How HR robs us of good leaders

This story is a glimpse behind the scenes of recruitment firms.

While we all have had job knock backs, the sting is soothed knowing we gave it our best shot. Yet what if meritocracy is no longer the guiding star for recruitment agencies? What if the level playing field is an incline plane tilted towards subjectivity, politics and nepotism?

In the last couple of years I have conducted some 'on the job' research through my professional writing agency on mid level candidate's experience of applying for jobs. I have focused on the resume stage of recruitment, which is where most job applicants are short listed or rejected.

One would think that those with the best CV's and selection criteria answers (if applicable) would have a fair chance of getting short-listed. This was not always so. Here is why.

Direct applications to the employer

I advise clients where possible to apply direct to the employer. Employee recruiters are very helpful. They want the best candidates for the organization. One might think that the motivations of an agency recruiter and an employee recruiter are the same.

They are not. Agency recruiters do it for money and to meet targets. Good employee recruiters have a personal investment in selecting the right person. There's a big difference, as you will see.

Applications to an agency

So you've sent your CV and a cover letter to a recruitment agency. Hang on to your hat, as this is what five out 20 of my most recent clients found. No one acknowledged their application or got back to them. That doesn't instill much faith does it?

There has been a trend in recruitment agencies to cut communication down to a minimum to save time and money. Some agencies preface applications with comments such as 'if you don't hear back from us in three weeks, you were unsuccessful in the position.' Recruitment agencies could probably get ruder and less helpful but I don't see how.

Never, on any account, have anything to do with them again.

Golden rule #1: applicants have a better chance of getting a job interview if they don't go through a recruitment agency. Why? Recruitment agencies are a 'go between'. Not only do they stand between you and the job, they cull applications.

Agencies say that they are working in your best interests. This is not true. You are working in your best interests. Anything that acts as a gatekeeper is to be avoided at all costs.

Golden rule #2: use whatever means necessary to get the name of the client who has hired the agency – and then cut the agency out of the picture.

Nepotism beats merit

Incompetence, uncommunicativeness and laziness are mere venal sins compared to nepotism. In today's modern age could it be that some employers will engage the services of a recruitment agency simply to give the veneer of transparency when really, they already have the successful candidate picked? You bet.

The public service and some universities sometimes advertise a position to be seen to exercise transparency of process (if not deed) even though they already have the candidate all but sitting in the chair. It's one of life's little ironies that the reason they have to do that is to stop nepotism.

What's wrong with a little nepotism? One rationale supporting our education system is to create a meritocracy through individual academic excellence, where one's labour is rewarded by entering a university, gaining a scholarship or getting a job. It supports the notion of progress by promotion and recognises achievement.

In recruitment some say that nepotism is just 'networking writ large'. That's like saying that lying is a post facto reconstruction permissible only when you can get away with it. Every little justification in recruitment covers a bloody spot where ethics used to proudly stand.

Getting a job in a rural city

While the tree or sea change seems like a fine idea, beware of trying to pick up a job in places such Adelaide, Darwin, Bendigo, Byron Bay or the Gold Coast as these are examples of 'closed shops'.

By 'closed shops' I mean there are only limited amount of jobs (usually in retail as a casual) and most jobs are allocated by 'who you know'. If you come from a large city, have post graduate degrees and have senior management experience and are expecting wage parity with previous employment – forget it.

People with less experience, fewer qualifications and with less national or international experience will consistently beat you to positions.

The reasons are relatively simple:

• Managers in rural cities are scared that people with high order professional experience will take their jobs.

• They want to employ people they know – or employ people they know who know other people they also know.

• Where there is little sustainable profit or liquidity generated, there are fewer jobs.

So when people say to me they want to move to a rural city (because of the 'lifestyle') I say 'do your research'.

So you're over 45 – please take a seat and beg

Geoff was a fit and trim 55 year old living in Adelaide. He came to me with an already strong CV as a manager with some good media experience. He had endured numerous rejections and fourteen knock backs before and after the interview stage. He was at his wits end.

He got on well with people and all his referees said he was 'bloody marvelous' but he kept getting the standard letter that reads:

Dear Geoff,

Thank you for your application. We had an exceptionally high calibre of applicants but unfortunately in this case, you were not successful, etc, etc.

We went on a small but difficult metaphorical journey together enduring another two rejections before he landed a job.

Golden rule #3: The more jobs you apply for, the greater the chance you will land a job. Probability leans to your advantage, plus, you get better at writing job applications.

That's if all things being equal, you learn from your mistakes and correct them. Unfortunately there's not much one can do about being 55. Actually a lot more Australians will turn 55 this year than ever before - but I digress.

What Geoff went through was not candidate selection. It was age prejudice. Geoff wasn't over qualified. He was specifically qualified for the position.

What would we have we done if Geoff had continued to be knocked back? Prejudice rigs the game so the best player can't win. The Internet allows unsuccessful applicants to see who actually won the position. It's easy to build a work profile or access a CV from scanning Linkedin and Google. If he had continued to be rejected, I would have suggested that we see a lawyer.

Indeed, I caught out a large church organization in Port Adelaide recently who advertised on Seek looking for a communication officer. They received more than 20 applications only to find that they employed a young woman who already worked for the organisation. That happens a lot. When a client tells me that, I send the information to the CEO and ask them for a response. If they don't respond, I tell the media.

A conclusion of sorts

Recruitment isn't a science. There are many fine recruiters adept at the art of drawing the best out of people in interviews. Some recruiters can even read between the lines of a poorly constructed CV and discern, using judgment and acuity, some gems of experience that may be worth exploring.

We bemoan the lack of public and corporate leadership in Australia. There's a lack of spine to make unpopular decisions, an inability to discern between the ethically right and wrong choice. There's a preoccupation with salary over customer service. But equally, we put up with this.

But wouldn't it be the wise thing to ensure we employed the right people in the first place rather than contracting out the destiny of the public service or corporations in to the hands of strangers?