Hi,I am a recruiter myself and always read/listen with interest what the market, both candidates and clients, have to say about the service my industry provides. I couldn't help but notice that there has been quite a bit of vitriol on this site aimed at my profession and while it will be scant consolation to those that have had a bad experience, I can assure you that we are not all in the habit of treating people disrespectfully.Whilst the lack of communication, outright arrogance or sheer stupidity recruiters can display is very frustrating, we do a reasonably difficult job and it's hard to get it right all of the time - I can assure you, we have frustrations of our own and I think it's important for all parties involved in a recruitment cycle to try and empathise with each other - easier said than done, I know.I can't promote myself as a recruitment oracle, but if anyone has had a bad experience, would like to avoid a bad experience or generally wants to pick the brain of a middleman, I am always happy to try and help - for a nominal 30% fee of course. OK, I'm joking.

HiIt's difficult to tell for sure from a single posting, but you don't appear to fit the profile of an arrogant, stupid agent with a communication problem.I responded to the survey. My responses were a mixture of awful agency experiences, one where I was fairly indifferent and three that I felt have been very helpful and professional.A real turn-off for me is when an agent is so busy picking holes in why you left job x, y years ago, that they simply fail to grasp anything about your transferable consulting skills and how these might meet client requirements. If you read the annual report of a successful company it is quite normal to have board directors that have worked for several companies, and this is true of many top consultants as well. Why do these type of agents struggle to understand this, surely it is why they earn fees? Another tired and uninspiring trick is when the statement 'they want someone who can hit the ground running' is thrown into the conversation. Apart from the fact that it fails to qualify as a question, it is usually asked for roles where the only reason nobody is hitting the ground running is because nobody is given the chance to.However it is not a profession which is easy to do well, and I accept that there are some really good agents out there. I welcome the survey - it helps good recruiters and hinders the bad one's.2006 looks positive for consulting recruitment, and it is about time the downturn cynics ate humble pie

Hi Anon,Thanks for the note and I appreciate your sentiments. I think your point illustrates the need for empathy/sympathy, because recruiters are often accused of being narrow minded when it comes to transferable skills etc. The bottom line is that we have to qualify CV's for our clients and because we do work in an industry that is regarded as having a poor service level, we have to be sure to get it right. Gaining credibility with a client is very hard in this industry and if KPMG ask us for a Change Management Consultant ideally from another big 4, who has been on-site with at least 3 retail banks - then that is what we have to give them. We can ask questions such as would they take people from industry, we can offer compromises if the role proves hard to fill, but ultimately we have to provide them with immediately relevant CV's. A lot of recruiters actually believe in transferable skills but our hands are tied. In reference to your mention of fees, believe me, if we thought an interview was possible the CV would be sent.