5 ms·

I’ve Worked with Hundreds of Recruiters – Here's What I Learned

66 points by ca98am79 12y ago

reboog711 12y ago
Are a lot of company founders really asking "How do I find a Great Recruiter?" instead of "How do I find a great employee?"
- rational-future 12y ago
  Under some conditions they do. Many founders don't have extensive social networks to recruit from. A fast growing company needs to fill positions and sometime the only time efficient way is to work with a professional recruiter.
- fecak 12y ago
  In my experience as a recruiter, founders have a very easy time finding their first few hires as they are all from the friends and family plan - all known quantities to some degree, perhaps a 2nd degree connection at worst. Then those few hires are probably good for a few more referrals. Business starts picking up, all employees are working at capacity, and suddenly the pipeline dries up. This is when founders (and engineering leaders) start hitting up recruiters from their past. It's also the point where the company might be on the radar of recruiters, so engineering leaders are also getting incoming calls soliciting their business.
pmiller2 12y ago
Is there a version of this article for candidates? I don't have the network to be able to make a couple of phone calls and have a job in a week, so I'm interested in using a recruiter, but I don't know any good ones.
- swillis16 12y ago
  http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2013/08/09/pretty/ http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2013/08/09/pretty/ is a good read for someone who is interested in finding a recruiter. One thing that the writer didn't mention was that some recruiters focus on jobs for a specific tech stack so you may want to look around their profile for a bit on LinkedIn to get a good idea of what they focus on.
  - fecak 12y ago
    Hey, I wrote that! +1 on what you said about tech stack, but I think fewer recruiters focus on tech stack these days. I think you are more likely to find recruiters with depth in a specific geography than a single language/platform.
- albemuth 12y ago
  I recommend this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wtM2di5k5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wtM2di5k5g
- yurylifshits 12y ago
  also, check out HIRED http://hired.com http://hired.com
  - pmiller2 12y ago
    I have. Never gotten so much as a single hit from it.
mightybrenden 12y ago
recruiters are old news, try using Mighty Spring (https://www.mightyspring.com/ https://www.mightyspring.com/).
silverbax88 12y ago
I just wish we could solve this recruiter problem. For an industry full of problem solvers, nobody seems too keen on really fixing this. 1. Programmers don't like recruiters and would prefer not to have to work with them. 2. Companies think recruiting firms are experts and are adept at finding qualified candidates, which is false. 3. There are good companies that need good employees and good employees who want to work at good companies. Currently the 'solution' is to use the same corporate middle men who shuffle bad employees to bad companies and mediocre employees to mediocre companies.
- KiwiCoder 12y ago
  It's definitely not for want of trying. Every other week sees a new recruitment site pop up. The recruiting system we have is very well entrenched. I note that when we go through this process as passive participants we further entrench the established norm.
- fecak 12y ago
  Recruiter here (independent agency), and I've always felt that the problem is that fees are too high. With this much money being thrown at recruiters, it keeps the bad ones in the business. If fees were lower, only the best recruiters would survive - as well as those that are just best at making money, which doesn't necessarily mean 'best' - and eventually most of the bottom recruiters would exit the market. Contingency recruiting is the overall source of the problem. Someone could make a few lucky hits a year and make good enough money to stay in business. If fees were say half of what they are now, that would put many out of business, and I'd assume those would the recruiters that everyone complains about. The size of fees also leads to the ethics problems. You may or may not lie for $5, but what kind of lies might you tell for say $30,000? The large numbers and competitive nature make it a high-reward game that gives incentive to cheat and lie when necessary. Smaller fees. I use small flat fees with a portion paid up front. The fees are small enough that I have little incentive to lie, and the up front portion is small enough that I'm going to hustle to get the second payment. Contingency recruiters absorb 100% of the risk, meaning they can work hundreds of hours on a search but if the recruiter down the street fills it they get nothing. This is the reason fees are high - the risk factor. If you remove that risk to some degree (or share the risk) by paying some money up front, recruiters should agree to lower fees and companies should like the results. As a recruiter, would I rather compete against 20 bigger firms for a 30K fee or would I rather be practically guaranteed a 15K fee? The answer for me is the latter, but may differ for others.
maerF0x0 12y ago
and I thought this was going to be for the hunted...

