Two Recruiters, One Job
February 1, 2013 1:58 PM Subscribe
Yesterday I spoke with two different recruiters and they both ended up sending me information on the same job. One of the recruiters actually had an additional job opportunity for me; however, the recruiter offering only the one job seems more competent. Which recruiter do I go with and how do I tell the other recruiter of that decision?
You're under no obligation to be recruiter-monogamous; after all, yours is just one of several resumes they're submitting for the position. Work with the competent recruiter for the shared job, and the other recruiter for the non-shared one.
posted by Metroid Baby at 2:31 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Metroid Baby at 2:31 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'd go with Metroid Baby's suggestion.
Whichever one you pick, you tell the other that you believe that you have already been submitted for this position. Happens to them all the time. You don't have to tell them that you were given the jobs both at the exact same time. Even if they both received the opening on the same day and contacted you immediately, it's plausible that you had *just* replied to the first recruiter when you received the other's email.
And if any recruiter freaks out that you are working with another, that's a red flag. They should *assume* that you are working with multiple recruiters as well as applying on your own.
posted by radioamy at 4:05 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whichever one you pick, you tell the other that you believe that you have already been submitted for this position. Happens to them all the time. You don't have to tell them that you were given the jobs both at the exact same time. Even if they both received the opening on the same day and contacted you immediately, it's plausible that you had *just* replied to the first recruiter when you received the other's email.
And if any recruiter freaks out that you are working with another, that's a red flag. They should *assume* that you are working with multiple recruiters as well as applying on your own.
posted by radioamy at 4:05 PM on February 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Recruiter w/20+ years experience here ...
All three responses above are sound.
"Competent" is the operative word. The process you are about to begin will require a significant amount of trust. Your sense of the recruiter's competency is a key element of that trust.
posted by John Borrowman at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2013
All three responses above are sound.
"Competent" is the operative word. The process you are about to begin will require a significant amount of trust. Your sense of the recruiter's competency is a key element of that trust.
posted by John Borrowman at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2013
I've been on the receiving end of getting the same résumé from two different search firms. The way that was resolved (as suggested by the better of the two search firms) was that the candidate picks who they want to represent them to the company.
posted by sexymofo at 8:43 AM on February 2, 2013
posted by sexymofo at 8:43 AM on February 2, 2013
This situation is not exactly as cut and dry and everyone is making it out to be. There is an issue of fairness to be considered. It’s impossible that the two recruiters sent you the job opening at exactly the same time, so one got it to you first. The situation sexymofo referred to about receiving the same resume is almost never resolved in the manner described by a company of any size.
posted by sexymofo been on the receiving end of getting the same résumé from two different search firms. The way that was resolved (as suggested by the better of the two search firms) was that the candidate picks who they want to represent them to the company. I’m sure the “suggested resolution” by the search firm sexy calls “the better of the two” was in no way self-serving. They suggested that simply because they felt they had a stronger relationship with the candidate and want the fee for themselves.
Most companies will not in fact leave it up to the candidate to choose which search firm is to represent them; they will give the referral to the firm that submitted the resume first, even if it’s only by minutes. Incoming resumes are time stamped and often submitted through complex portal systems.
In this instance, since both search firms “have” the job opening, they both have a relationship with the company the opening is with. The op’s impression that one recruiter was more competent, does not mean they have a better relationship with the company; and the recruiter seen as less may work for a firm with much closer ties to the client company, the op has no way of knowing.
Once the referral is made, the recruiter will have virtually no influence as to whether the op gets a job offer, those decisions will be made without the counsel of the recruiter. In fact, if the company decides they want to hire our op, the recruiter’s job will be to sell that position to him.
John Borrowman, the recruiter with 20+ years’ experience says The process you are about to begin will require a significant amount of trust. Your sense of the recruiter's competency is a key element of that trust. I think this statement is misleading in that it implies a relationship that is non-existent. Sounds like the op and recruiter are going on some mystic bromance journey together; both of these recruiters work for the client company, the op is just along for the ride, a means to and end for all three, and to think otherwise is naive. Just remember who will be signing the checks for the recruiter’s fee, follow the money.
