Recruiter or straight to company?

adocholiday

I'm looking at a job at the minute that was advertised through a recruiter. I went to the companies website and they have advertised the job there too. Maybe I'm over-thinking this but would I be better off going through the recruiter or directly to the company?

Really want this job so want to give myself the best opportunity to get it. My friend told me to go straight to the company because it means the company will save money by hiring you directly instead of through the recruiter. Is there any truth to this? What are your opinions on the issue?

CatFromHue

If you haven't made contact with the recruitment agency then go direct to the company.

It's much easier dealing directly with them as there is one less person in the chain of communication. There can be benefits of dealing with agents in that they can pick out potential errors in your CV and can help you market yourself to what the company want, well the better agents can anyway. On the otherhand the agency could have seen the company were looking for someone and just copied and pasted their ad.

There is the cost issue as you have mentioned but I don't know how much this comes into the reckoning.

krissovo

I applied through both ways recently, my direct application is still waiting action on their recruitment portal and I am at my 2nd interview by going through the agency

adocholiday

krissovo wrote: »

I applied through both ways recently, my direct application is still waiting action on their recruitment portal and I am at my 2nd interview by going through the agency

Taking no chances! I might do this but I would be wary of causing some level of confusion. Don't want to shoot myself in the foot. Thanks for the input.

Also to CatFromHue, I always assumed it was better to go to the company directly where possible but reading up on it on the net has made me somewhat unsure of that now!

whatnext

Placed a girl recently with large international consultancy, dublin based, third week into the job she got a rejection email from their in house recruitment team. When she brought it to her manager the manager tried to screw me out of the fee saying that candidate had applied directly, which was true, but their internal team rejected her application, before the manager got to see it, as I knew they would. Wrong degree, too old all the usual BS.

Pointed all this out to manager, he called me a liar!!! At this point I told him I knew about the email, oh and that the candidate was my sister.

My advice is, if your CV and experience is right apply directly, but only if you are confident that your CV directly matches the job spec, and the applications are going directly to the hiring manager, ie the person you would be directly working for.

If you are not confident of the above talk to the agent, see if they can help you. Ask if they are dealing with HR or an internal recruitment person or directly with the management. Ask them have they placed some one in there before, you'll soon know if they are lying. If you feel you can trust the agent then go with them, if not go back to plan a.

mikemac1

I applied for a job directly and got a PFO email from a senior manager the next morning

Three weeks later I applied through an agency, did my 2 interviews and got the job and held it for over 4 years

I never did tell anyone in there about that

starlit

I think your friend is right, it cost less for the company to hire you than go through the recruiter, better than having a middleman in the mix.

From experience its better to contact the company directly as you know whether they are genuine about taking you on, you have to deal with someone else's opinion and they might not vouch for you. I say you have a better chance landing an interview if you contact the company directly if its a job you'd really like. Save a lot of hassle. At least you have a better idea where you stand.

Go to a professional job coach if you think you need help with CV/Application/Interview prep and so on rather than a recruiter unless they are a certain type of recruiter in the field you are aiming for e.g IT Recruiter and so on. Go to a recruiter that understands your industry is what I am saying if you want to go to a recruiter but the fact the position is advertised by both the company and the recruiter, go directly to the company. They know what they are looking for in a candidate, a recruiter can only vouch for you/the company for a suitable match. Recruiters and Companies look for different things in a candidate, no one thing they look for be exact so go with the company.

It can go both ways can work out for some and not for others. Go directly to the company first if that doesn't work apply through a recruiter they might spot something you might not have noticed. Recruitment agencies do move things on quicker than companies might but its a recruiters job so they get paid to do this but its only a job to them are they really worth going to? Its a money making racket if you ask me, choose a recruitment agency wisely is all I'd say some waste your time others don't so much. They can only do so much on your behalf you have to do a certain amount yourself, its you who get the job for you not them. All they can do is put a good word for you.

Depending on how interviews go, whether its just with the recruiter or just with the company or both then one that you do both would seem more promising maybe!?

starlit

whatnext wrote: »

Placed a girl recently with large international consultancy, dublin based, third week into the job she got a rejection email from their in house recruitment team. When she brought it to her manager the manager tried to screw me out of the fee saying that candidate had applied directly, which was true, but their internal team rejected her application, before the manager got to see it, as I knew they would. Wrong degree, too old all the usual BS.

