Concern with Offered candidates - Frustrated Recruiter

To the candidate we have offered:

Thank you for finding the notification. Also, thank you for attending and clearing the interview. We appreciate your agreement to the offered salary after mutual negotiation.

Finally, thank you for wasting my time by not joining after the time you requested for releasing the offer.

It is commendable that you have knowledge, but it would have been much better if you had some sense that time is precious to others as well.

If you are not interested, you should have informed us as early as possible after deciding not to join, so that we could find someone else. What brings you joy in wasting our time after accepting the offer? Some individuals are so inconsiderate that they confirm their arrival on the specified day mentioned at the time of the offer and then become unresponsive after the due date. Your commitment, or lack thereof, makes it challenging for us to decide whether to source profiles or wait for your reply, which is impeding our progress. What if an organization extends more than one offer for a single position and cancels the remaining offers once a candidate is onboarded? That is unjust, and we should not play with candidates' careers, so why waste our time?

Of course, the market is competitive, and candidates have numerous opportunities. It is not obligatory for us to extend an offer that must be accepted. However, how can you justify wasting our time for months?

Our plea is that time is more valuable to us than an unenthusiastic candidate.

Regards,

Frustrated Recruiter

I agree with your point. Moreover, backouts happening before the expected joining date are more frustrating. Many candidates won't pick up our calls; they will block us. Other than working for backup, we need to do something to avoid this.

Hi,

As a frustrated recruiter, you had expressed your anguish on "No Show" candidates on the joining date. Well, it is part and parcel of the hiring process across all industries. Unlike old days, today, options are more for candidates, and as a matter of courtesy, candidates are supposed to inform the recruiter about their inability to join, even if not in advance, at least on the joining date. However, most candidates don't follow that ethics. I personally feel that in most cases, candidates were not offered the expected numbers (CTC) directly but after much bargaining, arriving at some package, which will be a bit less than what was expected by the candidates.

While I agree the recruiter too has limitations in fixing the salary based budget of the organization, the expectations of the candidates were based on their personal commitments and also based on the prevailing salary in the market for that position in companies doing similar business. So, most of the time, candidates accept the offer, though not happy, just as a backup and use it as a trump card with other competitive companies to get the desired CTC.

Another reason is that while big organizations follow some standardized process for fixing salary matching the experience, some newcomers in the market fix an abnormal salary based on their project/work requirements due to which candidates witness a massive gap in offered salary between companies doing similar business. Obviously, candidates tend to choose the best offer but do not apply their mind to the lack of job security behind such offers.

Also, nowadays, hourly-based salaries are offered for a fixed period wherein candidates are paid more compared to other companies which are offering permanent jobs for the same role with mediocre salary.

Unless companies doing similar business form a forum and fix the salary range based on experience levels, there will be no end to this issue.

A perennial topic that comes up on CiteHR with monotonous regularity.

Accept the fact that there are candidates out there in the big wide world who are ONLY INTERESTED in money, not a job, not a career. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to weed out those candidates.

For 16 years now on CiteHR, I have been railing against your poor recruitment processes. Quite frankly, I am now sick and tired of telling you to fix these problems.

Every week, there are complaints about selected candidates not turning up on day 1, absconders, people who leave within a very short time, etc. And who's fault is that? YOURS of course. You chose these people for whatever reasons I cannot fathom. And then there are the endless questions from people who have been appointed to a job and HAVE NO IDEA how to do that job. Honestly, you couldn't make up this rubbish if you tried.

Whenever there are posts about interview questions, etc., I just sit here in disbelief at some of the rubbish that gets said. Most of you seem to have lost sight of the fact that you are recruiting a person to do a job. What you need to know is simply does that person have the skills, knowledge, and experience to do that job. Whether he/she comes from a good family and has nice hobbies is totally irrelevant. CAN HE DO THE JOB??? Nothing else matters. Most of you have no proper job descriptions, no proper person specifications, no staff properly trained in interview techniques, and no idea about a proper recruitment process.

BUT, and there is always a BUT, you need to look at your own organisation. Ask yourself why anyone would want to work for you. Do you have poor senior management, micromanagers, poor working conditions, lack of advancement opportunities, poor salary and benefits, etc.

Now, you have two choices, you can choose to be offended by my post, OR you can get off your backside and start working to effect radical change and DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

Thank you seniors for your response. We do accept all the facts that were mentioned. The organization has concerns that candidates are not turning up or leaving after a short period, which is accepted. The concept that the organization feels uncomfortable with is the commitments given by the candidate even though the candidate has decided not to proceed. This is causing a delay in the filling process. The concern is to communicate that you are not interested in the offer.