Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

1…838839841843844…1093

Comments

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,079
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Industry is littered with cowboys as the barriers to entry are getting a phone and a working email address, for sure.

    Can offer plenty of advice to avoid them if you want.

    FWIW recruiters who do not stick to confidentiality can’t survive very long.

    Why? As you point out it is the employer who is the client and paying the bills, and it is them who likes the intel.
    Word gets around fast and then no one will speak to you.
    Which is why I won't speak to a lot of them! They nonetheless continue to have mandates which leads to the annoyance.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    It doesn’t seem to get you a happy life given the amount of complaining you do on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Now I’m running my own practice I am genuinely really enjoying it. So far anyway.

    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Industry is littered with cowboys as the barriers to entry are getting a phone and a working email address, for sure.

    Can offer plenty of advice to avoid them if you want.

    FWIW recruiters who do not stick to confidentiality can’t survive very long.

    Why? As you point out it is the employer who is the client and paying the bills, and it is them who likes the intel.
    Word gets around fast and then no one will speak to you.
    Which is why I won't speak to a lot of them! They nonetheless continue to have mandates which leads to the annoyance.
    Yeah that is. Grass them up!
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    🤏 or slightly bigger?
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    rick_chasey said:

    Now I’m running my own practice I am genuinely really enjoying it. So far anyway.

    Practice.
    You are recruiter not a medic, lawyer, architect or the like. To have a practice you need to be a professional.
  • drhaggis
    drhaggis Posts: 1,150
    Entirely trivial and irrelevant in day to day life: input lag in console games. Really upsets me.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited October 2022
    webboo said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Now I’m running my own practice I am genuinely really enjoying it. So far anyway.

    Practice.
    You are recruiter not a medic, lawyer, architect or the like. To have a practice you need to be a professional.
    What would you call it?
    _
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    edited October 2022
    An office or business.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    An office is a building you do work in and a business would be referring to the entire company which isn’t right either. I’m not running a business.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    The ego has landed.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    To be a professional you need to be in a profession that if you are deemed to have behaved unprofessionally, you can be stopped from practicing that profession.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    webboo said:

    To be a professional you need to be in a profession that if you are deemed to have behaved unprofessionally, you can be stopped from practicing that profession.

    How low does the bar need to be? Is a trip hazard enough?
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    As low as a snakes belly in some cases.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited October 2022
    webboo said:

    To be a professional you need to be in a profession that if you are deemed to have behaved unprofessionally, you can be stopped from practicing that profession.

    Weird as it’s what the industry uses.

    Think the meaning may have moved on, weboo. Certainly reference to it as your “office” is pretty pompous and unless you’re the founder I don’t think you’re in a position to refer to it as your business.

    Some people use “portfolio” but again, that suggests a range of products or services.

    Everyone knows what practice means 👍🏻
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    rick_chasey said:

    webboo said:

    To be a professional you need to be in a profession that if you are deemed to have behaved unprofessionally, you can be stopped from practicing that profession.

    Weird as it’s what the industry uses.

    Think the meaning may have moved on, weboo. Certainly reference to it as your “office” is pretty pompous and unless you’re the founder I don’t think you’re in a position to refer to it as your business.

    Some people use “portfolio” but again, that suggests a range of products or services.

    Everyone knows what practice means 👍🏻
    For example, big search firm Korn Ferry have “practice leaders”

    https://www.kornferry.com/about-us/consultants/josephhealey
    _
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,619
    drhaggis said:

    Entirely trivial and irrelevant in day to day life: input lag in console games. Really upsets me.

    Yeah - GT6; and it always happens just as you are braking for a chicane.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,593
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    They are not working for the hiring manager either, by the sounds of the squeezing fees practice. And at the upper rarefied end, who are you working for exactly?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,593
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    Doubled down on the echo there.
    The transition from socially aware hipster city slicker to tory voting oldie living in the boonies is nearly complete. Embrace the dark side. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited October 2022
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    They are not working for the hiring manager either, by the sounds of the squeezing fees practice. And at the upper rarefied end, who are you working for exactly?
    It’s just a different business model. You’re not punting CVs around seeing if any stick.

    You’re asked by a firm to fill a specific (usually leadership) role, they pay you upfront, etc. With that comes a tonne of ancillary information, assessments, informal references, a whole report on fit-for-the-role, often market maps so the client knows the entire market and why the shortlisted candidates are shortlisted so they know they’re getting the best they can etc. They’ll know the candidate pool already and hand good relationships with most so they’re able to twist the arm of happy and not-looking candidates and persuade them to consider another role even though they’re happy - after all the best people are usually happy and successful already. Hence headhunting.

    That comes with a hefty price tag so isn’t very useful for non-critical or non-strategic roles.

    The reason most agency firms won’t list the hiring firm is they have a network of say 15-20 hiring managers who they punt CVs to. So they’ll generate generic ads that do pertain to a need they’ve heard about but doesn’t rule out potential hot candidates who they can punt around. If one gets hired you get a fee - if you don’t you don’t. That adds a different dynamic to proceedings.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    They are not working for the hiring manager either, by the sounds of the squeezing fees practice. And at the upper rarefied end, who are you working for exactly?
    It’s just a different business model. You’re not punting CVs around seeing if any stick.

