
Why You Can't Trust Recuiters - gacba
http://www.lessonsoffailure.com/developers/trust-recuiters/
======
zavulon
This is a really bad article. There are so many ways recruiters add value.

1) If you apply to places like Goldman Sachs off the street, chances are your
resume is not going to even get a look. Of course, if you know somebody on the
inside, that's the best way to get in, but if you don't? Going through a
recruiter who has a good relationship with a client is the next best way to
get in.

2) A good recruiter will teach you how to write a resume. Yes, some unethical
recruiters will tell you to write things you never did, etc.. but a good
recruiter will tell you HOW to write it the right way, so HR people don't look
it over. Sometimes as a developer, you never know..

I've had friends who got phone calls from HR: "It says here you're a PHP
expert, but do you know HTML? HTML is a requirement for this job." My friend
didn't put HTML on his resume because he assumed anyone would know PHP implies
HTML. But not to HR people, who are generally clueless.. a good recruiter will
teach you that.

3) A good recruiter will teach you how to behave at the interview and what
to/what not to say. Again, not talking about lying. It's things like asking a
lot of questions, displaying enthusiasm, what to answer to "How much money you
want?" (hint: the correct answer is "Look, I'm very excited for this job and
it looks like it's a great fit.. I'm sure you'll treat me fairly, so I'm open
to hear what you have in mind"), etc.

4) If you develop a good relationship with a good recruiter, he will give you
invaluable career advice. For example: did you know that most hiring manager
don't want to hire someone whose longest assignment is < 1 year? They call
these people "job-hoppers" and never want to deal with them. I had no idea
about this, before recruiter told me ...

There's a lot more, but the point is: there are some bad recruiters, and some
good recruiters. Bad recruiters are to be avoided.. but good recruiters will
give you a LOT of value.

Disclaimer: couple of my friends are recruiters.

~~~
takrupp
I am a recruiter and this is pretty spot on. I don't know who the author is,
but it sounds like using one recruiter or nothing is the only option and that
if you choose to work with a recruiter, you must do what they say.

In reality: Recruiters open doors and give you a shot at a job. Sometimes the
firm can't pay what they need to, sometimes the candidate isn't good enough
for the role. Thats why recruiting is challenging.

When I approach a hiring process, I am absolutely doing everything I can to
make sure the deal has the potential for closing: 1) I do ask for the
candidate's compensation expectations. 2) I do ask for the clients
compensation expectations for the role. 3) I do frame things for both parties
in order to get those expectations to line up. 4) I do share information with
both parties on what is happening in the market (sometimes a company will
think they need a junior guy with a 80k comp expectation, but if I tell them
they are wrong, and that they need some with more experience in the 120k
range, they listen). 5) I don't have perfect knowledge of everyone that is
hiring in my industry. I'm good, but especially in my niche of Quant Trading,
its so secretive, there is just no way I can know everything (unlike
realestate brokers that more or less have an industry database they can use to
get good info on the market).

Ultimately, I will do what it takes to get an offer on the table. If its too
low, Ill try to get more, but sometimes that won't happen and then its up to
the candidate to make a hard decision.

Your other points are all valid for executive recruiters (help with resume,
deep domain knowledge, real relationships with hiring managers), but the vast
majority of recruiters are in paper-pushing process shops where the person you
are dealing with is purely gathering resumes, and not selling you in, learning
about the market, etc. I know that it seems like splitting hairs, but the
difference is huge. If you are making over 100k, dont both with the big
companies, find a niche shop or an executive recruiting firm where the
recruiter holds the hiring relationships himself. It makes a huge difference.

------
mseebach
What I REALLY don't understand is recruiters' (or their clients) insistence of
scrubbing the name of the company from the job ad (yeah, it's so you don't go
and apply directly so they don't get their fees).

I once saw an ad for a BBC-job that led to a recruiter-site that referred to
an unnamed international media corporation. How is it ever worthwhile to hide
that you're the BBC? Similarly, there are swathes of job ads for vaguely
defined entities, which makes it incredibly hard to (a) get excited about
applying (b) know how to sell yourself (c) is this the same job as this other
_almost_ identically worded ad?.

I once saw an ad for a position in a non-profit. Presumably with below-market
salaries. But all it said was that it's for a non-profit!? Is "caring about
non-profit stuff" considered a binary state?