So the op Photovox asked Which recruiter do I go with and how do I tell the other recruiter of that decision? I’m not being facetious, but is your question what’s the right thing to do, or what’s the best thing for me? All the answers treat the “less competent” recruiter as a non-entity, not even to be considered. Part of the reason there seems to be universal dismissal of this persons interests, is simply ignorance as to how the recruiting business works, and precedents that govern it’s efficient operation.
Metriod Baby said You're under no obligation to be recruiter-monogamous; after all, yours is just one of several resumes they're submitting for the position. Work with the competent recruiter for the shared job, and the other recruiter for the non-shared one. So I guess you’re also under no obligation to consider what’s the right thing to do either; but in this instance the right thing is to consider who gave you the position first.
I think the op would be smart to work with as many recruiters as he/she thinks can be helpful in the job search. As to which of the two recruiters you decide to have represent you for this particular job, one consideration must be who first made you aware of the opening. It may have been on the same day, but that doesn’t really matter. Even in this self-serving world we live in..fair is still fair.
posted by PaulBGoode at 9:30 PM on February 2, 2013
posted by sexymofo been on the receiving end of getting the same résumé from two different search firms. The way that was resolved (as suggested by the better of the two search firms) was that the candidate picks who they want to represent them to the company. I’m sure the “suggested resolution” by the search firm sexy calls “the better of the two” was in no way self-serving. They suggested that simply because they felt they had a stronger relationship with the candidate and want the fee for themselves.
Most companies will not in fact leave it up to the candidate to choose which search firm is to represent them; they will give the referral to the firm that submitted the resume first, even if it’s only by minutes. Incoming resumes are time stamped and often submitted through complex portal systems.
In this instance, since both search firms “have” the job opening, they both have a relationship with the company the opening is with. The op’s impression that one recruiter was more competent, does not mean they have a better relationship with the company; and the recruiter seen as less may work for a firm with much closer ties to the client company, the op has no way of knowing.
Once the referral is made, the recruiter will have virtually no influence as to whether the op gets a job offer, those decisions will be made without the counsel of the recruiter. In fact, if the company decides they want to hire our op, the recruiter’s job will be to sell that position to him.
John Borrowman, the recruiter with 20+ years’ experience says The process you are about to begin will require a significant amount of trust. Your sense of the recruiter's competency is a key element of that trust. I think this statement is misleading in that it implies a relationship that is non-existent. Sounds like the op and recruiter are going on some mystic bromance journey together; both of these recruiters work for the client company, the op is just along for the ride, a means to and end for all three, and to think otherwise is naive. Just remember who will be signing the checks for the recruiter’s fee, follow the money.
So the op Photovox asked Which recruiter do I go with and how do I tell the other recruiter of that decision? I’m not being facetious, but is your question what’s the right thing to do, or what’s the best thing for me? All the answers treat the “less competent” recruiter as a non-entity, not even to be considered. Part of the reason there seems to be universal dismissal of this persons interests, is simply ignorance as to how the recruiting business works, and precedents that govern it’s efficient operation.
Metriod Baby said You're under no obligation to be recruiter-monogamous; after all, yours is just one of several resumes they're submitting for the position. Work with the competent recruiter for the shared job, and the other recruiter for the non-shared one. So I guess you’re also under no obligation to consider what’s the right thing to do either; but in this instance the right thing is to consider who gave you the position first.
I think the op would be smart to work with as many recruiters as he/she thinks can be helpful in the job search. As to which of the two recruiters you decide to have represent you for this particular job, one consideration must be who first made you aware of the opening. It may have been on the same day, but that doesn’t really matter. Even in this self-serving world we live in..fair is still fair.
posted by PaulBGoode at 9:30 PM on February 2, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
Data point: that sounds almost exactly like what happened when I got the job I have been at for the last 5 years. I ended up getting offered both. Hope you have the same luck.
(And, frankly, if a recruiter who hasn't gotten you a job yet ever gives you any grief for working with somebody else as well, I'd tell them goodbye.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:04 PM on February 1, 2013 [4 favorites]