Ask HN: “Agents” instead of recruiters for tech professionals?

This idea keeps coming up as stephengillie said and he made a good point as to why it's the other way round right now.

I think it's more important to cultivate an entrepreneurial attitude and business skills with consultants / freelancers. Many freelancers still see themselves as mere coders / temporary employees whereas I think they rather should consider themselves business problem solvers and entrepreneurs.

The IT freelance market pretty much depends on recruiters, who are nothing else but expensive middleman and gatekeepers. At least part of the reason for this is that freelance developers apparently can't be bothered with lowly stuff such as the everyday problems of running a business.

This attitude is a fallacy in my opinion. Not only are business problem solvers paid better than developers but approaching your work from this perspective is also a lot more rewarding in the long run. Using JavaScript framework A or B or Java technology C or D? I couldn't care less. Solving an interesting business problem? That's something entirely different.

Besides, seeing yourself as an entrepreneur instead of a temp worker will allow you to talk more confidently with recruiters and clients alike.

Also a very good point. Stop seeing ourselves an consultants and start to see ourselves as a product, a business solution even. This makes a lot of sense honestly. This tends to speak towards what others have said in the past about increasing rate. Stop trying to sell temporary labor and start selling solutions in order to give the most business value and attain the most financial benefit for yourself.

To be introspective, I will admit when I have built product based businesses I have done that. I wonder why my mindset is so different when I am in the consulting space.

> Many freelancers still see themselves as mere coders / temporary employees whereas I think they rather should consider themselves business problem solvers and entrepreneurs.

Many freelancers are coders and temporary employees.

There are freelancers who have the skills and experience necessary to become members of the consultant class, but there are many freelancers who don't. Just because you can code doesn't mean you're a business problem solver or entrepreneur, or want to be.

If I need to hire somebody to knock out some code for a few months, I'm not going to hire somebody who is pitching himself or herself as a panacea for all of my business problems. Solos should be thoughtful about the personal and professional implications of their positioning. It's one thing to want the financial rewards of consulting, but it's another thing to deal with the day-to-day demands.

There is a clear distinction between being a freelancer and an employee - whether temporary or not: However small it might be, a freelance business is still a business. If you don't want to deal with all that marketing, accounting, business development and management stuff that comes with that you shouldn't be a freelancer in the first place.

Then there are different degrees of business problems: Somebody churning out cheap logos on Fiverr solves a vastly different and vastly smaller problem than someone who say troubleshoots manufacturing processes at a large plant but both are still business problems. That doesn't mean that someone being able to solve them is a panacea nor should he probably market himself as such.

This topic keeps coming up.

We have recruiters (basically agents for employers) because our industry has excess supply of positions and insufficient demand for these positions. Since we can relatively easily go find another job, it doesn't make sense for us to pay someone to help us look.

For a contrary example - actors have agents because their industry has a small supply of jobs, and high demand for acting jobs. And so they benefit from paying an agent to help them find what few jobs there are.

I haven't seen this particular topic come up but I may have just missed it. I like where you are coming from though.

I would like to take a look at the entertainment business in comparison to engineering positions for a moment. You are absolutely right there is an excess supply of positions and an insufficient demand for those positions. However, that is a general statement that can be narrowed down I believe.

While in the entertainment industry there is a very small supply of jobs for high dollar actors and actresses, there is a excess supply of positions for small walk on, non-speaking characters with insufficient demand for those positions. People don't want small, low paying, non-speaking, uncredited acting positions. They are willing to pay an agent to try to get them the small supply of high paying acting positions that they want.

I still think your difference holds true though. I am not trying to set up a straw man here. I fully admit that I can walk out today, talk to 20 businesses in a relatively short period of time, and land a new high paying gig. I could also walk out and talk to a dozen recruiting firms and accomplish the same thing. It's easier for me than it is for an actor in the entertainment industry.

But I still see that there are a significant number of engineers who are willing to pay an agent to keep up these relationships for them. What would make it worthwhile to the Agent? 10% of 20 engineers who make on average $150,000 a year? Is there not room in the industry for that type of service?

