5 ms·

I never understood why they stop communicating if an opportunity doesn't pan out? Why wouldn't they be interested in cultivating a long term relationship? Tha

I never understood why they stop communicating if an opportunity doesn't pan out? Why wouldn't they be interested in cultivating a long term relationship? That's what I think I would do if I were a recruiter. I'd keep in touch with say 200 people I know are really good and keep placing them as they switched jobs. I'm guessing at least 10 or 20 of those people would be switching jobs every year.

leftnode 16y ago
You'd have to do a lot to prove to me you're not just cold calling me and actually interested in my career and me as a developer. No recruiter has done that to date. Having a recruiter "keep in touch with me" now feels awfully a lot like they're cold calling/emailing me. I'll now go to great lengths to take a job not offered by a recruiter.
- tocomment 16y ago
  Yeah, I'd buy you drinks and stuff. You'd be one of my 200 top people that I cultivate. I'd be an awesome recruiter :-) But I'm too introverted I think.
  - BrandonM 16y ago
    > But I'm too introverted I think. When it comes down to it, that's just an excuse. If you think being a recruiter would appeal to you, then do it. It's cheesy to say that you can do anything you can put your mind to, but there truly is no one holding you back other than yourself. I think the whole recruiter/agent idea for young professionals makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I'd be happy to be one of your early clients :)
atomical 16y ago
I have wondered the same thing. Responding and responding in a timely manner when the opportunity doesn't pan out would be an improvement.
Tichy 16y ago
'They' are actually robots. In my experience they never stop communicating. Once you are in the database, they'll spam you forever.
- larsberg 16y ago
  Reply with an outrageous salary that would actually encourage you to switch jobs. For example, say that you're looking for IC positions with a minimum base of $250k (and that all of your friends are in that same compensation bracket). In my experience, that works well. As does, "I have N years left of graduate school and will not consider other opportunities until that is complete."
  - kemayo 16y ago
    I just (honestly) tell them that I'm only interested in positions that allow me to work almost-exclusively from home. That normally makes them go away.
swilliams 16y ago
Sounds more like an agent, in the sports/entertainment sense. There might just be a market there. Let the masses of mediocre/average programmers dink around with mediocre/average recruiters, while the quality ones have someone who actually cares focused on them. The biggest issue is that an "agent" would need to not just maintain relationships with quality job candidates, but also quality employers. If all you're offering me is a crappy internal dev job doing .NET or Java for a health care giant, why should I work with you over any of the dice/careerbuilder/monster cattle calls?
- Timothee 16y ago
  I would really like to work with that kind of person. Like everyone else, I've had useless encounters with recruiters, and I feel like someone with more experience and knowledge of the job world should be able to match me up better with a job and a salary. Somebody was asking if he was reaching his pay limit here not long ago. One reason for that question is that it's very hard for one to know how they compare to other people. An agent/super-recruiter would know that and could do whatever is needed to fix it. In a way, it reminds me of the idea of investing in people: instead of putting my money in a company I believe in, how could one put money on somebody who is talented and will more likely be successful? Well, such a recruiter could basically do that. Follow talented people around, know what they do and like doing, and advise them in terms of what salary they can expect, where they should be in their career... The question is, of course: would I qualify to get a good agent? :)
  - pcampbell 16y ago
    We just launched a site today that lets you hire an agent. Check it out at www.CareerElement.com!
run4yourlives 16y ago
Because being good at your job would put you out of work. :-) If you place people into positions that they really fit with, odds are they would stay longer, ergo, less money for you. What you would need to do is sell yourself as an agent that is constantly evaluating new gigs for a monthly fee. I think that might actually work really well for devs that consult as a primary business.
- gaius 16y ago
  But a) when they are in a position to hire people they will call you/recommend you to their friends and b) when they do move, it will earn you a much larger commission than an entry level job. It's speculative sure, but all long-term investments are.
- eru 16y ago
  How about negotiating a different pay-structure, that aligns interests better?
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    Isn't that exactly what I suggested?
    - eru 16y ago
      In general, yes. Though I thought more about getting a low percentage of income for as long as the job lasts, instead of a big percentage of the first annual income after three months.
sokoloff 16y ago
If you were a recruiter, how could you be sure the 200 people that you're investing (time/energy) in are "really good"? I have a recruiter who placed me back in 1997, placed several excellent ex-co-workers into that same job, and whom I've continued to use (as a hiring manager) over the years and whose emails/calls I faithfully respond to when he's looking for help placing or sourcing (outside of my current company). So, the model you're describing can definitely work, but if you try it with 200 "duds", you'll have a much harder row to hoe. The people who can't accurately identify talent may be far better served with their current one-shot shotgun methods.
- tocomment 16y ago
  I'd look at their open source work, contact references, etc. I think I'd generally be able to recognize good people, especially if I accumulated them gradually over my "recruiting career".
Goladus 16y ago
I know recruiters that do this. You don't maintain constant contact, but you avoid burning bridges and keep the name in your contacts or linkedIn or whatever. When the right position comes up, you re-establish contact.
dspeyer 16y ago
I suspect really good programmers don't switch jobs all that often. They have a lot of leverage in finding a job they like, and once they've done that why leave? Sure stuff can happen, but not very often.
salemh 16y ago
The quality recruiters do so. I personally just get swamped and neglect sending out updates. Many times candidates are also applying for several roles and may not follow up on their own. I think the worst blunder is when a candidate desires feedback and gets only silence. Note that people, in general, hate delivering bad news "You were too weak on core Java / bad breath" and so avoid the conversation. The recruiters in the field for several years (5+) sometimes place a candidate 2-3 x in new positions. Recruiters keep up with the rock-star talent, which is always in high demand. It gets difficult to remember who does / is what if they are middle/average when burning through 200 profiles a day or 50 calls / day. Though I tend to do 50 / 10 for quality head hunting.

