It is one of the tasks of a recruiter to write job advertisements, check applications, select suitable candidates, conduct interviews and in some cases also negotiate conditions for employment.
Exactly that cannot work, at least it doesn't work as well as if the customer and the expert meet directly as a contractor. Why is that the case?
My experiences with recruiters always show the same scheme. Only administrative work is done here. Most of the time there is only a budget with additional skills and requirements that the experts should provide. In principle, anyone can do this, even special software can scan profiles. Of course, this is useful for a cost-saving and profitable way of working for recruiting companies.
By the way, I would like to make contact I would also like to mention the contacts that are tough on their own. Most of the time, a phone call is made and the recruiter simply gets going, "I have a very exciting project for you!" So far, no one had ever asked whether you could disturb or whether you could call later. Or in emails it is usually assumed that the recruiters are urgently needed. In short, it's just pure stress. Mention that alone has it all. Most of the time, a phone call is made and the recruiter simply gets going, "I have a very exciting project for you!" So far, no one had ever asked whether you could disturb or whether you could call later. Or in emails it is usually assumed that the recruiters are urgently needed. In short, it's just pure stress.
However, this is annoying both for the actual client and for us experts. I consider that representative of my branch, the IT service provider.
Let's take this call:
“Database developer and administrator wanted (MariaDB / MySQL) - mostly remote
We are looking for a database specialist (m / f / d) who will take care of the administration and further development of the existing database systems.
- Expert knowledge in the development and administration of database systems, especially MariaDB / MySQL
- Python + experience writing scripts
- Experience with database replication
- in-depth knowledge of Linux
- Knowledge of bash
- Experience with the analysis of data (data evaluation) "
In principle, this is a single catastrophe to hire an IT expert because it can mean anything and is therefore extremely imprecise. In principle, this means that the recruiter does not know what his customer actually wants. It starts with the must-have. As an expert, the first thing I want to know is what the further development of the existing database systems should consist of. Should a complete database system be renewed or migrated, or should existing databases be modulated differently, because the content requirements have changed? Just to name two contingencies.
Every IT expert who administers Linux systems also has the scripting requirement. Seen in this way, the mention of the Bash (Bourne Again Shell) is nonsensical, especially since it is almost standard under Linux - Linux definitely doesn't exist without bash, ksh etc.
In-depth Linux knowledge is also not deepened. Where should they be? More in the operation of the shell or already in tuning the performance or securing a Linux system?
And then we have a nice wish for the experience in data analysis. This is already a science in itself, where the recruiter cannot commit himself to a special method, approach.
The personnel service provider who wrote this invitation to tender already shows in his formulations that he knows absolutely nothing about what he is supposed to convey. His search and result will be corresponding, because neither he nor any potential candidates can correctly judge whether this project could be implemented with the respective individual requirements.
The approach of the IT expert itself would be different if the same customer did not go through the personnel service provider, but instead contacted the IT expert directly. Perhaps the first time you made contact, the information would still be relatively lean, because this job is more likely to be done by purchasing or by less specialized employees. But after all, as an IT expert, I would already ask the right questions to find out what my customer actually wants. If necessary, the way to the inquiring experts at the customer's EDP would be much shorter than with a recruiter, especially since I could speak to them myself at this stage.
Now the project request would certainly look a lot better and you could already say what you can specifically support the customer with.
No personnel service provider or recruiter worldwide can offer such an approach, because then he or she could do the requested IT job himself. Seen in this way, the better way is always that the company that needs external specialists - in this case IT experts from the Linux and database environment - searches for the experts themselves on the Internet and contacts them.
I would not consider the argument that personnel service providers keep the entire contract processing and the cash flow away from the contracting companies as added value, especially because in this way at least three contracting parties would be involved. So there would be at least one, if not two, latent dissatisfied parties in the contract construct.
More success and satisfaction on both sides will always give a direct business relationship between the ordering customer and the IT expert.
An intermediary recruiter will always have the business objective of his company in mind, less that of his customers, regardless of whether it is the project developer or the IT expert. Added to this is the lack of specialist knowledge in order to correctly grasp the project and then describe it. Ultimately, the right approach to recruiting is missing. Because just looking for skills and comparable IT projects in the CV is not enough, especially if you cannot understand the technical language.
Seen in this way, the path for all involved is a very large waste of time and resources in contrast to direct commissioning. Honestly what added value does the service of a recruiter or the client offer me as an IT expert? I'll put it this way once: As long as I get better quality information in direct contact with the customer and the decision-making processes are much faster because they are transported by fewer people, I see no added value in recruiter services. In any case, I would regard the contractual relationship with a recruitment agency that has nothing to do with my services other than to keep commissions as an extreme hindrance to my business processes. The client will also win in direct contact. Especially since the outsourcing of the HR department has proven to be a fallacy from the perspective of qualitative work performance, because the outsourced costs are now incurred by another company, which in turn wants to save the costs. And that comes at the expense of qualitative work. Then it's better to do the same work yourself again and be happier.
The only question now is why no client is aware of this. Perhaps the service of personnel services has now become a convenience.
In any case, I can assign me to my topic at any time and travel faster, cheaper and with better quality than with the current standard route.