Would a recruiter "short change" a candidate for a position in order to hold out for more "appealing" candidates?I.e. Would a recruiter not give a candidate information about 2nd/final round interviews in the hope that a better match for the role comes along (despite said candidate progressing to subsequent interview rounds)?I've got a feeling the recruiter is/has not been forthcoming with this information. I've seen the same job posting I've applied to reposted on the recruiter's site and now (for the first time) on another site. I'm thinking the recruiter was pants, the client got fed up and took their business else where. Or is this too far fetched?

In the current climate recruiters are short of client assignments to work on, so when they have a role to fill they will keep searching for better and better candidates to put forward to the client until a hire has been made and a success fee has been secured. To do anything less would be to invite the client to engage more of the recruitment firm&apos;s competitors to fill that same opening - with the end outcome being the same, that additional candidates are being put forward for the role. So in practice recruiters have to keep supplying additional candidates until the client is delighted by the full shortlist of candidates that have been generated.It&apos;s quite possible that the recruiter is being strung along by the client and doesn&apos;t have any information to share with you; or that the client is getting cold feet and delaying the hiring process; or any one of a number of other reasons that mean the recruiting process isn&apos;t what you would want it to be (holidays delaying decision processes at the client, etc).I know from a number of recruiters I&apos;ve spoken with in the last weeks that client activity has picked up quite considerably (ie. more hiring campaigns being commissioned), but that the urgency with which interviewing processes are being conducted has yet to shift up a gear. I can assure you this is as much of a frustration to recruiters as it is to you as it translates directly into a delay in when they might get paid for the work they&apos;re doing!Small consolation to you I appreciate, but hope this helps.Tony Restell (Top-Consultant.com)<a href=http://events.top-consultant.com/UK/careerconference.aspx?ID=421>"Your career at a crossroads – which way next?"</a>

Tony, thanks for response.Searching for better candidates makes sense. However, what I don&apos;t understand is why would they withold information from a candidate (assuming my earlier assumption is correct) when the candidate has already been given the green light to move to the next round? Surely this indicates interest from the client organisation and a desire to progress with that candidate. In my mind, this translates to a source of revenue for the recruiter, so it would be in their interests to progress with the candidate & client as far as possible.In this environment, the client getting cold feet is plausible, however, why would they engage with the services of another agency if this were the case? In addition to my assumption above (first recruiter was rubbish) I accept that the client may wish to source candidates from an additional source. If this is the case, would it be wise to apply for the same position via the second agency (very highly likely to be put forward)?

I&apos;d certainly reccomend that you register with another recruiter - there are plenty of us out there and some of us are quite good - but i would be wary of submitting several applications for one position - it makes you look desparate and the recruiter who submits the second time round unprofessional. Try to get an underatanding of how far the process has gone with your origional recruiter and explain your concerns to them - they should be able and want to help. As Tony said, however, we can only go on the information that comes back to us from the individual companies and that is often the problem at the moment as they hold off making decisions and as they have no pressure to fill roles quickly will keep interviewing as long as they can!

Not too sure I understand this but if I am reading it how I think then you are asking would a recruiter not inform you about a second interview which you have secured, in the hope of a better candidate coming along?If that is the question the answer is no, they wouldn&apos;t.

Have to agree with "rec". It would put the client relationship in jeopardy to not invite to second interview someone who the employer has specifically asked to be invited back. And let&apos;s be clear about this, no recruitment firm is going to want to lose a client in the current climate, they are like gold dust!There is one scenario in which you could very quickly cool a recruitment agency&apos;s interest in you - and that&apos;s if they discover that you&apos;ve actually applied to the employer already (either directly or via another agency). This would usually mean the agency doesn&apos;t stand to earn a success fee should you be hired - at which point you are no longer someone they would invest time assisting in securing that role.Having said this though, if this were your situation then you would either have the employer themselves contacting you (if you&apos;d applied direct to them as well) or the other recruitment agency would be following up to arrange the interviews and make sure their fee is safeguarded. Neither of which sounds like it&apos;s happening so I don&apos;t think this is what&apos;s at play here.NB. I wrote a piece on working with recruitment agencies a few months back, you may find it a useful read in light of the above:<a href=http://news.top-consultant.com/UK/news_story.aspx?ID=5714>http://news.top-consultant.com/UK/news_story.aspx?ID=5714</a>Tony RestellTop-Consultant

Thanks rec and Tony, you have put my mind at ease somewhat.I think I need to do some damage control with the second recruiter. I&apos;m not at the stage where interviews are being setup (I only applied earlier this week), but will need to inform the recruiter of my situation. I hope I haven&apos;t ruined my chances totally with this recruiter, they have some good roles advertised for that often catch my eye.I actually read that piece on recruitment agencies a while back. I remember thinking that information was gold dust. I think I had a bit of a moment of frenzy and panic when I decided to apply to the same opportunity.

One game recruiters do play is restricting the number of candidates they put forward for a role. They would rather put forward the 3 best than send off 30 CVs.This means that although they are on commission they may well not submit your CV but tell you that they have just so you don&apos;t go to another agency.

yes but if a candidate has an interview they would not withold that information from them.

Tony has offered a very balanced view here. It always pays to understand the economic as well as the political model of recruitment. The client pays the recruiter not the candidate so they work for them at the end of the day not you (sorry if that sounds brutal but it is true unfortunately. It is a buyers market at the moment which is driving some poor behaviour in recruitment (both client and supply side). The recruiter does not get paid for introducing you if they are not first past the post in getting your CV in front of the client so there is absolutely no point in running with two recruiters for the same job. If the client has vetoed you from one recruiter it is unlikely that another will get you in.