What candidates get wrong about working with a recruiter

There's a version of the recruiter relationship that candidates sometimes carry into their search without realising it: the recruiter is a service provider, the candidate is the customer, and the job is to be placed as quickly as possible.

That framing creates problems. Not because recruiters don't want to place candidates quickly. They do. But it misunderstands what the relationship actually is, and it tends to produce behaviours that make the whole process harder.

Here's what I see go wrong, from the recruiter's side of the table.

Transparency gets treated as one-directional

Candidates often expect a recruiter to be completely upfront with them: about the role, the client, the salary, the likelihood of an offer. That's fair. Transparency from the recruiter is part of the job.

But transparency isn't a service that flows one way.

When a candidate isn't honest about their notice period, their competing offers, their actual salary expectations, or whether they're genuinely interested in a role, and then I find out later, it doesn't just affect them. It affects the client relationship I've spent years building. It affects my credibility as someone who brings them candidates worth their time. And it affects the next candidate I send, because the client's trust in my judgement has taken a hit.

I'm not asking for information to judge you. I'm asking because I need an accurate picture to represent you well. The more honestly a candidate communicates with me, the better I can advocate for them, including pushing back on a client when I think their process is off, or making the case for a candidate who doesn't look perfect on paper but would be excellent in the role.

Withholding information to manage the process doesn't protect you. It just limits what I can do for you.

Candidates forget that I am actively in the market on their behalf

This is the one that surprises people when I say it plainly: I am not a passive database. When I'm working with you, I am out there, talking to clients, positioning your background, raising your name in conversations you'll never hear, managing perceptions before you've even walked in the door.

That work is invisible to you, which is partly why candidates sometimes treat the relationship as lower-stakes than it is. An unanswered message feels like no big deal. Pulling out of a process without explanation feels like a personal decision. Accepting a direct offer and going quiet feels like tidying up your own affairs.

From my end, it's different. I've had conversations I can't fully repeat. I've made representations I need to be able to stand behind. When a candidate goes dark or changes direction without telling me, I'm left managing the fallout with a client, often without enough information to do it well.

I'm not saying candidates owe me updates out of courtesy. I'm saying it directly affects outcomes, theirs and mine. A candidate who communicates well throughout a process, even when the news isn't great, is one I'll work harder for the next time. Because I know what I'm working with.

Ghosting a process is more consequential than it seems

Recruiters talk. Not in a punitive or gossipy way, but industries are smaller than they look, and the hiring manager you exit-ghosted this year may be the decision-maker at a company you want to join in three years.

Withdrawing from a process is completely normal and sometimes the right call. Doing it cleanly, a brief message, honest reason, no dramatics, costs almost nothing and preserves everything. Most recruiters won't hold a professional withdrawal against a candidate. Almost all of us remember a disappearance.

The relationship works best when it's treated like one

The candidates I've placed multiple times over the years, not just once but across different roles and different stages of their careers, are almost never the ones who treated the process as transactional. They're the ones who were direct with me, updated me when things changed, gave me feedback after interviews even when it was uncomfortable, and understood that I was trying to do a good job for both sides of the table.

That kind of working relationship is worth building, even when you're not actively looking. Because the best opportunities rarely go through a job ad. They go through a recruiter who thought of you because you made it easy to think well of you.

The relationship isn't complicated. It just works better when both people in it are actually in it.