Well, you're free to start an employment agency for tech workers. But, with respect, I won't pay for your agency's services until I stop being contacted by multiple recruiters a week. :)

Oh, do not misinterpret my discussion here. I am in no way interested in starting an agency. In fact, quite the opposite. I would like to find one ;)

I get contacted by recruiters all of the time and that is the problem! Which should I listen to? Which should I make a relationship with moving forward to find more business? Which are going to negotiate well for me?

The other issue is that we are paying them for their services, whether we like that idea or not. We may not be having to handle the tax implications and whatnot, but ultimately they negotiate a rate for me of say, $100 an hour. They negotiate a rate with the client of say, $150 an hour. To the client I cost $150 an hour (in fact most recruiters put it that way to them, that is my "bill rate"). I am paying them 50% anyway, in this scenario.

I've been an account manager (and non-technical project manager) for an agency for 9+ years. I have been quite successful at it. I've gained and retained many large clients and made plenty of money for my employer in the process! That in turn has kept my paycheck coming in consistently, so I'm pretty happy overall. But I do sometimes have dreams of doing my own thing.

I have often wondered if I could offer my account management services independently to a handful of freelance engineers and make enough money to sustain myself. It doesn't sound too incredibly different from what you are talking about. I could also see myself being very good at weeding out the recruiters that don't fit my clients needs.

Edit: I should clarify that the agency I work for is full service and we handle web projects all the way from design through development. So I have a fairly in depth understanding of tech, just not a hacker per se.

It's unfortunate you have no contact information in your profile :)

> Why are there not technical "Agents"... who will find new clients for me where in I can pay them a percentage of my rate?

Turns out that tech talent are often viewed as mercenaries and corporate recruiting is dysfunctional. The leverage in this marketplace remains still with the employer. They have deeper pockets.

Consider the agent model you're looking for-- you'll want a sales/biz dev guy who gets your space, has superior business acumen, and authentic industry contacts.

How much are you really willing to pay him to market you? Would you pay 20-33% of your first year salary? Would you pay that amount upon your start date?

The employer, desperate to meet his goals will.

Well, that entirely depends on the rate that Agent can negotiate. I don't often take a salary now, but from an hourly perspective (or day rate, or project based fee), the answer is absolutely yes. In fact, I think I do this now with recruiters. They put me in front of a client at a client at a particular rate, my bill rate, and then they take a percentage. Often that percentage is at least 20 - 33%.

But I think you make a good point about the employer having the leverage. It may be that the market isn't ready for recruiting Agents who work for the technical talent. It may be that the market is only able to handle recruiters who give the perception of working for the companies that need the talent.

It's a curious thing-- we live in an age of disintermediation.

Nobody likes paying a middleman fee, especially true in the professional workspace.

Yet even with the global Linkedin platform-- Buyers & Sellers of talent have an impossible time connecting.

Sports and acting and literary agents can make money because the checks can be big. No coder gets a $14 million fee, except maybe eventually via options and the accounting and execution on that are messy and the present value of future cash flows is usually zero. To put it another way, are you prepared to cut your agent 30% off the top, apps stores style?

That's why.

Also, agency models are based around ongoing negotiations needed multiple times per year. (also also, agency models are closely tied to union models which freaks out tech employers.) Employees aren't supposed to be job hopping every 3 months. Sure, job hopping happens, but you should eventually reach some steady state where you're not moving every 9 months. Retaining a personal agent to do nothing after you get stable and are employed for 4 years is a waste.

The current drive-by-recruiter model exists because developers are valuable and companies don't know how to find them on their own.

The entire developer+job problem is a classic information asymmetry issue. If all companies registered their open jobs publicly at a centralized site (then if the same site knew all available developers and their skills) then the site could match available developers to openings [modulo culture fit, relocations, aggressive salary negotiations, etc]. Maybe it could even stabilize salaries so we correct the pay rates. A lot of developers generate in excess of $5 million in value every year yet get paid 1/40th to 1/30th of their productive output.

Basically we need a non-evil version of LinkedIn combined with Angel List combined with Indeed. Jobs would have to be better specified (no 10 years nodejs required!!!) and people would need to be better specified (not 'recommendations' or 'credentialing' — perhaps trust-but-verify). Then tricky issues come into play like: do you let companies who interview you post their subjective "skills scores" back to your profile? Maybe that is allowed, but then as profile owner you can reject bad reviews.

Lots of options and lots of opportunity. Just takes focus and marketing and ambition to drive it home.