Whilst I think it is brilliant that a Google recruiter prepared a candidate really well for their job interview, shouldn't this be the norm?
Without preparing candidates for their interview isn't it just throwing two people together and see what happens? In fact, is it even a good use of valuable time?
I know this happens as I can't tell you how many companies I meet interview candidate after candidate from recruitment agencies all of whom are ill prepared and not even close to what they need in their business. This is one of the key reasons why our industry has such a bad reputation.
I am proud to say that our Executive Search Consultants at Collingwood focus on ensuring that both our clients and candidates are well briefed before any interview and there is good reason for them to meet one another. Investing time to really understand what is required and what makes both parties "tick" is crucial in any recruitment process and ensures a high probability of success for achieving a good match and a job offer. Interviews should not be like a blind date and maximising the time our clients and candidates spend in the process is critical.
Thoroughly briefing candidates really is not "rocket science" but it appears to be a rare event!
In August 2015, a friend of mine applied for a job as a product manager at Google. After the initial screening step, he received an email from the recruiter, telling him what to expect in a phone interview with a senior PM at Google. When he shared it with me, I couldn't believe it. In my work at Recruitring, a candidate prescreening-call platform, I've never seen an email that makes it feel like the recruiter is working for the candidate rather than the company. But this one did. The recruiter told the candidate what types of questions to expect and how to prepare, including suggested websites and blogs to read before showing up. The approach actually makes so much sense. A recruiter's job is to make sure the two people fall in love — the candidate and the hiring manager.