leftnode 16y ago

You'd have to do a lot to prove to me you're not just cold calling me and actually interested in my career and me as a developer. No recruiter has done that to date. Having a recruiter "keep in touch with me" now feels awfully a lot like they're cold calling/emailing me. I'll now go to great lengths to take a job not offered by a recruiter.

tocomment 16y ago
Yeah, I'd buy you drinks and stuff. You'd be one of my 200 top people that I cultivate. I'd be an awesome recruiter :-) But I'm too introverted I think.
- BrandonM 16y ago
  > But I'm too introverted I think. When it comes down to it, that's just an excuse. If you think being a recruiter would appeal to you, then do it. It's cheesy to say that you can do anything you can put your mind to, but there truly is no one holding you back other than yourself. I think the whole recruiter/agent idea for young professionals makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I'd be happy to be one of your early clients :)

atomical 16y ago

I have wondered the same thing. Responding and responding in a timely manner when the opportunity doesn't pan out would be an improvement.

Tichy 16y ago

'They' are actually robots. In my experience they never stop communicating. Once you are in the database, they'll spam you forever.

larsberg 16y ago
Reply with an outrageous salary that would actually encourage you to switch jobs. For example, say that you're looking for IC positions with a minimum base of $250k (and that all of your friends are in that same compensation bracket). In my experience, that works well. As does, "I have N years left of graduate school and will not consider other opportunities until that is complete."
- kemayo 16y ago
  I just (honestly) tell them that I'm only interested in positions that allow me to work almost-exclusively from home. That normally makes them go away.

swilliams 16y ago

Sounds more like an agent, in the sports/entertainment sense. There might just be a market there. Let the masses of mediocre/average programmers dink around with mediocre/average recruiters, while the quality ones have someone who actually cares focused on them. The biggest issue is that an "agent" would need to not just maintain relationships with quality job candidates, but also quality employers. If all you're offering me is a crappy internal dev job doing .NET or Java for a health care giant, why should I work with you over any of the dice/careerbuilder/monster cattle calls?

Timothee 16y ago
I would really like to work with that kind of person. Like everyone else, I've had useless encounters with recruiters, and I feel like someone with more experience and knowledge of the job world should be able to match me up better with a job and a salary. Somebody was asking if he was reaching his pay limit here not long ago. One reason for that question is that it's very hard for one to know how they compare to other people. An agent/super-recruiter would know that and could do whatever is needed to fix it. In a way, it reminds me of the idea of investing in people: instead of putting my money in a company I believe in, how could one put money on somebody who is talented and will more likely be successful? Well, such a recruiter could basically do that. Follow talented people around, know what they do and like doing, and advise them in terms of what salary they can expect, where they should be in their career... The question is, of course: would I qualify to get a good agent? :)
- pcampbell 16y ago
  We just launched a site today that lets you hire an agent. Check it out at www.CareerElement.com!

run4yourlives 16y ago

Because being good at your job would put you out of work. :-) If you place people into positions that they really fit with, odds are they would stay longer, ergo, less money for you. What you would need to do is sell yourself as an agent that is constantly evaluating new gigs for a monthly fee. I think that might actually work really well for devs that consult as a primary business.

gaius 16y ago
But a) when they are in a position to hire people they will call you/recommend you to their friends and b) when they do move, it will earn you a much larger commission than an entry level job. It's speculative sure, but all long-term investments are.
eru 16y ago
How about negotiating a different pay-structure, that aligns interests better?
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  Isn't that exactly what I suggested?
  - eru 16y ago
    In general, yes. Though I thought more about getting a low percentage of income for as long as the job lasts, instead of a big percentage of the first annual income after three months.

sokoloff 16y ago

If you were a recruiter, how could you be sure the 200 people that you're investing (time/energy) in are "really good"? I have a recruiter who placed me back in 1997, placed several excellent ex-co-workers into that same job, and whom I've continued to use (as a hiring manager) over the years and whose emails/calls I faithfully respond to when he's looking for help placing or sourcing (outside of my current company). So, the model you're describing can definitely work, but if you try it with 200 "duds", you'll have a much harder row to hoe. The people who can't accurately identify talent may be far better served with their current one-shot shotgun methods.

tocomment 16y ago
I'd look at their open source work, contact references, etc. I think I'd generally be able to recognize good people, especially if I accumulated them gradually over my "recruiting career".

Goladus 16y ago

I know recruiters that do this. You don't maintain constant contact, but you avoid burning bridges and keep the name in your contacts or linkedIn or whatever. When the right position comes up, you re-establish contact.

dspeyer 16y ago

I suspect really good programmers don't switch jobs all that often. They have a lot of leverage in finding a job they like, and once they've done that why leave? Sure stuff can happen, but not very often.

salemh 16y ago

The quality recruiters do so. I personally just get swamped and neglect sending out updates. Many times candidates are also applying for several roles and may not follow up on their own. I think the worst blunder is when a candidate desires feedback and gets only silence. Note that people, in general, hate delivering bad news "You were too weak on core Java / bad breath" and so avoid the conversation. The recruiters in the field for several years (5+) sometimes place a candidate 2-3 x in new positions. Recruiters keep up with the rock-star talent, which is always in high demand. It gets difficult to remember who does / is what if they are middle/average when burning through 200 profiles a day or 50 calls / day. Though I tend to do 50 / 10 for quality head hunting.