3 ms·

A couple explanations from a recruiter (why recruiters do these things): - Company name: Agency recruiters don't post company names typically because they are a

by fecak 13y ago

A couple explanations from a recruiter (why recruiters do these things): - Company name: Agency recruiters don't post company names typically because they are afraid other recruiting companies might steal their clients. If a competitor agency sees COMPANY is hiring, they might call and try to compete for their business. This is a huge fear in the contingency recruiting world, but in the retained world it isn't as big an issue. (I post client names, but my business isn't contingency) - Salary range: The problem with posting a salary range is that candidates only hear the high number. Most will say that isn't true, but I've been recruiting for 15 years and whenever I gave a salary range to candidates of say 100-120, they would automatically expect that they would get the 120. Any offer below 120 was considered lowball. I'm sure there will be some who say they wouldn't feel that way, but it happened almost every time. - Team description: Interesting that you mention personal info. It seems the trend is starting to move towards publicizing the members of teams where that could be a recruiting tool. If you have great engineers that are willing to have a somewhat public face for your company, many companies seem willing to use that to their advantage in today's environment. The risk of exposing team members to poaching by other firms used to be a larger concern, but now most people can be found via LinkedIn, GitHub, blogs, etc. - Why you are looking to hire: When it's growth and new projects, I'll usually list it. When it's a replacement due to termination or turnover, don't expect that to be advertised. - Benefits: Again, if the information is positive we tend to list it. If they are industry average, they typically aren't worth mentioning. It's possible to write job descriptions that will get great responses while including none of the things you list here (except perhaps location).

anon4 13y ago
About the range - of course I'll try and go for the high. You've told me you're prepared to pay that much, why would I negotiate for anything less? Have you tried giving only the lower bound though? Something like "starting at 95". Then the candidate comes and asks for 110.
- fecak 13y ago
  Let's say we're hiring for a Ruby Dev. My client needs talent, and we're not the kind of place that is going to say "Must have 2 years with X and 4 years with Y", because we're smarter than that. So I know we might get someone with 1 yr, or we might get someone with 5 yrs. So the range might be, realistically, 70-120K. I tell you our range is 70-120K, and you tell me you are 1 yr out of school. Then you try to negotiate to 120K. I tell you that is for someone with more experience. This happens all the time in the business. 15 years recruiting, saw it most of my first 10, and now I don't get into ranges. When I'm working with senior level folks I respect their time and let them know if I think they'll need to take a haircut on compensation or if they are underpaid and might expect a nice bump. Most recruiters probably don't do that. Giving the lower end of the range doesn't really provide any benefit to either party (that I can think of anyway). If the candidate is making more than the low end, he/she is likely to ask for a high end. If the candidate is making less, he/she is probably happy that they might get a bump.
codegeek 13y ago
"The problem with posting a salary range is that candidates only hear the high number." Sure but if you want great candidates, why does that matter. Make the candidates work for that high number. Let them prove it. If you the employer thinks it is worth giving that number, then they will give it. If you think that there is a risk that a mediocre candidate might demand that high number, then it is the fault of employer for not being able to negotiate correctly. "It seems the trend is starting to move towards publicizing the members of teams where that could be a recruiting tool. " I agree with you here. Team description are definitely getting tricky in the world of social stuff. Where do we draw the line ? Publicly exposing your team members (specially at startups) can mean poaching attempts by others. "When it's a replacement due to termination or turnover, don't expect that to be advertised." Sure but that still doesn't change the fact why you are hiring. You don't want to say "we fired someone" sure but why can't you at least say "one of our team members left and we need someone to take over his role". There is a reason for this. Good candidates want to know if they are going to be join a role which was already there OR is a new role being created for a new requirement ? These things matter to a great candidate but obviously not to a medicore one. "If they are industry average, they typically aren't worth mentioning." Thats just a lazy way of saying "we are too lazy to tell you the benefits because well everyone gets it". Sure, but it impacts my decisions as a potential job seeker. Do you give 15 days or 20 days of vacation to start with ? I think thats important because for someone like me who is self employed currently, those are the things I want to know if I want to go fulltime because 5 days could mean thousands of dollars.
- fecak 13y ago
  I'm actually turning my response into a full blog post, as I think many people will get something out of it. I'm not trying to argue that the methods used by recruiters are the best for candidates, but rather explain them in terms of the recruiter's perspective and motivations. Salary range - It matters when you have candidates who have a false sense of their own value. If I'm hiring an Android dev for a client and I know the salary goes up to 140K, what is the use of telling that number to the person 2 years out of school who is only worth 80K at this point? The reason salary ranges exist is that a company realizes they will get some variation of experience. We can call people "Junior" and "Senior" all day long, but it matters little when we get applicants of varying experience applying for the same job. The salary range, particularly when talking about those least qualified for the job, often creates an inflated sense of value that translates into potentially losing a candidate who feels somehow snubbed because they didn't get the max of the range. People aren't realistic about their value in most cases, and the range just reinforces that issue. Reason for hiring: I see your point about replacement candidates, but most don't use job specs as a way to both screen in and potentially screen out candidates. I do like specs that screen out (if they want you to work 60 hours, I'd like that to be in the job spec). Benefits: Again, we're advertising what is different. We could potentially write every single detail of the benefits package, including what the plan is and how much your copay will be if you go to the podiatrist without a referral, or whether or not our HMO covers chiropractic. That might be a dealbreaker for the person with the bad back, but it doesn't matter much to most people. PTO is important to you, and to most - so that is something that is usually worth mentioning, but is only mentioned in most cases when it is above average. Most people will assume 'average' when reading a job spec unless it is otherwise stated. You'll assume 40 hours a week (probably), so if the company expects only 25 hours or if they expect 80 hours it is worth mentioning. If it's 40, should I mention it? The job post is to get you to apply to something you are qualified for and hopefully interested enough to want to learn more (as well as screen out those who are unqualified or would obviously not be interested due to a dealbreaker), and we're not able to give every single point in it. Even if we did give every detail, you are still going to actually MEET the people, and you might not like them (or they might not like you). It's how we start a conversation with an applicant, but it's certainly not how we end it.

