'You have almost 100 applicants that met your minimum qualifications': Pushy hiring manager insists recruitment agency send her all candidates, faces malicious compliance

Author image for Ally Perry
Ally Perry • Writer and Editor
Apr 25, 2024 1:00 PM EDT

Many of us have plenty of experience in how difficult it can be to be a job seeker, but far fewer of us realize what it feels like to be at the other end of the deal. Hiring somebody is a big responsibility to both the company and the job applicant, and you pay for it when you get it wrong.

That being said, it's easy to get a little too involved in the whole process. While recruitment agencies are no silver bullet, they are designed to make things easier for those who are looking to hire—not that everyone sees it that way. 

This is an issue that one former recruiter was up against when a client demanded that they be sent every eligible client that had applied for their role. What they didn't seem to realize is how much work they were creating for themselves. It seems like a lesson was eventually learned.

Add as a preferred
source on Google
Advertisement
  • 01
    Cheezburger Image 9913287168
    via Cytonn Photography
  • 02
    r/ r/MaliciousCompliance u/StardustRose_9449 • 20h You want to review every single candidate? You got it, babe! M
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 03
    This is the BEST time that my warnings went unheeded and made the client regret ever asking. I worked in recruitment for nine years, and a few years back I had a new client (hiring manager) and she didn't like abiding by the rules set up for the recruitment team. For one thing, we review the applicants, interview the best qualified candidates, and then submitted them to the hiring manager for consideration.
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 04
    WELL! This hiring manager couldn't understand why we only sent over three candidates in a week (honestly, she's lucky as some positions did not garner that many applicants). I explained that we submit three candidates for every one position available - this ensures that the hiring manager's time was considered when scheduling next step interviews. This wasn't just a standard I set, it was approved by her company's TA bosses, and frankly was standard at another place I used to work as well.
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 05
    Hiring Manager: That is absurd! I want to review all of the candidates so I can TELL you whom to prescreen and THEN you schedule their interview with me based on my availability. Me: But, ma'am, you have almost one hundred applicants that met your minimum qualifications. I don't think you really want to devote that much time to reviewing all of these resumes, and honestly, some of them were not great.
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 06
    Hiring Manager: Are you not listening? Send them all over to me and I'll take care of it. Me: ... yes, ma'am. You got it. I'll send those over right away.
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 07
    I wrote an email to the hiring manager immediately after the call, restating the topics discussed by phone and asked, again, if she was certain she wanted all of the candidates sent to her. She confirmed - I complied and forwarded to my boss with an explanation that she will take care of reviewing all applicants and my numbers were going to be skewed for the month. I did as requested, selecting nearly one hundred candidates in the system and moved them to Hiring Manager Review. Now, what this di
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 08
    Two days later, my boss calls and says he got an irritating phone call from this Hiring Manager who said she NEVER requested this, to which they responded with the information detailed in my email. She - was - speechless. He let her know that I would go back into the system and back up the candidate process so it would be taken out of her to-do list and I would continue to send over candidates that were the best fit for the role as described in our processes. I never received pushback from that
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 09
    booknerd381 20h I just finished the process of hiring for a new position. There were over 200 candidatea that applied. The recruiter sent me five, three of which were absolutely stunning. I cannot for the life of me thank the recruiter for all the hard work that went in to filtering those resumes down to such a small number of great candidates for me to interview.
    via booknerd381
  • 10
    Evilbit77 18h I recently helped hire someone. Our recruiter sent us three batches of candidates, most of who were not qualified for the position. The second batch was only minority candidates who had none of the skills we needed. We asked for all the resumes, went through about 120, and found several excellent candidates that had been rejected outright. It took a day, but we found four great candidates and hired one. Some recruiters are amazing, but some are incredibly unhelpful. :/
    via Evilbit77
  • 11
    StardustRose_9449 OP • 13h Eek! Yea I've seen that happen as well. Sometimes it is a miscue when the initial meeting happens (i.e. they ask what you're looking for but do not probe for more information to find an ideal candidate outside of "qualification."). Sometimes people are lazy. My goal was to be the best, so I never slacked on getting the best candidates and filling my positions quickly.
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 12
    YubelBestGirl 20h Managers: "Do this thing you told me is a bad idea." Also managers: "Why did you do this thing? I didn't want you to do this!"
    via YubelBestGirl
  • 13
    dreaminginteal 20h That's why you get it in writing. Always.
    via dreaminginteal
  • 14
    CaptainPunisher 20h When I was a supervisor, this was a regular thing from up above. Thing 1 won't work, but we try it. Thing 2 won't work, but we try it. Day 3, "Why did you do those 2 things?" "Because you told me I had to." "No, we didn't!"
    via CaptainPunisher
  • 15
    RealUltimatePapo 20h "Send the entire ocean to me!" promptly drowns shockedpikachu.jpg Micromanager, meet reality. Enjoy
    via RealUltimatePapo
  • 16
    DoppelFrog 19h I don't understand this attitude; pay for a service (including pre-screening of candidates) and then refuse to use the service you're paying for.
    via DoppelFrog
  • 17
    Peacemkr45 18h I've had to interview candidates for open positions and I always ask how many total applicants applied. Some positions only got at best 3 and others ran into the thousands. I respect the decisions of recruitment companies after I saw what they had to deal with. If they tell me the current pool doesn't meet their criteria, I always ask for the absolute worst resume and use that for pitching changes to the opening or description.
    via Peacemkr45
  • 18
    00 StardustRose_9449 OP • 13h Frequently this would happen. Sometimes, the qualifications did not fit so we come back to the table, adjust, and create a new position that fits better for the team. Doable and usually a 24 hour turnaround time.
    via StardustRose_9449
  • 19
    ecp001 15h wrote an email For over thirty years e-mail has provided a neat, easy audit trail and some people still deny their own statements.
    via ecp001
  • 20
    Peorgie Tirebiter 17h Why did the client even bother hiring a recruiter in the first place if they didn't want pre-screened candidates? SMH Reply Vote StardustRose_9449 OP • 13h It was a company requirement to use a Talent Acquisition team. They didn't have any other option.
    via PeorgieTirebiter

Want More? Follow Us and Add Us as a Preferred Source on Google.

Tags

manager job malicious compliance email reddit story hiring reddit thread Reddit job application
Scroll Down For The Next Article