See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

Todd Raphael's World of Talent

Who's hiring, who's not, and what else is hot

Companies That "Ruin" Candidates follow this blog post

posted by on Aug. 11, 2009

I thought this post about Stryker was unusually candid, which isn't such a bad thing.

I'm wondering how frequently recruiters look at a company name on a resume and consider that candidate "ruined," to use the word that the blogger used. Of course, some companies (like Enron) have such negative connotations that candidates have taken to leaving their past-employers' names off of their resumes.

And I've heard or overheard recruiters say similar things about colleges, such as one recruiter who said something to the effect of graduates of elite colleges being more spoiled, and how they preferred a candidate who worked during college or paid part of their way.

But this Stryker post -- it felt different. I'm curious what others think.

| 11 comments | flag

11 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    This is ultimately about stereotyping.  Any stereotype is originally formed by an experience or experiences generating a perceived pattern.  No pattern ever applies to everyone, just like no stereotype should apply to everyone.  Recruiters and hiring companies will miss good talent if the bypass individuals based solely on a stereotype.

    It's the recruiter's job to investigate, and fight any stereotype when they see fit.  If a client sees a candidate's company as a negative experience, it's your job to investigate it and provide enough evidence to overturn the judgement.  If the candidate turns out to be good, the stereotype will go away.

    Almost all of my clients initially come with some stereotypes based on previous bad hires.  However, over time, they fade away.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    David Lynn hit the nail right on the head.  The recruiters job is to source the best possible candidate.  You can't do that if you are discarding candidates based on personal bias. 

     

     

     

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    What is a company?  In one sense, it's a collection of individuals.  While I certainly agree that, especially from an employment/recruiting perspective, companys get reputations...I think it's up to us, as recruiters, to find the value in the candidates we deal with.  If all we do is pass over people based on current/prior employers, then what the heck value are we providing our employers/clients?

    Just because someone once worked at an Enron does not mean the individual isn't really the best person for a given position we're recruiting on.  It's our job to appropriately evaluate all our candidates and be able to effectively make a case for moving the best of them forward in the process - regardless of any resume-stain prior employments.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Edward, does this three year thing apply to companies in Germany or companies here in the U.S. as well?

    Shhesh - high tech is hard enough but you struggle with a requirement like this?  What percentage of the workforce does that knock the legs out from under?

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Everyone has their own regional biases, don't they? 

    Let's just say if there is a big, ugly, process & rule driven, intellectually numbing, multi-national out there, then a lot of SMEs will think that anybody who hung around more than a couple of years did so because they felt at home - and will naturally try to re-create that home wherever they go next.  This is the ~last~ thing most SMEs I deal with want to have to experience in a new employee.

    Let's put it this way - wouldn't you expect someone who spent 10 years at Microsoft to be somewhat conform to and accepting of the "Microsoft way"?  Then put this person in a 100 person Linux shop and see what happens...

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Interesting view and very worth talking about! 

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    My first response was to be irritated by the two advertising windows and ask myself if ERE was somehow affiliated with the site and benefitting from driving traffic there.

    My second response was to think of similar experiences I have had. For example, most of the mid-size companies I work with absolutely refuse to speak with candidates from specific companies in their niche who have stayed longer than three years.  If they stay too long, they are considered to have adopted the company's mentality and are "ruined" for any "good" company.

    If good companies have a halo effect on a resume, I can see where notoriously bad companies could also have a similar, if not unfair, influence.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Very interesting about the more-than-three-years at a company thing. I can see why candidates are frustrated at the candidate experience!

    No, we do not benefit from those ads. To be honest with you, those ads that fly over the page when you're trying to read annoy me.

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I do believe that many recruiters pass on talent because they are under the impression that a past employer has "ruined" them. On the flip side, I believe there are many borderline candidates that get the benefit of the doubt because of past employment at a stellar organization. In the end it is the recruiters job to be able to look past company names, titles and credentials and find the real individual.

    As for graduates of elite colleges, I think it's a completely unfair assumption to say that they are more spoiled than anyone else. I'd be surprised if any recruiters saying this actually went to an elite college or university. If so, they would (for the most part) find a very well rounded mix of students. Sure, some are spoiled and are there on daddy's dime, but they are the minority. The majority have worked hard to get to where they are and continue to work hard throughout. Seriously though, how many spoiled rich kids did we know in highschool that ended up going to community college because they had no work ethic or drive and knew that they would end up financially sound in the end?

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    I agree that it felt different, Todd. It made me feel sorry for the reps who did their best to survive in what seems like a terrible organization. I appreciate people being warned away, but for those that did survive that organization, sold some stuff, made some great contacts and decided it was time to move on, why should you pass them by? I've found some high performing, loyal folks that I've helped get out of bad situations. As someone who recruited in Houston for 2 years, I saw many (many) Enron resumes. I never gave it a second thought, honestly. These people didn't 'ruin' the company and cause the turmoil, it was the senior leadership who had that dubious honor.

    I think you need to look past the company to the experience and don't be obviously discriminating (meant in the lightest form of the word) against people who made a bad choice, but are still great sales people (and can probably sell their tails off in a supportive organization.)

    Comments welcome!

     

    Steph

  • 1 point 3 months ago

    Good to hear about your reaction to Enron resumes. If it's not some vast conspiracy involving every employee, why punish everyone for the sins of a few?  If you're working hand in hand with Bernie Madoff or something, well, different story.