There are limits to the intervention of recruiters. The line between preparing candidates for interviews and giving them all the particulars is sometimes a fine one. Of course, all recruiters worth their salt want their candidates to do well, because this relates directly to the recruiter’s credibility and ability to assess that rare pearl. Some recruiters even rewrite their candidates’ resumes to better show them to advantage. Are they right in doing so or are they simply scared that their darlings will be found lacking? Is it a too big incursion into the authenticity of the process? The question may appear trivial, but nevertheless a good reflection of the dilemma of recruiters, who often put their reputation in the hands of the candidates who represent them. Our job is a thankless one, but we love it, right?!
A recruiter recently shared with me a situation he had just experienced—a situation that we’ve all, one day or another, learned to our cost. Thinking to do well, he explained to the candidate that the hiring manager he would be meeting—of a well-known public company, was a sports aficionado who liked people as they are: natural and without airs. “Play the authenticity card and be yourself. My client likes people for who they are,” had been his advice. The day of the interview, the candidate showed up in leggings and a threadbare T-shirt. Goodbye authenticity, hello voluntary simplicity and bye-bye candidate! When the client called the recruiter back, he was furious. The recruiter should perhaps have explained that “authentic” in his client’s mind did not mean “sloppy.” The candidate’s error of judgment became the recruiter’s incompetence. Had he said nothing, the candidate would certainly have shown up in different attire and maybe been hired. Perhaps, but would he have passed the six-month threshold with the company?
In another real-life situation, the recruiter tells the candidate that his client is a very demanding and hard but fair manager. His client is a man who has the reputation of not being easily convinced and to whom one should not hesitate to prove one’s worth and sell one’s ideas. Accordingly, the candidate adopted a rather aggressive, bulldozer-like approach, which lost him the job.
Coaching a candidate is not therefore without risk. The problem is that candidates do not always listen or only retain some of the advice given. Managers, for their part, are not always very skilful in conducting their interviews or very honest in their own self-assessments. Hence, the “cool” manager was in reality a conservative who doesn’t dare admit it to himself, and the firm-handshake manager in fact rather intimidated. Recruiters should not only do a better assessment of their clients and get to know them better, but especially make sure that candidates have a proper grasp of the advice or information conveyed to them. They have to be able to evaluate the challenges of the interview and use the information advisedly. This presumes a certain understanding has been forged between the recruiter and the candidate, and that both parties properly decode and understand the message without deformation or filtering. Herein lies the art of coaching, which takes time—a simple phone call followed by a one-hour interview is not enough. No, this is something that is built over the long term, as any professional coach will tell you. Unless you are sufficiently familiar with the candidate you are presenting, be vigilant. Do not err based on the nature of your relationship with the candidate either. Saying too much can be harmful. I have in mind the case of a well-meaning colleague who shared personal information about the client with the candidate. In this specific case, the client had just gotten divorced and had shared custody of his children. The recruiter had revealed this information to reassure the candidate on the employer’s position with respect to work/family life balance. It was a fatal mistake, as the client was offended by the recruiter’s breach of trust.
Candidates can be coached by giving them all the tools to prepare themselves including financial information, business plan, annual reports, organizational charts, description of the job and of the team, etc. They can also be told about the corporate culture or atmosphere of the company. They should also be helped to identify their strengths and weaknesses to enhance their performance in interviews. Anything beyond that is cheating—giving them all the answers in advance, providing them with the interview grid or sharing confidential information with them puts you at risk. By being too well intentioned, we do harm. Actually, I would say that by wanting to overly shield ourselves from candidates’ potential failures, we cause them to make mistakes that ultimately impact our credibility.
The rule is that the people we present to clients or hiring managers must be seen as they are, without artifice, because while you can fake it for a time in an interview or process, you can’t keep it up after several months. A leopard cannot change his spots!
Nathalie Francisci, Adma, CRHA
Executive Vice-president
at Mandrake Groupe Conseil