PayDo

Regina, hello.
I had the opportunity to collaborate with you for almost the entire duration of your work here at PayDo, and I have some things to say.
First, I’d like to address your feedback:

1) “They start by hiring irrelevant candidates and even send job offers that don’t clearly and accurately outline the responsibilities.”
— This statement is incorrect, as every PayDo offer includes a clear list of tasks and separate expectations for the probationary period.

2) “People come, work for two weeks, and leave the company.”
— This may have happened only once in the past year that I’ve been with the company.

3) “They don’t pay bonuses for candidates who accepted the offer.”
— The company’s policy clearly states that the Talent Acquisition team receives bonuses under specific conditions, one of which is the continued employment of the specialist within the team.

4) “The recruiters have no desire to work with researchers, unlike in all normal companies. They disregard good candidates provided to them and hire completely unsuitable people, who then leave the company. They probably fear losing their bonuses, so they don’t let others earn them.”*
— Luckily, I have something to compare with already, and I can confidently say that every company deserves the best specialists. Hiring “just for the sake of hiring” is not our approach. Unfortunately, in my collaboration experience with you, the quality of candidates provided was far below the required standards, which had nothing to do with sharing bonuses.

Since we’ve decided to focus on facts and cases, I’d also like to add the following regarding processes:
When you joined the team, we mentioned several times that we had never had a Talent Sourcer before, which allowed you to help in creation of needed processes and define expectations for your role, as well as document these new practices in Confluence for the future development of sourcing direction. Unfortunately, no initiatives or new ideas came from you, so we worked according to our own vision.
— Additionally, when we tried to establish regular 1-on-1 meetings regarding processes, statuses, and pitch analysis, you often failed to attend.
— During your probation period, our team received two (if not more) negative reviews regarding the lack of feedback from you to candidates.

Results:
PayDo values its employees for their contributions to the company’s growth, and of course, every employee has their own goals.
Unfortunately, when it comes to your performance, only one of your candidates accepted an offer during the probation period. This was not because the company is bad, but because the quality of your screenings was clearly below the vacancy requirements (which we also provided feedback on).
After analyzing the candidate pipeline you provided during our joint work on vacancies, I see the following figures:
— Average number of candidates submitted per high-priority vacancy: 3 per week.
— Average TA approval rate: 1 out of 5.
— Offers accepted: 1 (on the day you were informed about the end of your collaboration).

And the last word, Communication:
Our team is quite open-minded and ready to support in any situation. However, it’s unpleasant when honest help is disregarded.
Your absence online for half of the workday, reluctance to participate in team projects, and complete apathy toward improving results have had consequences.
It’s regrettable that you placed the blame solely on the company and the team, but it’s certainly a good learning experience for all of us :)

hahahah
Of course, you employees try to justify yourselves. Your company is truly the bottom, just like your hiring processes

I have worked in companies where no one had any complaints about my work. You are deceiving people, and that says it all.

Additionally, they deceive people. The recruiters have no desire to work with researchers, unlike in all normal companies. They disregard good candidates provided to them and hire completely unsuitable people, who then leave the company. They probably fear losing their bonuses, so they don’t let others earn them. And when a researcher does manage to earn them, they don’t pay out.

Hi! I appreciate your feedback. However, we are unable to identify your specific position and employment history with us.

Based on your job title on DOU and the information you have shared, it seems that you may have held the position of ’Researcher’ (“Talent Sourcer” as it is named within our company). Up until August 2024, we had only one person working by that title, I believe I know the situation you are talking about.

To be clear, from our perspective, we were not completely satisfied with our collaboration with you. I provided you with regular feedback throughout the process and made every effort to ensure a mutually beneficial outcome. Regrettably, the agreed-upon terms were not consistently upheld from your side.

The information you have presented does not align with our practices. We hold all candidates and team members in high regard.

Furthermore, the role you mentioned was filled by the person who complies with all requirements and diligently performs all duties. Every member of the TA team receives their bonuses on time and TAs/Talent Sourcer are working tightly with the new team member with no objections or miscommunication and deliver beneficial results.

We wish you luck in your journey and if you wish to discuss the matter further, feel free to reach out to me directly: [email protected]