Reviewed by Duds

Imagine this – you are helping a teenager look for the right college and look up some online reviews for colleges they are interested in.  Here is an example of what you find:

Harvard University is a snooty and mean institution – Don’t waste your time applying!  They make you take an arduous entrance exam, fill out an application WITH TWO ESSAYS and conduct an interview.  After all of that work all they did for me was send me a measly one page letter saying I didn’t get in.  These snooty people are a complete waste of time. Don’t bother.”

Now, that is just absurd.  Obviously the only people qualified to review Harvard are those who attended the University.  Yet consulting and temporary staffing firms are constantly reviewed by people who we have declined to employ and are (understandably) upset because we will not present them to our clients.  It is very frustrating.

Here is a direct quote from one of our reviews “Wall Street Services discriminate candidates based on intelligence rather than practical professional experience as they only accept those who produce high results on the application exam.”

Um… yeah!

Now, for the record, our screening does not measure intelligence – we have an assessment that measures attributes like adaptability and ability to follow instructions (which are critical to success of someone working on a consulting basis.)  That is beside the point – in the case of this reviewer we are getting a negative review because we are adhering to our screening standards as opposed to poor customer service.  At no point are we agreeing to get a job for everyone – our clients rely on us to screen to their high standards.

We bend over backwards to support the employees we select to present to our clients providing in depth interview coaching, training and career counseling and a significant percentage of the people we have working are pleased with our performance. Yet those people do not have a lot of time to write reviews.  And certain review sites filter out reviews from people who do not write a significant amount of reviews.

So our good reviews, written by existing employees (who are very busy individuals) are filtered out, while the folks who have the time to write hundreds of reviews get the most attention.  The reviewer who is angry at us because we look for “intelligent candidates” has written close to 2000 reviews.  I would be surprised to see a busy professional dedicate that much time to writing reviews.

The other issue we face is that our paying clients, the investment banks, will not write reviews – ever.  No matter how overjoyed they are with our work, it will never make it to the online review boards that pop up on Google.

Now, the reviews do point to some very important flaws in our operation that we really do need to address.  Over the past year we have not paid enough attention to our prescreening process. We need to ensure that the majority of people we bring in are folks we are likely to place.  Additionally, we are working on improving the experience people have when they register so that all of our applicants feel cared for.  Our reviews have pointed to this need and for that I am grateful for the feedback.

Until next time,

Peter Laughter


Wall Street Services