Why You Can't Trust Recuiters | Hacker News Reader

Why You Can't Trust Recuiters

lessonsoffailure.com

70 pointsgacba34 comments

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

A couple of weeks ago I was approached by a recruiter on LinkedIn, I simply told her that in order to proceed she had to tell me the name of the company, and that I will treat this information with the highest confidentiality. I also told her that I don't accept any perm positions coming from my current and former consulting clients.

In the end, I got the name of the company and I decided not to go any further. The advantage for me is that I spent no more than 15 minutes reading and composing emails with the recruiter, no pointless editing of CVs, no useless phone interviews or suits to wear.

That's simply not true. Most companies post job listings on their own websites. Even intelligence agencies post job listings publicly these days.

There are some companies that prefer to remain secret, but they're really in a minority (this is the case for some hedgefunds, stealth startups, etc.).

You are misinformed.

> Most companies post job listings on their own websites.

Yes, but this doesn't mean they publish ALL their job listings on their website.

This is simply how the industry works.. ask any recruiter.

Ah I just realized we might be talking cross-wires here.

In the software developer market, most jobs advertised by recruiters aren't "secret". However in other markets such as executive level roles it is the norm.

There are two type of recruiter generally distinguishable by their relationship with the employer (exclusive versus non-exclusive). Exclusive recruiters tend to be used in the executive market when employers want to be discrete about a job, non-exclusive (which is the norm in tech) tend to be used primarily as a way to source candidates.

(disclaimer: I run a startup that's trying to cut recruiters out of the market)

Because they don't want candidates to bypass them and apply to the company directly. Recruiters know their primary value is just finding the candidate for the company, so this is a very real risk for them.

It also stops competing recruiters stealing the business from them.

> (disclaimer: I run a startup that's trying to cut recruiters out of the market)

Cool! Just what I needed four months ago :) One thing if I may: I can't cmd-click in Chrome/Mac, it opens the page both in the current and the new tab.

But all it said was that it's for a non-profit!? Is "caring about non-profit stuff" considered a binary state?

That information wasn't there in case you cared about "non-profit stuff". It was there to serve as shorthand for: don't bother asking about profit-sharing bonuses, go into salary negotiations with lower expectations, assume a lower-stress environment, and so on.

I always figured it was so that they could prevent the talent from seeing their, "Oh we've got such and such a job offer at blah", statement and then they just go and call up blah and say, "Hey, I heard you guys might be interviewing for a position."

Because if that happened, they wouldn't get their cut of the hire.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

i was surprised to see the parent post voted down. it seems to me that i presented some facts based on my own personal experience, a different opinion than the original article, and a specific recommendation.

what do you think triggered the downvote?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is very likely a function of recruiters dealing with HR departments or hiring managers who are merely trying to fill a seat with a warm body. Market dynamics work to the extent that the incentive structure is aligned with the "correct" interests. Where incentives diverge, suboptimal results can be expected.

To add my own experience to this thread, recruiters have always come off as used-car-salesmen-y to me. I have been hiring developers for nearly a decade now, and I have yet to think of a reason to use recruiters. They offer rather expensive terms( 30-40% )in exchange for poor candidates( generally cannot even reason about fizzbuzz, let alone implement it ).

I have always had spectacular luck finding candidates on IRC and craigslist.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com