4 ms·

This conversation about agents has come up here several times. The 'agent' model referred to in this article is not so different from what run-of-the-mill recru

by fecak 12y ago

This conversation about agents has come up here several times. The 'agent' model referred to in this article is not so different from what run-of-the-mill recruiters do for their clients. Client calls saying they need to hire someone, and the recruiter provides a candidate (often an independent consultant). If candidate is hired, recruiter marks up consultant's rate and makes a margin. That margin is the agent/recruiter's take - so the consultant is paying for the broker's service regardless of whether that broker calls itself an agent or recruiter. This isn't new, but using the term 'agent' makes it sound more appealing to all sides. The consultant can say "I have an agent", and the hiring company feels that the level of talent should be higher from an agency than from your everyday recruiting firm. If the talent is vetted better, it could be. Where the concept of agents gets much more interesting is when discussing those in salaried/permanent hire situations. Consultants are generally willing to cede 15% or so of rate in order to use a broker/agent/recruiter's services to find gigs. But will someone seeking a salaried employment role (a 150K software engineering job) pay an agent 5%/10%/15% of their salary in order to find a permanent position? Because most of the tech population works in salaried positions, this is the real question. Independent consultants make up a relatively small portion of the industry, yet this 'agent' conversation really only applies to them at this point. I like the agent concept as it aligns the incentives of the recruiter/agent and candidate much more clearly, as opposed to the current recruiter model where the recruiter is typically considered to be more aligned with the hiring firm. (The real estate agent argument comes up here). In this case, the 'agent' model is mostly just a rebranding of what we currently have in place. If this ever hit the permanent/salaried job market, that will be a bigger story.

michaelochurch 12y ago
The 'agent' model referred to in this article is not so different from what run-of-the-mill recruiters do for their clients. Client calls saying they need to hire someone, and the recruiter provides a candidate (often an independent consultant). If candidate is hired, recruiter marks up consultant's rate and makes a margin. That margin is the agent/recruiter's take - so the consultant is paying for the broker's service regardless of whether that broker calls itself an agent or recruiter. That may be true of this case, but I think that the agent relationship, if done properly, is long-term and involves a lot more trust than exists between a job-searcher and a recruiter. If you get fired (let's say it's not your fault but potentially embarrassing, as most terminations are) and you have rock-solid trust in your agent, you can tell him and he'll tell you what to do next, and he'll know which companies you should be truthful with and which ones you should hide your past around. With a recruiter? You're not going to tell him that you were fired, because you know that he's paid by the employer's side. He might not even call you back if you admit to it. The difference between agents and recruiters is the amount of trust rendered to each. If you have a good agent, you can share your weaknesses and embarrassments and he'll know how to work around them. On the other hand, you're not going to tell a third-party headhunter about such things, because you want him to connect you with his best freight. Your agent can help you with the reputation-management work, but a recruiter is generally going to pipe everything you say back to his clients (i.e. prospective employers).
- fecak 12y ago
  I think this is still a matter of terminology unless there are legal agreements of exclusivity in place. The recruiter/job seeker relationship can also be long-term (though I agree it usually isn't). I've been in recruiting for over 15 years, and some people that I first interacted with around 98-2001 didn't result in any placement ($) for me until the past few years. Part of the reason this type of experience is rare is because most recruiters don't have much of a specialty, so if they get a position seeking a specific skill set they may be unlikely to get that same mix again. Therefore, the candidate becomes somewhat 'disposable' and can't be worked with for future searches. If you have a specialty, which I've had for years, almost all candidates may be a fit for a future position. Your example about termination could be valid in some cases, but a recruiter who treats candidates as an agent will get the same level of trust. An agent isn't likely to expose that info - whether a recruiter exposes all potentially negative information probably varies by individual. I think the difference between recruiters and agents is non-existent when we are referring to solid 3rd party recruiters (good clients, excellent reputation, valuable relationships), except for in rare circumstances like you mention (hiding information about your talent). I would love to see more of an agent mentality for recruiters. But someone has to pay for that, and the lion's share of work in tech is done by salaried employees and not consultants. Consultants know and accept that their $200/hr rate will get eaten into a bit if they use an agent. Will someone making 200K a year pay a fee to an agent during a job search? How much should that representation cost?

by fecak 12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago

The 'agent' model referred to in this article is not so different from what run-of-the-mill recruiters do for their clients. Client calls saying they need to hire someone, and the recruiter provides a candidate (often an independent consultant). If candidate is hired, recruiter marks up consultant's rate and makes a margin. That margin is the agent/recruiter's take - so the consultant is paying for the broker's service regardless of whether that broker calls itself an agent or recruiter. That may be true of this case, but I think that the agent relationship, if done properly, is long-term and involves a lot more trust than exists between a job-searcher and a recruiter. If you get fired (let's say it's not your fault but potentially embarrassing, as most terminations are) and you have rock-solid trust in your agent, you can tell him and he'll tell you what to do next, and he'll know which companies you should be truthful with and which ones you should hide your past around. With a recruiter? You're not going to tell him that you were fired, because you know that he's paid by the employer's side. He might not even call you back if you admit to it. The difference between agents and recruiters is the amount of trust rendered to each. If you have a good agent, you can share your weaknesses and embarrassments and he'll know how to work around them. On the other hand, you're not going to tell a third-party headhunter about such things, because you want him to connect you with his best freight. Your agent can help you with the reputation-management work, but a recruiter is generally going to pipe everything you say back to his clients (i.e. prospective employers).

fecak 12y ago
I think this is still a matter of terminology unless there are legal agreements of exclusivity in place. The recruiter/job seeker relationship can also be long-term (though I agree it usually isn't). I've been in recruiting for over 15 years, and some people that I first interacted with around 98-2001 didn't result in any placement ($) for me until the past few years. Part of the reason this type of experience is rare is because most recruiters don't have much of a specialty, so if they get a position seeking a specific skill set they may be unlikely to get that same mix again. Therefore, the candidate becomes somewhat 'disposable' and can't be worked with for future searches. If you have a specialty, which I've had for years, almost all candidates may be a fit for a future position. Your example about termination could be valid in some cases, but a recruiter who treats candidates as an agent will get the same level of trust. An agent isn't likely to expose that info - whether a recruiter exposes all potentially negative information probably varies by individual. I think the difference between recruiters and agents is non-existent when we are referring to solid 3rd party recruiters (good clients, excellent reputation, valuable relationships), except for in rare circumstances like you mention (hiding information about your talent). I would love to see more of an agent mentality for recruiters. But someone has to pay for that, and the lion's share of work in tech is done by salaried employees and not consultants. Consultants know and accept that their $200/hr rate will get eaten into a bit if they use an agent. Will someone making 200K a year pay a fee to an agent during a job search? How much should that representation cost?