Pointed all this out to manager, he called me a liar!!! At this point I told him I knew about the email, oh and that the candidate was my sister.

My advice is, if your CV and experience is right apply directly, but only if you are confident that your CV directly matches the job spec, and the applications are going directly to the hiring manager, ie the person you would be directly working for.


If you are not confident of the above talk to the agent, see if they can help you. Ask if they are dealing with HR or an internal recruitment person or directly with the management. Ask them have they placed some one in there before, you'll soon know if they are lying. If you feel you can trust the agent then go with them, if not go back to plan a.

I don't understand this complex situation to be honest. Why such a conflict of interest??? The manager should have spotted this before hiring or not hiring the said girl. It's giving her false hope really. HR need to be more clear to be honest what they want in a candidate. They don't necessary have to have right degree but if they have the right personality/skills/experience then what should a degree matter unless is a very specialised role that be the exception maybe. The internal team should have taken priority if they were to be working with her should they not have had more of a say? Fair enough the team shouldn't discriminate someone for such and such.

Very true I agree, only apply with a cv if it matches the job spec and hiring manager and those working with have a say in the matter of hiring.

I don't know really I would definitely say go directly to the company if that doesn't work out go to an agent OP.

I received a POF from a company a few months ago and then a few weeks later I get an email to say they want to interview me for this same position from someone else in the company? I found it bizzare to say the least. I didn't think the offer of an interview was genuine. I said I'd go but something cropped up and I didn't go for the interview I had my doubts and when I had doubts its not a sure thing and my instinct is nearly almost right!

whatnext

doovdela wrote: »

I don't understand this complex situation to be honest. Why such a conflict of interest??? The manager should have spotted this before hiring or not hiring the said girl. It's giving her false hope really. HR need to be more clear to be honest what they want in a candidate. They don't necessary have to have right degree......

My point is in this and many other instances I have encountered is that the HR/internal recruitment team had a spec they were working to. If an applicant did not tick all the boxes they ignored them. Now if they had the slightest inclination of what the role entailed and read the CV they would have been able to put 2 and 2 together.

I was asked to make contact with company by my sister because she could not get feed back. I did, spoke directly to the director that was hiring, asked if he had received any applicants to which he replied dozens but not one worth interviewing.

I know HR didn't short list her as the minute I emailed the cv he called me to arrange an interview. They paid a five figure sum because HR wouldn't take a call from an applicant, and did not have the ability to understand a CV. This was compounded by the fact that they emailed a rejection letter to her three weeks after she started. And also after they had given her an induction to the company and set her up on the payroll.

starlit

whatnext wrote: »

My point is in this and many other instances I have encountered is that the HR/internal recruitment team had a spec they were working to. If an applicant did not tick all the boxes they ignored them. Now if they had the slightest inclination of what the role entailed and read the CV they would have been able to put 2 and 2 together.

I was asked to make contact with company by my sister because she could not get feed back. I did, spoke directly to the director that was hiring, asked if he had received any applicants to which he replied dozens but not one worth interviewing.

I know HR didn't short list her as the minute I emailed the cv he called me to arrange an interview. They paid a five figure sum because HR wouldn't take a call from an applicant, and did not have the ability to understand a CV. This was compounded by the fact that they emailed a rejection letter to her three weeks after she started. And also after they had given her an induction to the company and set her up on the payroll.

That's crazy like. They couldn't be bothered to understand a CV!? Have they any clue what the role entailed? Makes no sense why be in HR if they not doing their job right and saying someone else can't do it right is beyond me!

krissovo

doovdela wrote: »

Have they any clue what the role entailed?

If its a large company then NO they do not know what the role really is 100%, as often the hiring manager details the job very poorly.

starlit

If they don't its a lot harder to find a suitable candidate without the hiring manager having a say in who they hire bit unfair on everyone all round.

krissovo

doovdela wrote: »

bit unfair on everyone all round.

Its not what you know but who you know

Cedrus

doovdela wrote: »

That's crazy like. They couldn't be bothered to understand a CV!? Have they any clue what the role entailed? Makes no sense why be in HR if they not doing their job right and saying someone else can't do it right is beyond me!

