Ask HN: Do companies prefer to hire directly or with recruiters?

1 point·rrmdp··2 comments

I read so many opinions on this topic, some saying they prefer recruiters for a low / mid level but for seniors then directly.

What do you think? What is your experience on this?

View on HN

Like asking if people prefer to cook at home or eat out. Some companies use recruiters, some don’t, some only for specific jobs. No one can give a meaningful answer to your question.

In my long experience companies very often try to hire on their own but will accept candidates from recruiters if they can’t fill the job themselves, or a recruiter brings a superstar candidate. Recruiters charge typically 30% of starting annual salary (in the US) so clearly companies try to avoid that cost, especially smaller companies.

Larger companies that do a lot of hiring sometimes have contracts with recruiting firms to bring the 30% fee down in exchange for lots of job postings and exclusives. An exclusive means one recruiting agency (or maybe a small few) gets the job listing, usually for a limited time, and the employer doesn’t advertise it or try to fill it themselves.

Some small companies flush with cash and short on staff (startups) will use recruiters to outsource advertising, screening, and interviewing.

Depends on the company. I've worked for a number of companies that hired exclusively through trusted recruiters, because they outsourced the technical vetting to them. That way they wasted much less time interviewing applicants who were unserious or plainly unqualified.

I've also worked for a number of companies that exclusively hired directly and weren't willing to deal through recruiters at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com