#RecruitersPreference #EmployedCandidates #JobSearchStruggles #CareerAdvice #JobSeekers
Are you familiar with the sinking feeling that washes over you every time a recruiter asks if you’re currently employed? It seems like every time they hear you’re unemployed (despite it being clear on your resume), they sigh and start probing with questions like, “Why were you laid off?” It’s frustrating, isn’t it?
every time they hear im unemployed (despite it being clear on my resume), they sigh. Then “Why were you laid off?”
MARTHA! IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM U HAVE A HOMEWRECKER MENTALITY AND GO AFTER MARRIED MEN! I AM SINGLE AND AVAILABLE.
## The Frustration of Job Searching While Unemployed
Being in between jobs is already a stressful time. The last thing you need is recruiters preferring candidates who are already employed. But why do recruiters have this bias? And how can you navigate this challenge?
### Why Recruiters Prefer Employed Candidates
Recruiters tend to favor candidates who are currently employed for several reasons:
1. **Perceived lower risk:** Employed candidates are seen as less risky because they are already vetted by their current employer.
2. **Current skills:** Recruiters assume that employed candidates have up-to-date skills and experience compared to those who have been out of work.
3. **Employment gaps:** Recruiters may question why you have an employment gap, whether due to layoff, personal reasons, or other circumstances.
### Overcoming the Bias Towards Employed Candidates
While the preference for employed candidates can be frustrating, there are practical steps you can take to level the playing field:
1. **Networking:** Tap into your network for job leads and recommendations. Personal connections can help bypass the bias against unemployed candidates.
2. **Skill development:** Use your time between jobs to upskill and stay current in your industry. Online courses, certifications, and volunteer work can show recruiters your dedication to professional development.
3. **Freelancing or consulting:** Consider taking on freelance or consulting projects to keep your skills sharp and maintain some form of employment status.
4. **Addressing the employment gap:** Be prepared to explain your employment gap in a positive light during interviews. Highlight any relevant experiences or skills you gained during this time.
By proactively addressing the bias against unemployed candidates, you can increase your chances of landing your next job, even in a competitive market. Remember, your worth as a candidate goes beyond your current employment status. Stay determined and focused on your goals, and the right opportunity will come your way. Stay positive and keep pushing forward! 💪🌟
So next time a recruiter asks about your current employment status, you can confidently respond, knowing that your value as a candidate shines through, regardless of your employment status. #YouGotThis #JobSearchJourney #CareerSuccess 🚀🔍
If its a 3rd party recruiter its because their sales pitch to clients is that they are going to go out and find *only the best, top of market talent that only they know how to find* when of course, they arent doing anything special. So, an unemployed candidate, regardless of how good they are is less marketable for them…no company wants to pay a markup for a candidate who would have probably been happy to apply on their own.
If its an internal recruiter id be surprised to hear theyre audibly sighing at that news, but if anything it does make their job harder because they know you are activley looking for work, so as a result theyre going to need to really fight with managment to interview you timely before another employer makes you an offer first…but thats literally just part of the job.
As a recruiter, if I see people at the exact same skill set I don’t care either way. It’s easier to hire someone who is unemployed though. But, If you show me people with the exact same skill set who were working at the exact same company, It’s a pretty good indicator which one was performing better when one is unemployed and the other isn’t.
Most recruiters, if they know their industry, know when layoffs are happening. That’s why we ask “ What is the reason for no longer being in the other position?” Amount of times I have been talking with somebody who is looking for a job, knowing full well that I just hired the person to replace them after they got fired, is huge. Happens all the time. In that situation it’s a chance for us to also gauge if they are honest. “ It wasn’t the right fit for me or the company” is a perfectly acceptable answer. The person very well may be the perfect fit for the current job they are applying for but a bad fit for the last position…. And if I already know what the other position they got laid off from was, It lets me understand why it wasn’t a fit, So we don’t put them into the same exact type of situation again. Many times, The person who let them go will even be a reference and say “ They are a great person. And absolutely recommend them for hire. They just weren’t right for this job because of xxxx. But for yyyy they would be great”
Because people that are employed are generally more employable than unemployed people. Sure sometimes great employees get laid off for bs reasons but there are tons of unemployed people that either are bad at that jobs or are lazy or have shit personalities to work with.
