Why do recruiters reject me for a position that we both know I can do?

Great question! In all our years of recruiting execs and senior managers, one of the most common areas of mutual frustration – for both the job seeker and the recruiter – is understanding WHEN (NOT) to try and work with recruiters? Not only are the majority of positions landed through networking, but there are situations when networking is the highest and best use of ALL your time and efforts. So when does it makes sense to “go in direct” versus “work with a recruiter” who may have an insider relationship, especially an exclusively retained search? There are three critically important pre-requisites. We call them the Three Magic Bullets™. The same organization that MIGHT hire a candidate -- with SOME or most of the relevant skills and requisite experience – will be less inclined to pay a recruiter a fee to hire that same individual.

A recruiter is expected (and if retained, paid in advance) to have proactively and thoroughly researched the market and to present ONLY candidates who meet all three dimensions of the hiring company’s requirements. To consider interviewing a candidate (much less paying the recruiter a fee), an employer looks for (at least) three (3) key areas: 1) experience, 2) compensation history, and 3) work history.

Let’s examine each of these in turn… what are the "three magic bullets" that a candidate MUST have -- in terms of the target experience -- for it to make sense to be presented through a recruiter?

1.   Specific Expertise: including functional expertise, industry experience, and specified qualifications, for example…

• Functional Expertise: P&L experience as a Project Manager for large electrical construction contracts of $10-25M,
• Industry experience: above functional experience must have been gained working for a large electrical construction contractor (NOT as an owners rep or an in-house construction project manager);
• Qualifications specified: must have a BSEE and a PE, and strong existing relationships with local clients, general contractors and the trades. (This means out-of-town candidates by definition are not going to be attractive because they won't have the local relationships desired.)

1.   Current / recent compensation history should be (roughly) within 10% of target comp (Why? If candidate's current compensation (arguably, the best proxy for their true value on the market is too low, the hiring company will be concerned that the candidate is "under-qualified" or "not worth" the target compensation. If candidate's current compensation is too high, the employer may be concerned that the candidate is "over qualified". Even if the candidate is willing to accept the position at the target compensation (below where they've been), the employer is still concerned that the candidate will leave when another opportunity more commensurate with their experience (read "more money") becomes available.)

2.   Candidate MUST have a stable work history defined – albeit arbitrarily and unfairly – as currently in a similar role for at least two years, with no previous job changes in less than two years. Again, a company that expects their search professional to present only a “perfect candidate” (five to six years with every employer) may seriously consider a candidate with more frequent moves if they “find” the candidate directly (e.g. employee referral).

Bottom line, if you are open to making a lateral career move -- at least in terms of experience and responsibilities – and meet all three “magic bullets”, working with recruiters MAY make sense.

When companies retain or engage a recruiter, they want someone who "IS there and doing that" (or very recently “been there and doing that”). In most cases, recruiters must find a candidate who is performing successfully in virtually the same role for another employer.

Why would ANYONE consider leaving where they are for a lateral career move with only a modest increase in compensation? Usually, candidates do this because of the hiring company’s superior reputation, family friendly culture, market position, growth trajectory or better professional growth opportunities.

If you want a company to bet on your ability to move to the next level, stay where you are a known quantity, or apply directly. Few companies are willing to subsidize a candidate’s career progression by hiring them for a position is a “stretch” job.

This may help explain why recruiters seek responses to very specific questions before they will present a candidate. Whether trying to vet a less than stable work history, verify academic credentials (seeking graduation year dates), or document current and recent compensation history, the due diligence required is extensive. So while a recruiter CAN be very helpful to your career at certain times, it wastes time -- on both sides -- to try and get a job through a recruiter if you don’t want to make a "career lateral" or don't have all “three magic bullets”.

Networking trumps the vast majority of the time. Instead, you should identify your top three to five ideal employers -- and attempt to penetrate them directly (using your personal network of contacts) instead of going through recruiters. Tell everyone you know (family, friends, colleagues) of your interest in a given company, and ask if they know of anyone who works there. The most unlikely network of relationships can be the key to your landing a job with your ideal employer. While there are always exceptions to the circumstances described here, if you pursue new opportunities with these guidelines in mind, it will be a win-win-win, for you, the employer and the recruiter.