Last week I was contacted by a recruiter looking for a principal for a school near here. He was new to recruiting and had done a LinkedIn search for possible candidates in this area. His challenge was not only was he new to recruiting, he was new to educational recruiting and knew nothing about the school, the role, or the sector. I know this particular school. It is not a particularly good one, and is owned by a for-profit company owned by venture capitalists and known for its emphasis of extracting profit. Its principals are not principals, but bureaucrats in a top-down structure who are charged with implementing central-office policies and procedures.
I politely declined. This recruiter might strike it lucky with a young, ambitious go-getter looking for his/her first move up, but if so, this person won't stay. He might strike it lucky and get a pencil-pusher who stays long enough that he doesn't have to repay his commission, However, he won't find an effective principal because he doesn't know what he is doing, So why did this company choose him to do their hiring?
Several months ago I was contacted by a "search" specialist for the local branch of a large international company. This company is known for finance, banking and accounting recruiting and when I looked at their expertise list of available opportunities, only this one was educational. Again, the recruiter knew nothing about the school, the role, or the sector. I also know this school, and that this was their third Head search in five years and their third search firm. The other two had been two of the major players in the sector, but not this time. So why did this school choose this recruitment company to do their hiring?
Anyway, my story goes back about 20 years. I was contacted by a "head hunter" who had targeted my for a specific role in a specific school. To be honest, both the role and the school suited me and my skillset and and I was ready for a move.
So I did some research of my own and I found that this same headhunter had placed a former colleague of mine in a high-profile role the year prior. The thing was that I had been on the point of firing that colleague for having lied on his resume about a previous position when he was hired by my predecessor - title, role and responsibilities and achievements - when he resigned. His bio, on the website of the new school, listed not only the inaccuracies of the previous position, but also misrepresented his title, role and responsibilities and achievements concerning his time at my school.
I mentioned this to the aforementioned headhunter who could easily have verified it by contacting the two schools. However, that would have meant his admitting that had not done so and had placed someone with a fake resume, while taking a large fee. So instead he cut me off. I heard no more about that interesting opportunity and received no replies to my emails.
My second personal experience occurred about10 years before that. I received a reference request from another major national educational recruiter for a teacher who had "done a runner" leaving large unpaid bills at his apartment, owing money to colleagues, owing money to the school which had given him salary advance and facing a court date for a motor-vehicle accident. I explained to the recruiter why I would not provide a reference. He spoke to the teacher, and then replied to me that he did not believe me. It was only when the school's attorney sent him a letter explaining why no reference would be forthcoming that he stopped representing this teacher.
The above examples show why I have not and will not use a recruiter. I have always done my own search and selection and would estimate that better than 95% of my hires have been very good or excellent. And when asked, that is what I would recommend to others.
**Please leave comments and questions below.**
No comments :
Post a Comment