Almost everybody in the IT industry has a horror story about an IT recruiter. This is a proposal for a system to help employers identify potential candidates based on peer approval and selection. This is described here as a software system, but it wouldn’t necessarily need an IT system.
An employer identifies a position, and on a website describes the kind of work that is involved, what skills are desired, the kind of company it is, etc.
Potential recruiters who work in similar roles within the industry (but who aren’t interested in the role on offer) put themselves forward. The employer can recruit as many or as few of them as they like, based on their experience and ability to understand the kind of candidate they’re looking for. Together they identify key criteria that the successful candidate must possess.
Candidates on applying for the job put forward a CV and forwarding letter that are anonymised (no age, gender, race, nationality, names, or any other identifiable traits are revealed to recruiters, but are available to employers).
Recruiters then go through the applications to separate those who obviously aren’t suited, from those who likely to make a reasonable candidate. Rather than just looking for certain keywords, they apply their own experience of the industry to make an assessment of the individuals.
Once a short-list is prepared, the employer is asked to ‘sign off’ before the next stage occurs. At this stage they are able to remove people from the short list who they feel would not be able to make an offer to – e.g. a former employee, an employee of a firm they have a no-recruitment agreement with, etc.
Of the remaining candidates, the recruiters can then conduct a standard test. If more than one recruiter is involved, they work together to compose a series of questions that will be asked of all candidates. These questions are then put to candidates within the system, and they have 24 hours in which to respond. At no point are the recruiters’ identities known to the candidates or vice versa (thereby stopping friends from suggesting friends).
Recruiters than mark candidates based on their answers against a set of criteria as agreed with the employer at the start. A short-list of candidates suitable for interview at the premises is then given to the employer, who can be sure that the list is not composed of those who have won at “buzzword bingo” but who have demonstrated ability within a peer group.
On hiring a candidate, if the candidate chosen is one the recruiter(s) recommended, a fee of 2% of the first year’s salary is paid. This is cheaper than traditional recruitment and provides incentives for the recruiters to find the best candidate.
Added by Paul Robinson 10 months ago, last updated 3 months ago by Andrew Wood
Comments
This happens to a large degree in my unit. I have my team look at suitable cvs (I present the suitable ones!). For junior staff / student placement I hand the whole process over to my team i.e. they select and they interview. In this case I act more as a mentor.
My company also have a recruitment policy whereby if someone is introduced by a mmeber of staff then they get a percentage of their salary (5% or 10%??)
...of course you end up with the team “selecting” simliar people to the current team…which is fine if, like me, are lucky to start with a really great team!
I’ve found that associate networks work best through karmic exchange – i.e. trusting relationships built on mutual favours. I currently building a network to support my business.
In terms of permanent recruitment (rather than sub-contracting) you might like to take a look at Linked-In which is like peer-review for CVs.