~~~
zavulon
It's at their clients insistence. Most recruiters would be absolutely happy to
reveal the name of the company, however if they did, those companies would not
do business with them anymore.

The reason the companies don't want to do that is because they don't
necessarily want it known _internally_ that they're hiring. What if a guy
who's being replaced sees the ad for his job?

I'm not defending that logic, but just explaining how it works (couple of
friends of mine are recruiters)

~~~
semanticist
So how do you explain recruiters who strip candidate contact details from all
CVs?

I work in this industry, and it is absolutely all about preventing employers
and candidates from contacting each other without giving the recruiter their
cut.

~~~
joe_the_user
_Standard operating procedure._

As soon as a company operates where some amount of secrecy is considered
necessary, the easiest thing is to maximize that secrecy. The alternative is
to have to think each whether X information should be given out.

Some candidates might actually not want identifying information "out there" so
it's strip everyone's information than figure out who.

Naturally, this makes things a bit absurd and inefficient but it is simply the
natural logic of secrecy. And hey, secrecy appears whenever you have an
adversarial market relation. So we may as well relax and enjoy it.

------
canterburry
I have been using recruiters for the last 10 years and I agree that it is very
easy to be taken advantage of if you don't know how to use them.

First, go to the recruiter who can give you the best deal. That means, don't
say yes to the first person who calls you. Tell them you'll get back to them
and then check out the boards for whoever else is in the running. Apply to
them all, talk to them all, and then decide which one you are the most
comfortable dealing with. Even if the company isn't mentioned, it's fairly
easy to compare requirements.

Second, know your price and be willing to walk away. The only reason you get
screwed on rates is because you allow it. If you are not willing/able to walk
away when your price isn't being met, then you have already lost. The
competition for candidates is fierce so if you stand firm and you have the
skills, you can often get the recruiter to submit you even if your price is
above where the client is willing to go. Get your resume in front of the
client and have them reconsider their price. If they still don't budge, walk
away.

Third, they are a necessary evil since many jobs can't be accessed (or with
great difficulty) without them. This is not because the headhunter makes it
difficult, it's because the hiring company doesn't want to deal with the
recruitment process and give headhunters an exclusive on the job.

------
jdp23
I've worked with some great recruiters in the past. Especially when you're
growing rapidly, or in times when the market is red-hot and it's hard to find
and close the best candidates, they can really help leverage a company's
resources.

Sure, there are a lot of bozos and unethical recruiters out there -- and
plenty of times when it is just adding overhead. But it's a big mistake to
paint everybody with the same brush. Instead, I'd say the thing to do is ask
around and see who has a good reputation; try them out and see how well they
work for you; and if you have good results, try to make it into a long-term
relationship.

~~~
Timothee
I think the theme of "recruiters are a waste of time" comes back again and
again because most people (me included) haven't seen a single one that was
useful or helpful.

And every time in threads like this one, there are a couple of recruiters
jumping in explaining that yes the industry has a lot of bozos but that _they_
are doing their best, etc.

I'll stay on the side of "recruiters are a waste of time" until I meet one
that seems to know what he's talking about, follows up on positions he was
supposed to set me up with, gives me advice on resume/things to learn/...,
etc.

~~~
angelbob
I've met at least one _internal_ recruiter (i.e. recruiter for Scribd, not a
general headhunter) who was good. Presumably there are equally competent
headhunters out there...