Far too common these days, I was ignored by HR people for years because they couldn't match a CV to a job description, finally got to meet a manager who knew what she wanted and I was back in the game.
TBH it probably doesn't help that too many managers cut & paste generic wide ranging job descriptions.

starlit

Cedrus wrote: »

Far too common these days, I've was ignored by HR people for years because they couldn't match a CV to a job description, finally got to meet a manager who knew what she wanted and I was back in the game.
TBH it probably doesn't help that too many managers cut & paste generic wide ranging job descriptions.

I have often noticed this myself regarding recruiters though. They offer me an interview for jobs I know I am not suited to despite having skills/qualifications/experience that might suit it but wouldn't have gained enough experience or very little experience or little or no experience in that role before hand so pointless doing an interview for a role I know I am not suited to, on paper yes but in reality no.

They should be more clear and concise get their point across and say what they mean what they want in a candidate and stated in the role. How can you match someone if the role is not explained well. Explains why mismatching CV's seem to be the norm to the job. No wonder they can't find suitable candidates if they want them to have x y and z they have it but its neither clear on both parties if both or either have something specific not matched.

If the manager knows what they want then then should have the final say who is hired! Simple! Save time and money! Best of both worlds!

RubyWoo83

adocholiday wrote: »

Taking no chances! I might do this but I would be wary of causing some level of confusion. Don't want to shoot myself in the foot. Thanks for the input.

Also to CatFromHue, I always assumed it was better to go to the company directly where possible but reading up on it on the net has made me somewhat unsure of that now!

DON'T DO BOTH!

You don't know what the terms of business between the agency and the company are so you could end up being ruled out of the process completely for doing this.

My advice would be to do some research, find out who the hiring manager is likely to be and get their contact details.

Submit your application directly to the company and then follow it up with an email/Linkedin message to the hiring manager, providing contact details, reiterating your interest and telling them you would welcome the opportunity to discuss the role further and are available at their convenience to discuss.

Cedrus

RubyWoo83 wrote: »

.....................................................
My advice would be to do some research, find out who the hiring manager is likely to be and get their contact details.

Submit your application directly to the company and then follow it up with an email/Linkedin message to the hiring manager, providing contact details, reiterating your interest and telling them you would welcome the opportunity to discuss the role further and are available at their convenience to discuss.

Some places would consider this canvassing and disqualify the candidate on that basis.

There isn't really a "one way fits all".

starlit

How is finding out who the Hiring manager is, is considered Canvassing?, what is termed as Canvassing though which you could disqualify a candidate?

Cedrus

doovdela wrote: »

How is finding out who the Hiring manager is, is considered Canvassing?, what is termed as Canvassing though which you could disqualify a candidate?

If the official channel is through HR or Specific Agency, and anyone attempts to subvert that channel (TD, Parish Priest, Candidate), some places deem it canvassing and disqualify, not all places, but the multinationals that I tend to deal with have codes of conduct and procedures that are strictly followed. Not always to the satisfaction of the hiring manager or the overall benefit of the company.

Eoin

Cedrus wrote: »

If the official channel is through HR or Specific Agency, and anyone attempts to subvert that channel (TD, Parish Priest, Candidate), some places deem it canvassing and disqualify, not all places, but the multinationals that I tend to deal with have codes of conduct and procedures that are strictly followed. Not always to the satisfaction of the hiring manager or the overall benefit of the company.

And even if you're not dealing with particularly formal procedures, you might just find that HR might get pissy if they think that someone has gone around them and/or the hiring manager wants HR to deal with all contact with a candidate and doesn't want to be contacted directly. For instance, the manager might be worried that a candidate will keep getting on to them for feedback / reasons they weren't hired, asked to interview etc.

Mr. Loverman

Sometimes the HR person won't care about saving the company money by dealing direct with candidates. Combine this with the fact that the recruiter is a sales person and will try hard to sell you to the company, your best bet might be to go through the recruiter.

But then again the HR person could be a bean counter and the recruiter may not be acting officially on behalf of the company.

So it's hard to give you an answer.

Personally I would deal directly with the company.