It also raises the question of what value these consultancies are adding - it seems an expensive means of applying a simple first-filter based on tick-boxes.
Another point that is often raised, but as the practice continues, bears repeating, is the treatment of candidates with contempt. For example: Where is the logic in denying candidates access to information (suitably anonymous) on a role before a formal application is made? It only results in both candidates and recruiters wasting time in writing/reading applications when a lack of suitability could easily have been established before application. Maybe the cynic would suggest consultants have a vested interest in wasting time. Are companies considering this?
All too frequently (in my experience I would estimate in around 40 per cent of cases) candidates are not informed that they have been declined. In the event that a candidate receives an email declining them, there is no explanation as to why, other than the stock expression: other candidates' backgrounds more closely matched our specification.
I also note that you didn't really address the essence of the question posed by the previous writer, which must surely be: How do good, broadly skilled and experienced candidates get through these narrow-minded processes?
A. I'm sorry that you've had such bad experience with employment consultants, and to be fair I wasn't defending consultancies, I was pointing out why they may be less approachable than going direct to employers.
As I noted, consultants work to a brief, and they are trying to make matches based on the information put forward by their clients.
What value do they add? Well potentially, they remove the search from the political processes and potential biases within the organisation, they afford a broader network of contacts and can "shoulder tap" in ways that potential employers may not, and many have additional screening expertise in testing and assessment.
Like any profession, however, some are better than others. While we would expect specialist consultants to offer better services than the client company, the examples you have noted are bad practice whether they come from the employing company or their consultant.
Candidates should always receive enough information about the job to tailor their CV and application, including an opportunity to clarify requirements. As you note, this prevents wasted time and effort on both sides. Ideally, the preliminary information should include the search timeframe and when an appointment is to be made.
As I have noted in previous columns, continuing communication is the hallmark of good management of the recruitment process. All applicants should receive timely acknowledgement of their application and their status in the search. If firms are going to use a generic letter for unsuccessful candidates, they should at least provide a contact for additional feedback. Presumably there is a criteria-based reason for the decline.
With both consultants and direct approaches to employers, though, results are generally better with relationships than with cold applications. Targeting companies and positions that are likely to appeal, as well as the consulting organisations that are likely to recruit for them, can increase your chances of success.
Most positions are not advertised, and many arise with "someone in mind". Cultivating awareness and contacts in companies and consultancies by discussing your skills, CV and expectations in advance, and finding out their processes, procedures and preferences, can make your job search both more efficient and more likely to succeed.
As a final note, you did relate one incident that has not been reprinted, to protect your confidentiality as well as that of the perpetrator.
I think you would be fully justified in writing to the senior management of the consultancy and relating your experience to them.
They should be horrified to think that the relationships that form the basis of their business are being undermined in the way that you have described.
* * *
Email a question for Dr Marie Wilson