Somewhere.

~~~
Dylanlacey
But an internal recruiter is, presumably, on salary, so wants to do the best
for their company AND is likely to care more about placing the best value
candidate, rather then the cheapest.

------
percept
Don't trust 'em, use 'em.

In FTE positions I've found recruiters to be particularly effective in
negotiating higher salaries. I believe that's because 1) in a negotiation
they're better situated to play the "bad cop" role, and 2) the customer may be
more willing to pay a premium for the assurance a professional firm ostensibly
provides.

In contracting it's a different dynamic; the client agrees to an hourly rate
and you fight the recruiter for your cut (and if you're happy with the cut
then you still win). It's like "lease vs. buy" from the client's perspective.

------
larsberg
There are some good recruiters out there. And, they can be particularly
helpful if you are trying to make a field change (i.e. break into finance)
when you don't have any background in it.

Also, not _any_ job will work. Many tech recruiters don't get paid unless you
stay at the job for 6mo-1yr, so there's a definite incentive to make sure the
job is not a total misfit.

But, yeah, if you're a new college graduate or just making a shift within a
field you are already successful at, a recruiter is probably not worthwhile.

------
ZeroMinx
I think this was outlined in the first Freakonomics book.

I am constantly fascinated that most recruiters are doing such poor jobs --
examples include bad matching (oh you got java on your CV, do you want this
web designer job, it mentions javascript) -- as this is a role that can be
eliminated, I would think they would really try to add value, to avoid being
replaced by a website.

~~~
tomedme
It is in the 1st Freakonomics book. The post is obviously bait to get traffic.

Recruiters are a middleman; they get approached by people offering jobs, and
by people wanting jobs. Some are better than others, just like in every
industry.

Not everyone looking for a job is visible to all employers, and vice versa -
recruiters fill that gap.

------
bitwize
The last recruiter I went through was an interesting fellow. Youngish, and
fond of striking out on his own.

The recruitment firm was a dreary affair. They had a postage stamp of posh
office space in the throbbing center of Boston. The postage stamp was divided
in half and on one side were Java recruitments; on the other .NET
recruitments. Both sides were full of people chattering and monitor screens
mounted up high. It was like a miniature Wall Street floor.

This guy coached me on interviewing and even lent me a tie to wear during the
first phases of the interview process. He was experimenting with placing
people in robotics companies, and he got me the most challenging and exciting
job I've had so far. I still work there.

But yeah, for the most part I don't trust recruiters. I _knew_ this one was
different from the rest, and I'll be surprised to find his like again.

------
DanielBMarkham
I've done the recruiter thing quite a bit early on in my career, so I think I
have a little to add here.

A good recruiter spends a bunch of time getting to know people so I can spend
that same time working on my skills. They're an expert not only at making
friendships, but on finding and understanding what types of jobs these people
have.

Yes, they are motivated by get-any-deal-done. But I am motivated to take the
highest price, and unlike the real-estate example, I can deal with 20
recruiters a week if I want to -- there are no exclusive locks.

So it's in my best interests to spread the word about my skills in an easily
digestible format to as many recruiters as possible, and to make the best
impression on each recruiter as they call (so they'll remember me)

After that it's just a numbers game. Let the recruiters fight it out over who
has the best jobs, or who is able to deal with clients with really tough
problems. Recruiters are tools, as much as they think they are rock stars,
their job is just one of providing trust between a party with needs and a
party who can provide for those needs. Personally I think the rates some of
them charge should be unethical (a percentage off the top for each hour in a
multiple-year relationship? Crazy) but their job is to ask for anything. Hey,
it's a free country. You can ask for whatever you want, right?