“MARTHA! IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM U HAVE A HOMEWRECKER MENTALITY AND GO AFTER MARRIED MEN! I AM SINGLE AND AVAILABLE.”
Okay, but this is sending me. It really does feel like that.
>why do recruiters like already employed candidates?
Because someone else has vetted them, and found them acceptable, so the recruiter might as well.
The longer someone remains unemployed, the more it suggests that other people have evaluated them but not found a reason to pick them up, so why should the recruiter?
That’s a natural base feeling. You need to do a little more digging from there, but many people will just sit on that initial assessment and move on to another candidate.
A lot of the responses to this feel like such fantasy bs. People are unemployed for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it’s from being fired, sure. Sometimes they got the short end of the stick when a company downsized. Sometimes they quit because mental health is important and some workplaces are toxic. Sometimes there are strikes or the industry is in a downswing. Sometimes people work project based contracts and come off a contract when there isn’t as much work and it takes a while. Sometimes they’re changing careers or moving or taking care of family members or children. And this whole bias against unemployed people especially harms women who take time off for maternity leave. We don’t stop being valuable employees because we had kids and took time off to take care of them.
None of those reasons makes someone lesser than someone who happens to be currently employed and also looking for work.
There’s a stigma to laid off employees because from an employer’s perspective interpreting the reasons behind a layoff is tricky. There are basically two types of layoffs – either an entire section of the business is closed down or a company is doing an overall reduction in staff.
In the first scenario, good employees can get caught up and it can be a stroke of luck to bring them onboard. In the second scenario, it’s the low or mediocre performers who are the first to go and those are generally not folks you want to bring onto your team.
As a recruiter, your value prop is to deliver better candidates than the company could attract on their own, so you certainly don’t want to be recommending people who are low or mediocre performers.
Simple, people desire things that people have. It is kinda like you are more attractive to a girl if you already have a gf.
Social proof. It really is that simple.
You seriously get asked that?? The list of things I need bullshit answers to just grew. How is this response:
“Businesses lay people off to save money. ”
That’s all. Then I try to keep a straight face.
If pressed…
No, why were YOU laid off?
“To save money.”
Third question
“Money”
It’s not that complicated. Most people have jobs, and most people don’t leave them until they have another one lined up. Being unemployed is rare, and having it because you yourself quit is more rare. They want to know why.
If you have a reason that sounds nice, like you wanted to go back to school full time for something, or maybe were giving a loved once medical care, they will buy that. If the real reason is “I got fired and have been looking for work for a very long time” you should probably lie, because they will see that as “this person was not worth keeping at their last job, and has not been worth hiring by anyone else since.” Make up a good lie, if you can’t think of anything I’d suggest travel. Pick a place you’ve been to and know a bit about, and say you spent months there instead of the week or two you probably did.
Antiquated hiring managers and their preferences trickle down to the recruiters because, well, they need to get hires to keep their job or contract. It’s part of why I’m sick of recruiting.
Here’s a great example: My agency has a client who only wants FAANG-level engineers, BUT they refuse to speak with any engineer who was laid off in the past year.
It’s comically sad considering most of those layoffs had nothing to do with performance and everything to do with company budgets.
A lot of recruiters are unburdened with common sense
I just say I’m still currently employed and if they do want to talk to someone from work I use my friend who still works there and knows what to say
Employers want the most valuable candidate they can get.
Lol at all these “must mean you’re lazy or a bad performer” comments when there’s often no greater source of laziness and inefficiency than corporate managers who make dumb decisions like writing off someone who’s been looking for a job for a long time.
“Bad performers” also need to make a living. Hope y’all support universal basic income then!
I’ve only been let go/laid off a couple times in my life(neither one were my own fault, both times were completely out of the blue shady) But whenever I’ve been asked this question, I usually just tell them, “it’s an ongoing issue that I cannot comment on”. Changes the dynamic of the interview, and plants the seed that “oh, he maybe didn’t lose his job because of his own doing”
I’d just say I’m still employed and give them a friends phone number if they actually even call. Or you could always say, I’ve always wanted to travel. I left my previous job on good terms and of my own accord. Now that I am back I am looking to start a career in (x)
I’m at the point where I just lie now.
> Law #10: Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and the Unlucky
My suspicion is that they know that a person who has a job will only quit to take a job they want to keep long term, but if you’re not working you are likely to take a position you don’t think much of with the intention of continuing to look for a better job.
