Ask HN: Why do most 3rd party recruiters scale with worsening quality? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why do most 3rd party recruiters scale with worsening quality?

2 pointsccdev2 comments

My experience with most large recruiting agencies with offices operating in several cities has not been mostly adequate. And from what I read from other people on many different websites, I am not alone. They state equally subpar experiences, and many times it's because there is not much consideration targeting candidates to jobs appropriate to their skillsets.

I've learned that any agency that makes you put aside a couple of hours to come in for a face to face meeting at their office is a huge red flag. The best third party recruiters (very few of them exist) won't make you do that. The best recruiters also tend to be small in reach.

But with a larger size and reach, how does it survive operating so inefficiently? Is complacency by management to blame?

View on HN

Good recruiters have experience and don't have a reason to be in multiple cities. Recruiting is the ultimate "remote" job because recruiters are always on the phone.

If a recruiting firm is staffing up quickly it will hire unexperienced people; it is much like a sales organization, but I think you can learn to sell in an organization with a good playbook more quickly than you can learn to recruit.

Another factor (at least for "data science" around greater NYC) is recruiters who work for Indian firms who have some different norms than most recruiters in the US. For example, US recruiters may ask for salary history or requirements but will instead answer the question if you turn it around and ask what they expect to pay. Some of the Indian firm recruiters won't go forward without salary history, which is strange to me.

To me, it is not so much the amount of effort that a recruiter requires of a candidate but the ratio of the amount of effort required by the candidate and the amount of effort put in by the recruiter. Poor recruiters put in little effort because the odds of successfully placing a candidate are low (that's what makes them poor recruiters). Good recruiters are working hard toward a high probability pay day.

Bad recruiters birdshot resumes and candidates and hope something hits the target. They may not even have negotiated a contract yet...and no matter how much a company likes a birdshot candidate, if the recruiter can't get paid what they want, the candidate won't get the job.

A good recruiter will often want a face to face meeting, but the difference will be that the arrangements consider the convenience of the candidate rather than taking advantage of their desperation.

Good luck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com