I think, from the getting-a-job standpoint, that its just a game. Recruiters
call me up and offer me all kinds of low-end, low-ball jobs. They actively try
to make me take the lowest rate possible so their split can be higher. They
fake parts of resumes. So what? I'm nice to all of them, only deal with the
best and honest, and let the rest of them go about whatever they think of as
being good business. Even with the most honorable, we haggle over rates and
such. That's the way its supposed to be. That's the fun of the marketplace
(although it drives many engineers nuts, I understand)

Now from the other side of the desk, I can see where recruiters could be a
huge pain in the ass -- taking up all sorts of my time talking about positions
that they are never going to fill anyway. But even then there are strategies
you have to employ to be a good at your part of the game.

I just think "you can't trust recruiters" is a bit trite. You can't trust a
lot of people of various walks of life. But some you can. So only work with
those. Learn the game and play it well. I've had amazing relationships with
recruiters. Some are really good people. They have different incentives than
me, but that doesn't mean I can't trust them. I just need to understand where
they are coming from.

~~~
vacri
About the exclusivity thing: A friend of mine is a financial officer for a
company that just moved offices to Charlotte. Hiring two staff, they tried a
couple of recruiters and hired two from the same recruiter, with a 25% bounty.

They needed a third staffer, but were informed from that same recruiter that
the bounty would be 27%. Confused because the extra position was no different
- "you are charging us MORE for return business!?" - my friend was told that
the extra cost was due to not signing an exclusivity agreement.

His response was, naturally, "bye bye".

------
sdizdar
The reason why recruiters are needed is because companies are very bad in
answering and maintaining their job posts and open positions. Recruiter will
spend time establishing contacts with all possible prospects.

Lets take example of seatgeek.com - great way to get applicants. However, did
they send at least thank you email to all people which break thru their system
(even if person didn't submit resume)? No. On the other hand, good recruiter
will definitely follow up - even if a message he/she received from you was not
directly about hiring.

Did you ever try to get a job in a big company by applying to job post on web
site?

Just try the following experiment: If a recruiter of some big company (Google,
IBM, Symantec, etc.) calls you then just say that you will think about it and
you will call him or her back. Then, in parallel, submit your resume to that
company web site. You will probably get no answer at all. Then, after waiting,
call recruiter back. And, if you are good, they will tell you that can arrange
you an interview in a week or so.

------
leftnode
I'm at the point where I'll seek out a job if it specifically doesn't deal
with a technical recruiter. Even if it pays less, not having to deal with them
is worth it.

Between their lack of knowledge about technology and their overall "used car
salesmen" tactics, I don't trust the whole lot of them. I know that's
prejudicial, but I haven't had a good experience yet.

------
ShabbyDoo
A friend with a Harvard MBA was selling his house and thought that the
standard real-estate commission structure where the commission percentage goes
down as the price goes up was absurd. He negotiated a commission structure
where, up until the price point where simply slapping a sign out front with
that price quoted would result in a sale, the commission was 2%. From there on
up, it was 10%. So, the agent had a stronger incentive to find a buyer willing
to pay a high price. My friend ended up selling for a low-ish price, but he
didn't pay much of a commission.

The biggest difference between the standard real estate model and the standard
headhunting model is exclusivity. A headhunter is motivated to "throw paper"
at a hiring manager when multiple recruiting firms are competing to fill a
role. I think that retained search may be a better option, but it's rarely
used at lower levels for some reason.

------
anon114
Another problem with recruiters is conflict of interest. They likely can't be
seen to poach one client's employees for another.

If the recruiter is large and they represent many clients, the pool of talent
you can pull from via the recruiter may not include someone very qualified and
presently employed somewhere with no room for advancement they deserve.

If you had just advertised the job on LinkedIn and done some cursory research
yourself before going to a headhunter, you might be able to access that
resource. At a cheaper price, even.

------
retube
This is just 2 examples (real-estate, recruitment) of a general commercial
rule: trust no-one! Most of the time the interests and motivations of the guy
selling you x/y/z are not aligned with yours.

------
vorg
Real estate agents are like the dealer in blackjack: they always sit on 17.
Playing with recruiters means you go bust on 21 instead of 22: they add even
less value than real estate agents.

