- Client provides a realistic job spec
- Recruiter provides candidates
- Client hires candidate
- Recruiter gets hired
- Client provides a job spec- if it's already been written
- Recruiter contacts candidates based on client's verbal description of the position, and the first round of interviews are scheduled
- Client wants a deeper candidate flow, so he tries recalibrate the Must-haves Vs. the Nice-to-haves
- Recruiter provides deeper candidate flow based on the new job spec
- Client rejects the new batch of candidates, and decides to go with his original job spec- even if it means slower candidate flow
- Armed with realistic expectations, and a job spec that may or may not be realistic, the recruiter provides more candidates more slowly, and a hire is made
If scenario two occurs, its the fault of the recruiter for either creating unrealistic expectations about candidate flow during the business development process, or for allowing the client to get off focus in order to meet that unreasonable demand.
Except when its not. Sometimes, the client correctly identifies that his original spec is not realistic. Too few people exist with the necessary skills, or compensation is not in line with market value for those professionals. So the client has to see if he can fill the position with tier-II, or if he'll hold out for his dream employee.
A seasoned recruiter will limit this scenario, but sometimes it is inevitable. Sometimes smaller tweaks in the job description occur based on feedback from the initial round of interviews. And sometimes, as a result, a recruiter has to come back to candidates previously rejected, and tell them that they can now be considered, or tell candidates in the current pipeline that something has changed.
I know it's frustrating to you. It's frustrating to recruiters and clients as well. Well these curveballs come keep your options opened. You never know when the field will revert back, and you'll find yourself on top of the stack again.
