Interestingly, not only recruiters, but also the customers acknowledge fallaciousness of the practice, at which several agencies are to be fulfilled one and the same order. In environment of the competitive fight the agency task is becoming not revelation of the best nominee as a result of painstaking search, detailed interviewing and verification of recommendations, but the most prompt attempt to claim all formally acceptable nominees and presentation of their resumes before competitors. This case has no place and time for the thought-out strategy of the sourcing and application of various methods. As a consequence, the customer remains dissatisfied by the service and appeals to the still greater circle of agencies transforming the scheme into a circulars virtuoso [2, 13, 50 and 110].
Sometimes very opposite recommendations could be met: “Very important decision at interaction with recruiters is to select two-three agencies working in the desired area and say them: ‘If you will be the first to find the required nominee for me, even at a minimal prepayment, I will cooperate in future namely with you’ ” [12, 5]. Certainly, the words “the required nominee for me” may be read as “the most suitable in terms of specification”, but all the same, the key words are “the first to find”.
On the other hand, the exclusiveness of an order provokes the agency “to sell an available nominee only because there are no other nominees” (7).
Stanislav Shekshnya [63] explains backbone of similar negative cases in such way: “At present very many recruitment agencies exist, since this business does not require large investments, and anyone can establish it. As a result, they are not able to compete between each other professionally, and they start to compete under use of underpricing, spreading of negative information on their competitors and blackmailing of companies”.
And yet the thinking on competition between the agencies would be better to close by the following phrase of the recruiter from Sumy [40]: “for withstanding the competition within the local markets it is enough not to kidat’ (cheat) anybody”.
To my opinion, the talking on direct competition between the agencies is somewhat meaningless, since they close at most 5% of the appearing vacancies; other 95% are being closed by HR-departments of consumers, through acquaintances, media and other traditional sourcing methods [32, 39, 56, 64 and 77]. The recruitment agencies shall fight namely for some parts of these 95% captured by indirect competitors. In this situation the image of the recruitment community as a whole is imperative [85]: “at present the concern for image of our professional community is much more beneficial for us than concern for anybody’s own image. However, the situation is still such that the joint image of the community is far beyond images of some of its members. But it should be quite opposite!”
The search for consumers is described with great fullness in [19]: specialized, departmental and business publications; advertisements in media on open vacancies; fair of vacancies; advertisement of the agency in every place, to which the potential clients are addressing (“yellow pages”, internet and reference books); direct distribution; veiled marketing events like “Review of salaries”; search for clients “under star”. However, the best means to attract new clients is a high service provided to the clients and nominees.
The search, preparation and package of the “goods” have been described many times, carefully and with strong affection [13, 18, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 41, 54, 55, 58, 62, 65, 70, 93, 101, 103]. And the affection is so strong that the longing desire to show all the capabilities prevents the agency from hearing the client. For instance, the client would like to be restricted only by the service on looking through the nominees responding to a paper advertisement, but he is burdened by the whole cycle recruitment [13,19 and 85]. As a problem, a different meaning of the “goods” is described: what is the “goods” in a deal – service or human being (even if it sounds cynically)? [7, 85].
Frequently, the decision on hiring is influenced not so much by the nominee per se, as by its “package”, composition of which may be on client’s mind as follows [85]:
1. Name of the agency (“The good agency cannot send bad nominees”).
2. Personality of the consultant (“Such competent and pleasant person cannot make an error”).
3. Accuracy of work (“You don’t say so! – they promised to send at 12 and sent at 12!”).
4. Payment (“It cannot be bad for such money”).
5. Detailed and transparent resume (“I read the resume and see the live person!”). 6. Good prepared interview of nominees (“This agency presents quite other peoples”).
The recruitment business specificity forces to examine not only the “goods” but the buyer-customer as well. It means comprehensive study of the company [15], participation in an interview at the customer [14], acquaintance with corporative culture, future fellow-laborers and workplace of the nominee [2, 85].