66 points by ca98am79 12y ago

Are a lot of company founders really asking "How do I find a Great Recruiter?" instead of "How do I find a great employee?"

rational-future 12y ago
Under some conditions they do. Many founders don't have extensive social networks to recruit from. A fast growing company needs to fill positions and sometime the only time efficient way is to work with a professional recruiter.
fecak 12y ago
In my experience as a recruiter, founders have a very easy time finding their first few hires as they are all from the friends and family plan - all known quantities to some degree, perhaps a 2nd degree connection at worst. Then those few hires are probably good for a few more referrals. Business starts picking up, all employees are working at capacity, and suddenly the pipeline dries up. This is when founders (and engineering leaders) start hitting up recruiters from their past. It's also the point where the company might be on the radar of recruiters, so engineering leaders are also getting incoming calls soliciting their business.

pmiller2 12y ago

Is there a version of this article for candidates? I don't have the network to be able to make a couple of phone calls and have a job in a week, so I'm interested in using a recruiter, but I don't know any good ones.

swillis16 12y ago
http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2013/08/09/pretty/ http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2013/08/09/pretty/ is a good read for someone who is interested in finding a recruiter. One thing that the writer didn't mention was that some recruiters focus on jobs for a specific tech stack so you may want to look around their profile for a bit on LinkedIn to get a good idea of what they focus on.
- fecak 12y ago
  Hey, I wrote that! +1 on what you said about tech stack, but I think fewer recruiters focus on tech stack these days. I think you are more likely to find recruiters with depth in a specific geography than a single language/platform.
albemuth 12y ago
I recommend this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wtM2di5k5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wtM2di5k5g
yurylifshits 12y ago
also, check out HIRED http://hired.com http://hired.com
- pmiller2 12y ago
  I have. Never gotten so much as a single hit from it.

mightybrenden 12y ago

recruiters are old news, try using Mighty Spring (https://www.mightyspring.com/ https://www.mightyspring.com/).

silverbax88 12y ago

I just wish we could solve this recruiter problem. For an industry full of problem solvers, nobody seems too keen on really fixing this. 1. Programmers don't like recruiters and would prefer not to have to work with them. 2. Companies think recruiting firms are experts and are adept at finding qualified candidates, which is false. 3. There are good companies that need good employees and good employees who want to work at good companies. Currently the 'solution' is to use the same corporate middle men who shuffle bad employees to bad companies and mediocre employees to mediocre companies.

KiwiCoder 12y ago
It's definitely not for want of trying. Every other week sees a new recruitment site pop up. The recruiting system we have is very well entrenched. I note that when we go through this process as passive participants we further entrench the established norm.
fecak 12y ago
Recruiter here (independent agency), and I've always felt that the problem is that fees are too high. With this much money being thrown at recruiters, it keeps the bad ones in the business. If fees were lower, only the best recruiters would survive - as well as those that are just best at making money, which doesn't necessarily mean 'best' - and eventually most of the bottom recruiters would exit the market. Contingency recruiting is the overall source of the problem. Someone could make a few lucky hits a year and make good enough money to stay in business. If fees were say half of what they are now, that would put many out of business, and I'd assume those would the recruiters that everyone complains about. The size of fees also leads to the ethics problems. You may or may not lie for $5, but what kind of lies might you tell for say $30,000? The large numbers and competitive nature make it a high-reward game that gives incentive to cheat and lie when necessary. Smaller fees. I use small flat fees with a portion paid up front. The fees are small enough that I have little incentive to lie, and the up front portion is small enough that I'm going to hustle to get the second payment. Contingency recruiters absorb 100% of the risk, meaning they can work hundreds of hours on a search but if the recruiter down the street fills it they get nothing. This is the reason fees are high - the risk factor. If you remove that risk to some degree (or share the risk) by paying some money up front, recruiters should agree to lower fees and companies should like the results. As a recruiter, would I rather compete against 20 bigger firms for a 30K fee or would I rather be practically guaranteed a 15K fee? The answer for me is the latter, but may differ for others.

maerF0x0 12y ago

and I thought this was going to be for the hunted...