Careful With That Axe, John « Good to Know

interactions have been uniformly positive, but this seems off:

It is worth considering the fact that hiring failures make for recruiter job security. Under most circumstances, there is little incentive for a recruiter to care for or try to influence the success of a new hire. Just the opposite is true. Recruiters  depend on high attrition rates as a part of their role in the company. If recruiters were constantly generating great hires, you’d need far fewer of them.

I think it’s bigger than just “recruiters are trying to protect their jobs, by not filling reqs”.  (Btw – did you mean to paint us as a bunch of completely self-absorbed sleaze-bags? I don’t think you did, but that’s the impression. Ouch. Hard not to take that one personally).   You could carry that argument forward logically: if you’re correct, then recruiters try and get low quality hires through the door, thus ensuring high turnover. Heck, they could try and create a negative culture at the company, and drive people out.  Job security a go-go!

Wait.  Who hires the recruiter, supports them, and then measures their success?  Typically the CFO or head of HR. Which means they must be in on it, too. How else could someone get away with deliberately scuttling the key component of what they were hired to do, without an accomplice to help cover their tracks.  If that’s the case, who’s ignoring the failure of that department to do a key part of its job? Since the CFO and/ or head of HR report into the CEO, then it’s got to be the CEO’s fault.

Posted via web from AndyWergedal