So faced with two otherwise identical candidates, it’s reasonable to think the employed one is significantly less likely to quit in a month or two.
The thing is alot of the places don’t even want reasons. I have legit been in an interview where they worked out I was unemployed, wrote something down, never wrote another thing again and then I was rejected (so bloody obvious what happened)….but no reason was asked. Let go? Quit? Company folded? Restructure? Nothing.
It’s a stigma that makes no god damn sense.
I frame it positively, talk about the layoff as something rhay affected the whole business unit and pivot to what you’re looking forward to (a role like the one ur interviewing for)
Basic lack of critical thinking?
I always speak well of my past employers to give the impression that I left on good terms even if I didn’t. I talk about the positives of working there.
And I make up an excuse for changing jobs. Relocation, want to try a different field. Always been very interested in my interviewers industry. Etc.
It pretty much throws off all suspicion.
It’s a well known fact that, most of the time. The top talent is already working. Some recruiters specialize in passive candidates..
Simple to get something you must already have that thing
Because if you are employed, it makes you seem more valuable. If you are unemployed, people suspect there is a reason for it and it’s possible that the reason is you.
It’s a matter of supply and demand. Things have more value if they are in high demand and people want those things more and will pay more. Things in low demand, are the opposite.
When you have a job, people think you are a valued worker because the company is doing everything they can to keep you there. When you are unemployed, people suspect the company didn’t want you in the team enough so you must not be that great.
I’m not saying it’s always a good indicator but it is how the world works.
Back in 2008/2009 there were job ads that stated unemployed need not apply. So I guess im saying it could be worse.
This one’s easy. Because it shows that you have “worker-bee mentality”. If you are not employed and have not for a few months, it demonstrates that you know how to survive without working for scraps, and that’s a bad thing.
It’s simple: employees who are currently employed are the most secure bet to be good. There are lots of reasons you can be unemployed, many in fact come down to you or your performance. Now there are many great people unemployed. But it doesn’t change the fact that if you have focus somewhere then currently employed people are safest bet.
They are just tone deaf I swear. One tried to convince me to take a job that paid LESS than what I was making???? wtf?
Post feudal mindset, as the villagers moved to towns the new comer was perceived as backward hillbilly but anybody working in a factory was valued by other factory owners as he was already familiar with the mechanised mode of working, unemployed factory workers were seen as unionist trouble makers. almost two centuries later we are still stuck with the outdated mindset. Albeit the recruiting monkey don’t know why it thinks that way.
Preselection.
If another company has decided a candidate is employable, the recruiter doesn’t need to spend time thinking about it. The question has been answered.
Wait until you get self employed and asked the reason why. They pretend like you are not successful enough and think like you need to rely on stable income.
Nobody gives a fuck about fluxiating economy or competition in market, which is applicable for both circumstances.
In all my time as a recruiter, I have never had anyone tell me they were unemployed or left a job because they got fired. Guess everyone bats 100.
Here’s a couple things. Typically employed people are not as “active in the market.” Meaning they’re not applying to every company/opening. If you’re a third party recruiting agency, working with people that are unemployed/laid off can make it harder to place. Since they’re more active and applying (rightfully so), you cannot submit a candidate whose already applied to a job opening. It also decreases the chances of placing said person, once again because they’re already so active, might already be in final rounds or close to an offer. Some people will just take a job to get employed again, and will leave soon as they find something else. It can have more risk with the placement. I’m literally just giving any examples seen; doesn’t mean it happens often.
Employed people are typically more selective/passive. Not interviewing as much, and makes it easier with wider time frames to work within.
They’re asking because losing your job is a red flag you may be a suboptimal employee and they want to verify it is not because of behavioral issues or things like that. In addition to this, having a current job clearly displays that you are in fact employable. It’s not that deep.
You need to find a company or make up somewhere you are working. It’s stupid, but this is a huge bias.
They think they can’t hold down a job
You have it correctly. Recruiting and dating are very much alike. If you are already in a relationship, then someone else has proven that you are valuable enough to date. If you’re single, then you suck and need to live in a van down by the river.
Disclaimer: van not included, river not included, [being homeless in Kentucky punishable by a 90 days in jail or $250 fine](https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb5.html).