by Nate W. » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:55 pm
Anybody can hang a shingle and called themselves a recruiter. Based on my experiences with biotech recruiters, most of the time one of the following happens:
1) I wasn't qualified for the solicited position and I declined it because I knew I couldn't do the job.
2) I wasn't qualified for the solicited position but there were other positions he was handling that I was qualified but he wouldn't submit my name no matter what point I made to him.
3) I was partially qualified for the position, he submits my name, and it turns out he does not have a contract with the client.
4) I called him because I saw a position he was handling that I knew I am qualified for and could do an excellent job. However, he disagrees and will not submit my name no matter what point I make to him.
Given that I am an experienced scientist that has industry experience, I am confident of my abilities and know what I can do as well as my limitations: often times better than a recruiter or non-scientist. I am fairly self aware of my skills and expertise. Partly, the reason I know this is because I often check out the LinkedIn profile before I respond to a recruiter. In most situations, a recruiter handling life science positions doesn't have s science background, no research experience, no scientific degree, no clinical experience, or no biotech/ pharma industry experience. Often it will be a former HR person from another industry, a former account manager for a large corporate, or a semi-retired HR or business executive trying make money on the side to supplement his retirement. These individuals are qualified to pass judgement on what I am qualified to do scientifically?
Most of the time recruiters are always dead set in their decisions. They don't listen to their prospective candidates regardless of their qualifications or expertise. They seem to know better than someone obviously more qualified than they are on the topic. No matter what point I (or some else with similar or greater credentials) make in response to an objection, they aren't willing to listen to their prospective candidates. They see things myopically as black/white and think candidates submitted have to be a perfect fit. No gray here or matter of opinion; please there is a lot grey in hiring. I think this is also a problem with this "skilled gap" question; recruiters are unable to locate and evaluate one's qualifications because they lack the scientific (content) expertise in a given field, especially in technical disciplines.
The problem is that if you argue too vehemently with them, they will start questioning your fit or give you the buzz-off line "I work for my client and they expect an exact fit. Otherwise, they will fire me! " Frankly, I challenge that recruiters' assertion that they will be dropped (or fired) if the they don't submit someone who is a "perfect" and by whose standard, the one lacking any scientific or industry experience. Is this true or just BS? I think it is BS.
My question is should I listen to these recruiters and why do they act so myoptic? I trust my former supervisor, colleagues, and myself before I trust a guy in a strip mall with a MBA or HR experience and no scientific expertise. Why can't they listen to the people who are experts in their field?
It actually frustrates me the plug and play mindset of these recruiters lacking any industry experience. Give me a recruiter who knows his stuff and has industry experience, I will rightfully listen and his background will command my respect.
They are recruiters out there like this but they are a rarity and often they are retained recruiters that work on high level executive positions.
It is like the series of commercials that Holiday Inn Express (in the US) once did where a person pretends to be an expert in a field because they stayed in their hotels for the night. Did these myoptic recruiters stay in a Holiday Inn Express lately?