

If David Heinemeier Hansson Was a Tech Recruiter... - danielhodgins

He probably wouldn't send himself job offers for Rails jobs in the Valley, unlike an unfortunate and clueless recruiter who did just that!<p>http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2598-why-are-technical-recruiters-so-clueless<p>Folks, I want to create a programmer-centric tech recruiting agency that is basically the opposite of the story above. And I need your ideas!<p>Imagine that DHH, Jason Fried and the rest of the 37 Signals crew were to create a small, scrappy tech recruiting agency. What might this look like?<p>Thanks,<p>D.
======
scottyallen
Treat potential candidates like people, rather than interchangeable pegs that
you try and fit in whatever square hole you're trying to fill at the moment.

This means:

\- Spend time to build real connections and relationships with the people
you're trying to recruit. Find out what the look for in a job, and if you none
of your clients fit the bill, say so point blank, but that you'll get back to
them when you find one that does.

\- Build a tribe (in the Seth Godin sense of the word). Build a group of
people that look to you about finding jobs and hiring. Organize events that
get lots of smart technical people together, that isn't just a recruiting
event. Think about the 37 signals blog and the conferences they've organized.
Think Super Happy Dev House.

\- Don't cold call. Speaking personally, I'm much more likely to talk to you
if you email me. Aggressive phone calls are a major turn off. If you must
call, don't call before 10am in my time zone.

\- Being open about the companies and positions you're trying to fill. No
caginess about what the company is, and being open about any potential
downsides you know of.

\- Don't recruit for companies you don't believe in.

\- Know what you're talking about technically. This means not recruiting
people for positions that don't match the experience they list on their
resume. It means not recruiting them for positions they're highly unlikely to
be interested in, based on past positions.

In general, recruit people like you would want to be recruited. In the short
term, this will likely be less effective than more traditional approaches. In
the long run, as you start building a network and reputation for integrity, I
bet it's significantly more effective.

------
iamdave
_Note: this comment contains implicit perspective_

While 37s makes wonderful products, this post reminds me that time and time
again DHH has a habit I dislike: thinking his opinion is the hole in which
every puzzle piece can fit. There are times where his team brings out some
outstanding, accurate and worthy information, this is not one of them.

What would a 37s recruiting agency look like? I couldn't tell you-but I can
tell you, from the perspective of someone who actively executes virtual
recruiting services for startups across the landscape, it wouldn't be a very
good one.

Why?

He exhibits the very ignorance he's railing against in this blog post:
assuming all recruiters are as clueless as this one for sending a shotgun
blasted email to any candidate that stands a remote chance of replying, by
sending a shotgun blast signal to the industry that he clearly does not
understand by saying they're all the same.

~~~
danielhodgins
Agreed.

David is certainly entitled to his opinion, but to assume that one email from
a single recruiter is representative of an entire industry and the life work
of tens of thousands of people (if not more) is simply ignorant.

HN'ers - throw down your horror and/or success stories related to working with
recruiters!

------
albahk
I have been on the receiving end of these machine gun emails from recruiters
and I've noticed something that is so obvious it may be redundant to say it
here.

The recruiters receive details of a job-opening from a company (hey, we're
hiring), calculate how much the fee will be to them (OMG $20k!!) and then
proceeds to cast a wide net by spamming twitter, email, cold-calling, linkedin
etc to get as many CV's as possible then cut the list down and try to get them
into interviews. Its driven by the payoff because if a recruiter does their
job amazingly well, then they place you in a good job and you never need them
again... companies on the other hand are always reruiting so better to help
the company.

...the problem is all those people who sent in their CV and didn't make the
first cut are naively under the assumption that you are proactively searching
for an opportunity that can help nurture their dreams/desires and provide room
to grow in a new role etc etc. Rubbish.

I don't know the answer, but thats my take on the situation - based on
experience of going through the system a few times with different recruiters.

~~~
danielhodgins
Actually, if the recruiter does their job well, you'll contact them every time
you are considering a career change (perhaps every 5 or 10 years) because
you'd be a fool not to. This 'cradle to grave' business model results in the
highest lifetime value per candidate for the recruiter.

Some recruiters do actually have your best interests at heart and work hard to
find you the right role. Why else would you go back to them in the future or
refer your smartest friends?

It's a good sign if a recruiter refers you to a competitor or is 100% honest
that they don't think they'll have a position for you in the near future. Any
recruiter who operates with a shred of integrity will be glad to do either.

------
wdewind
I think it's pretty obvious what to do. If you operate your business with
respect for the industry and take it seriously you will be good. Otherwise you
will not. It's kind of that simple. Recruiting isn't really a tough job on its
own, kinda just the amount of effort you bring to the table.

------
danielhodgins
Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful comments ScottyAllen, Albahk,
IamDave and Wdewind.

