I've been both sides of that table, and although I agree with all the points above it's worth making a few points about the role of a recruiter.
I'm a specialist, so if I'm recruiting I try to cut HR out as much as possible because I don't believe that the simple checklists beloved of HR departments are suitable for assessing technical specialists - I'm sure they're fine for typists, filing clerks or some categories of pilot but I want to find out if candidate XXXX has a fighting chance of analysing the failure loads of a cantilever wing, or whatever happens to be the particular role. In that context, I expect candiates to...
(1) Have found out about my organisation - and tailor their CV accordingly.
(2) Identify their real achievements, not give me wishy-washy cows excrement about "a talented quick learner capable of..." (file in recycling).
Frankly anybody who has failed to bother with (1) and (2) and simply sent me a standard letter and untailored CV hasn't earned the courtesy of a reply.
Now to the other side of the table...
If somebody has taken this trouble, of-course they deserve a reply. They also deserve...
- Recruiters taking the trouble to read properly experience and qualifications and check their meaning. All candidates are individuals and they may well be able to do a job without meeting a rigid ticksheet.
- A prompt and polite reply.
- When you've said applicants will be responded to by a given date, do so.
- Not changing the job spec AFTER advertising for the job.
And whilst I'm at it, if somebody's applying for a job, they also deserve as early as possible honest information about the salary on offer, and enough information to allow them to prepare properly for an interview. I really detest "recruitment consultants" who won't actually tell you who the job is with, or the precise role until the interview.
Thanks for the opportunity for a rant, I enjoyed that !
G