by fecak 13y ago

anon4 13y ago

About the range - of course I'll try and go for the high. You've told me you're prepared to pay that much, why would I negotiate for anything less? Have you tried giving only the lower bound though? Something like "starting at 95". Then the candidate comes and asks for 110.

fecak 13y ago
Let's say we're hiring for a Ruby Dev. My client needs talent, and we're not the kind of place that is going to say "Must have 2 years with X and 4 years with Y", because we're smarter than that. So I know we might get someone with 1 yr, or we might get someone with 5 yrs. So the range might be, realistically, 70-120K. I tell you our range is 70-120K, and you tell me you are 1 yr out of school. Then you try to negotiate to 120K. I tell you that is for someone with more experience. This happens all the time in the business. 15 years recruiting, saw it most of my first 10, and now I don't get into ranges. When I'm working with senior level folks I respect their time and let them know if I think they'll need to take a haircut on compensation or if they are underpaid and might expect a nice bump. Most recruiters probably don't do that. Giving the lower end of the range doesn't really provide any benefit to either party (that I can think of anyway). If the candidate is making more than the low end, he/she is likely to ask for a high end. If the candidate is making less, he/she is probably happy that they might get a bump.

codegeek 13y ago

"The problem with posting a salary range is that candidates only hear the high number." Sure but if you want great candidates, why does that matter. Make the candidates work for that high number. Let them prove it. If you the employer thinks it is worth giving that number, then they will give it. If you think that there is a risk that a mediocre candidate might demand that high number, then it is the fault of employer for not being able to negotiate correctly. "It seems the trend is starting to move towards publicizing the members of teams where that could be a recruiting tool. " I agree with you here. Team description are definitely getting tricky in the world of social stuff. Where do we draw the line ? Publicly exposing your team members (specially at startups) can mean poaching attempts by others. "When it's a replacement due to termination or turnover, don't expect that to be advertised." Sure but that still doesn't change the fact why you are hiring. You don't want to say "we fired someone" sure but why can't you at least say "one of our team members left and we need someone to take over his role". There is a reason for this. Good candidates want to know if they are going to be join a role which was already there OR is a new role being created for a new requirement ? These things matter to a great candidate but obviously not to a medicore one. "If they are industry average, they typically aren't worth mentioning." Thats just a lazy way of saying "we are too lazy to tell you the benefits because well everyone gets it". Sure, but it impacts my decisions as a potential job seeker. Do you give 15 days or 20 days of vacation to start with ? I think thats important because for someone like me who is self employed currently, those are the things I want to know if I want to go fulltime because 5 days could mean thousands of dollars.

fecak 13y ago
I'm actually turning my response into a full blog post, as I think many people will get something out of it. I'm not trying to argue that the methods used by recruiters are the best for candidates, but rather explain them in terms of the recruiter's perspective and motivations. Salary range - It matters when you have candidates who have a false sense of their own value. If I'm hiring an Android dev for a client and I know the salary goes up to 140K, what is the use of telling that number to the person 2 years out of school who is only worth 80K at this point? The reason salary ranges exist is that a company realizes they will get some variation of experience. We can call people "Junior" and "Senior" all day long, but it matters little when we get applicants of varying experience applying for the same job. The salary range, particularly when talking about those least qualified for the job, often creates an inflated sense of value that translates into potentially losing a candidate who feels somehow snubbed because they didn't get the max of the range. People aren't realistic about their value in most cases, and the range just reinforces that issue. Reason for hiring: I see your point about replacement candidates, but most don't use job specs as a way to both screen in and potentially screen out candidates. I do like specs that screen out (if they want you to work 60 hours, I'd like that to be in the job spec). Benefits: Again, we're advertising what is different. We could potentially write every single detail of the benefits package, including what the plan is and how much your copay will be if you go to the podiatrist without a referral, or whether or not our HMO covers chiropractic. That might be a dealbreaker for the person with the bad back, but it doesn't matter much to most people. PTO is important to you, and to most - so that is something that is usually worth mentioning, but is only mentioned in most cases when it is above average. Most people will assume 'average' when reading a job spec unless it is otherwise stated. You'll assume 40 hours a week (probably), so if the company expects only 25 hours or if they expect 80 hours it is worth mentioning. If it's 40, should I mention it? The job post is to get you to apply to something you are qualified for and hopefully interested enough to want to learn more (as well as screen out those who are unqualified or would obviously not be interested due to a dealbreaker), and we're not able to give every single point in it. Even if we did give every detail, you are still going to actually MEET the people, and you might not like them (or they might not like you). It's how we start a conversation with an applicant, but it's certainly not how we end it.