online job platforms & advertising, email marketing and I suppose LinkedIn gets a reluctant mention too - not least to check people are real!
Perhaps one of the dubious improvements is the website Glassdoor.com. The subject of this month's blog is due to several candidates (in the last month) citing the website as a reference point when they've been researching potential employers. All the candidates were negatively impacted by references left on the website and decided to park their interest in those businesses.
In the current climate, the jobs market is still quite busy - lots of employers are looking to hire. However, candidates/potential employees are wary of moving role unless the opportunity is significantly 'better' than their current position. The definition of 'better' is usually one of salary, however, it does also incorporate culture, work life balance, benefits and a host of other criteria specific to the individual.
In the old days, our reference points for a review of a particular employer were largely from friends and colleagues in the industry. That's still true but it seems that increasingly, candidates are checking out Glassdoor as an extra resource. I've not looked at it for a while but I selected a few agencies who I have worked with for a long time and I was shocked at the reviews that I saw. A lot of negativity, some reviews were actually so negative that I thought they can't be true. Generally in life, I believe feedback is important so I will always leave restaurants or hotels reviews so theoretically I think being able to review an employer is not necessarily a bad thing. But I wonder how it can possibly be monitored and managed accurately.
Having worked for a long time in the industry, I know most of my agency clients pretty well. No, I've not worked for them 'in situ' but I have talked to enough candidates and clients over the years to hear the good and the bad and using my own intuition to know when someone just wasn't the right fit for an agency rather than it being a 'bad' employer but also to know when an agency culture is tough and will only suit a certain profile. Finally also to know when someone just has sour grapes and they are never going to say anything nice. Horses for courses and all that - it's certainly true in recruitment and finding someone the right work environment. Yes there are agencies where long hours are standard and where there are 'characters' in senior management, however, there are generally many other criteria which can also make those agencies a good work environment - depending on the individual employee and their role discipline.
As with lots of things on the internet - once it's there, it's there and it's quite hard to remove negative content. I'm surprised there haven't been more legal case studies in this area because like I say, there's some not very nice stuff out there - and how do you prove it is true or not - as an employer do you leave it there and hope no-one takes notice of it? Unlikely. After all, if I see a negative review of a restaurant, I'm not likely to want to go there - there is no other balancing out or alternative point of view available.
If I heard on the jungle drums that a particular employer was 'terrible'. I'd probably already have some idea because it's impossible to not hear this kind of thing in a fairly small market. I'd also probably not want to work with them myself and so I would not be representing them. To date, I have only 'black-listed' 5 regional agencies - and that's across our whole Northern region. My definition of 'terrible' has two employers who have permanent revolving doors of employees and the other 3 are personality/character led reasons.
Gut instinct is hugely important when it comes to a new job and a new employer. It's also very personal and individual. My recommendation if a potential new role does appeal, and the clients and the creative work appeal is to have a chat with the employer. You can tell a lot in a first interview and you will know whether it has potential for you. Staying objective is important. If there is a very negative review on Glassdoor you can store this information but try not to let it de-rail you. Remember there are usually two sides to every story and on a review website, you're probably seeing the feedback of a very disgruntled individual. After an initial chat, you'll have a good idea of whether the opportunity might be right for you but equally if it's completely wrong. If you don't retain this level of objectivity, you'll potentially be losing out on some great opportunities.
If you are working with a recruiter, make sure you ask for their opinion - most of us are balanced, honest and we're not in it for a quick buck, we're here for the long term. It's not in our interests to put the wrong people forward for a job. It's why, equally, when a recruiter says they don't think you're the right fit for a business, they're probably right. Put your trust in people who know the industry rather than anonymous keyboard warriors with an axe to grind.
Fiona. 07976 125963.