    You’re asked by a firm to fill a specific (usually leadership) role, they pay you upfront, etc. With that comes a tonne of ancillary information, assessments, informal references, a whole report on fit-for-the-role, often market maps so the client knows the entire market and why the shortlisted candidates are shortlisted so they know they’re getting the best they can etc. They’ll know the candidate pool already and hand good relationships with most so they’re able to twist the arm of happy and not-looking candidates and persuade them to consider another role even though they’re happy - after all the best people are usually happy and successful already. Hence headhunting.

    That comes with a hefty price tag so isn’t very useful for non-critical or non-strategic roles.

    The reason most agency firms won’t list the hiring firm is they have a network of say 15-20 hiring managers who they punt CVs to. So they’ll generate generic ads that do pertain to a need they’ve heard about but doesn’t rule out potential hot candidates who they can punt around.

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    They are not working for the hiring manager either, by the sounds of the squeezing fees practice. And at the upper rarefied end, who are you working for exactly?
    It’s just a different business model. You’re not punting CVs around seeing if any stick.

    You’re asked by a firm to fill a specific (usually leadership) role, they pay you upfront, etc. With that comes a tonne of ancillary information, assessments, informal references, a whole report on fit-for-the-role, often market maps so the client knows the entire market and why the shortlisted candidates are shortlisted so they know they’re getting the best they can etc. They’ll know the candidate pool already and hand good relationships with most so they’re able to twist the arm of happy and not-looking candidates and persuade them to consider another role even though they’re happy - after all the best people are usually happy and successful already. Hence headhunting.

    That comes with a hefty price tag so isn’t very useful for non-critical or non-strategic roles.

    The reason most agency firms won’t list the hiring firm is they have a network of say 15-20 hiring managers who they punt CVs to. So they’ll generate generic ads that do pertain to a need they’ve heard about but doesn’t rule out potential hot candidates who they can punt around.

    I don't recognise that second model at my paultry level. The vacancies tend to be real and occasionally there are "if you ever see anyone like this" instructions left with recruiters.

    But they we do also get the stupid scatter gun approach where someone will ring every person in the office in turn.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    If you pay them up front then you'll know what you're getting. If you don't, then it's a different model.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    rick_chasey said:

    If you pay them up front then you'll know what you're getting. If you don't, then it's a different model.

    Makes sense. In the PAYG model, what happens if you can't fill a role, or can't fill it in time, or if you find them a dud? (happened in my first job decades ago, bloke so far out of his depth, he could see land)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited October 2022
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    If you pay them up front then you'll know what you're getting. If you don't, then it's a different model.

    Makes sense. In the PAYG model, what happens if you can't fill a role, or can't fill it in time, or if you find them a dud? (happened in my first job decades ago, bloke so far out of his depth, he could see land)
    So you agree all that beforehand. I normally replace anyone for free if they leave within 6-12 months as I want the repeat business and I want my clients to know I’m genuinely interested in finding them the best people.

    The payment up front is for the research to be done. That happens whether you hire the person of not.

    You can structure it different ways so say 1/3 of fee up front, 1/3rd on acceptance of the shortlist and 1/3 on placement.

    You can fix the fee or make it a % of the hire’s first year comp. All sorts of structures you can do.

    All sorts.

    I'm able to negotiate 95% of expected fee, cancellation fees, so if the client cancels the search I still get my money. All depends on trust and if they think you're worth it.
    _
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    The descriptions on bags of coffee beans. Stuff like “ Citrus flavours mixed with chocolate and caramel”. In most cases it just tastes of coffee mixed with coffee.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,465
    webboo said:

    The descriptions on bags of coffee beans. Stuff like “ Citrus flavours mixed with chocolate and caramel”. In most cases it just tastes of coffee mixed with coffee.

    Who wants citrusy coffee anyway?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,893
    webboo said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Now I’m running my own practice I am genuinely really enjoying it. So far anyway.

    Practice.
    You are recruiter not a medic, lawyer, architect or the like. To have a practice you need to be a professional.
    He can call it a practice if he likes. The title of my profession is legally protected but the actual function isn't, which is nuts, but also fine.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,953
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You’re not gonna get consistently good recruitment under £150-200k comp.

    Over that you probably will.

    Uh huh
    Kind of damning if only the top 1-2% of your industry is anything other than censored , wouldn't you say?
    I wouldn’t know I’m in that top 1% 🤗
    Echoes of Stevo there.
    If you work in the rarified world of exec search it’s a different business model to what most people experience (unsurprisingly).

    It’s best to imagine your agencies are not working for you, they’re working for the hiring manager.

    So I imagine at the bottom end it’s pretty useless, and you hear lots of stories of horrendous practices to squeeze fees out of people.

    Ultimately what goes around comes around.
    Doubled down on the echo there.
    The transition from socially aware hipster city slicker to tory voting oldie living in the boonies is nearly complete. Embrace the dark side. 😉
    I'll be taking him under my wing soon :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]

Categories