Client Server Technology Recruitment Reviews 124

Man where do I start. They should get a negative rating if possible. How this business works I am not sure. Lies and lies. Apply for a role and someone calls and doesn't provide any information. Never reveal client's name. Never send job specifications. Not sure if they are scammers harvesting personal information of candidates.

NB:- They flag negative reviews saying harmful and illegal content.

Update : Another day another scam of this consultancy. A long list of fake job postings. I just saw another consultancy whom I have interacted with previously have the same job posting on their website. I checked with the consultant and they mentioned it is an old role and no longer live and they haven't removed it yet from their website yet.

So beware if you apply for roles posted by this agency. They are most probably copied from other agencies websites. To check ask them for the client name for the role, I can guarantee they won't reveal the client's name with whatever reason they can conjure.

Edit, more details for clarity:

First assessment was meant to be over the phone. I stopped the recruiter at the first question.
This was to request, as a reasonable adjustment, to be sent the assessment questions in a written format, over the e-mail. After discussing this with his Supervisor, the Recruiter refused, both citing confidentiality.

It feels as though that this recruitment agency does not have a solid, supportive policy in place to level the playing field in assessments.

The Recruiter's Supervisor said they are unable, and when pressed, shown unwillingness to make the adjustments I needed.

At a first sight, one could say this is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Also, the Supervisor who I spoke with clearly indicated to be driven by the money received from their clients; Claiming they are being paid to recommend top candidates.
>> Had this not echoed during an exchanged about reasonable adjustments, it would have been a pass.
Unfortunately, as it did, it is such a shame to hear this as a reply. Implicitly, it is stigmatising what such adjustments are meant for and implies that they flaw the quality of the assessment. This is fundamentally false.

--- UPDATE ---
One of the Directors, Nick Boulton, got in touch.
I believe this does leave a good note of professionalism. I increased the rating as such.

Nick began his point-of-view similarly as the Supervisor I spoke with at the time, and I explained the same: reasonable adjustments do not flaw the quality of assessments. They are meant to ensure fairness is achieved by levelling the playing field.

Nick explained to me it would have been possible to be invited to the office, where I would have been given a written copy of the assessment and to sit the assessment there, instead.

I explained that I cannot recall to have been invited.
Regardless -- although a nice, polite invitation -- it does not take into account that this implies abled candidates would have to go out of their own way for something their counterparts would not.

HOWEVER, what I can remember is that mainly the subject of the discussion I had with the Supervisor was that there is not much that can be done.
Effectively this hints that there is no strong policy in place that is -- inclusive -- for screening candidates.

For one of the questions I had for Nick, Nick attempted to answer by making a parallel to those who have language barriers, who can be at a disadvantage.
This is not the right mindset, and also not the subject of the matter. Reasonable adjustments are requested by those who have (a) health condition(s) subsequently risking to be at an unfair (i.e., not skill-related) disadvantage for assessment / screening purposes.

Further, I also explained to Nick that there was none or no clearly visible contact (e-mail address / phone / representative, etc.) to speak with when the candidate requires reasonable adjustments.
This is best practice and now a standard in almost all teams of corporate recruitment. I see no reason why this should not happen especially in a recruitment agency.
Additionally, this also hints that they are not steadfast with an inclusive recruitment policy.

About the good parts:
Although I am (clearly) not yet convinced the agency is able to accommodate for a diverse pool of candidates, Nick's intention to get on the phone with me and his drive as the CEO to look into this is of outstanding professionalism. This does show that the agency can be steered towards improvements.

As such, I re-iterate over a couple of suggestions I mentioned to you: 1) ensure there is a policy in place, such as a process available for candidates to request reasonable adjustments, and before starting to assess your candidates; 2) make *suitable* alternatives if unable to offer what was requested (e.g., I could have been invited to a Zoom call where you could have presented me with any of your questions) -- having the candidate come to your offices because they require the adjustment that you can offer as an alternative, it slightly lacks class. >>> In addition, the alternative means the candidate would have to pay to travel to you (regardless from where they live) as part of the adjustment that it is actually you suggesting. It really is unprofessional... Especially that even in our last discussion no confirmation was made that such expense would be covered by the agency; 3) plenty of ways are possible to make adjustments, which can be reasonable for both parties, while maintaining your NDAs intact; It all boils down to willingness, empathy, and respecting the Law!

Nick agreed to investigate and come back over the e-mail with a summary. Looking forward to read this.

Had a terrible conversation with an incompetent consultant from C# development team who had heard several buzz words and pretended to be knowledgeable professional. Pathetic.