Recently, a huge billboard appeared in downtown Toronto, featuring a candid photograph of a 40-something guy beside his name and the words "I need a job.  Call me at 416.555.5555".

The billboard got a certain amount of media attention, of course, so the guy (let's call him Bob) thought that the $10k or so it had cost him was well worth it.  After all, with that much media exposure, employers would be falling over themselves offering jobs to someone so creative, ingenius and proactive, right?

As the weeks went by, the media attention fizzled and the billboard came down ($10k doesn't buy you much more than 4 weeks on a downtown Toronto billboard) - and Bob was still unemployed, and of course couldn't understand why.

But I'm sure that 99% of the readers of this blog know exactly why he hadn't been able to get a job, even without meeting Bob or ever seeing his resume:  Recruiters know that someone who is so desperate for a job that they spend huge amounts of their own money on crazy stunts is probably unemployable for one reason or another.

Feeling sorry for Bob - and, admittedly, not averse to a little media attention ourselves - we contacted him and he came in for an interview.  Sadly, everything we'd suspected (i.e. that he would prove to be unemployable) was true. 

He cancelled the first scheduled interview because he "didn't have his teeth yet" and was taking too many narcotic drugs for back pain; showed up to the next one 30 minutes early and then feverishly paced in the lobby wearing a 3-piece (unmatching) suit and trilby hat; he kept his hand over his mouth for most of the interview, because his teeth still hadn't arrived.  Most importantly, when we asked him what kind of a job he was interested in, he said "something in either Training or IT" - but the only 'training' experience he'd had was as a facilitator for a PowerPoint seminar in 2003, and his IT experience was confined to his home computer.  Most of the interview involved him talking about how long he'd been searching unsuccessfully for a job.

But here's the dilemma:

So we knew exactly why he wasn't able to get a job - and so did probably ever recruiter and hiring manager he'd ever met with - but none of us had the guts to tell him that his clothes, manner, desperation, lack of realistic career goals and relentless monologues about his job-hunting frustration were likely to prevent him from ever getting another job again.

But why don't we provide this kind of feedback to candidates?  As recruiters, we're supposed to be the job-hunting experts: If anyone is qualified to give candidates helpful, pragmatic advice, it's us.  And yet, when we're faced with these people who don't seem to have the first clue about how to get a job (and while Bob may be an extreme case, there are LOTS of people like him out there, as we all know), we just fob them off with "We'll call you if we get any opportunities for someone with your skills and experience..." instead of helping them with constructive feedback like "Buddy, if you stopped wearing eccentric outfits, stopped the 15-minute-long rants about how no one will hire you, and were able to articulate just what kind of job it is you want, you'd stand a better chance of making it past the first interview."

Why don't we give this kind of helpful feedback?  

Do we think it'll sound rude or presumptuous?  Are we worried about ephemeral 'legal issues'?   Do we simply assume that a candidate like this is never going to be any good, so it's not worthwhile to bother saying anything?  Or are we just lazy?

Years ago, when I lived in Philadelphia and was new to that job market, I had a recruiter tell me that the reason I hadn't gotten a particular job (at a Big 5 consulting firm) was 95% due to my hair, which was short and blonde (a la Brigitte Nielsen) at the time.  Admittedly, I was a little taken aback when she said it - I mean, my hair wasn't pink or anything - but in the end I was very glad she told me.  It gave me a great insight into the Philadelphia job market, and also forced me to think about the sort of company I'd most like to work for. 

Don't we have some kind of fiduciary duty to our candidates?