6 ms·

For me, the biggest gripe is the "Company - Confidential" stuff. I can handle buzzword bingo. Nine times out of ten, the recruiter is reading from a script that

For me, the biggest gripe is the "Company - Confidential" stuff. I can handle buzzword bingo. Nine times out of ten, the recruiter is reading from a script that he or she did not write. No sense in shooting the messenger over that. But I think we've reached peak ridiculousness in terms of "stealth" and confidential companies. Are you recruiting me for an undisclosed company in Langley, VA? Fair. If not, let's drop the top-secrecy. [1] If you can't tell me anything about what company I'd be working for, I can't tell you if I'm genuinely interested. I'm not a faceless program that responds automatically to the right salary, equity, and title inputs. It's a bit more complex than that. At the very least, I need to know what company and what product I'm going to be working with. (And no, "it's a ___ app" is not sufficient. Show me the actual product). Some recruiters are awesome, btw. My general experience is that in-house recruiters are better than hired guns. The in-house people know the company and its culture, and they often have direct lines into the hiring manager. Not all of them are great, of course, but there's a better wheat/chaff ratio there. [1] I realize there's often a political need for secrecy, such as when you're replacing someone currently in a role. Or if you're trying to poach from a competitor for a given role, and you don't want it known that you're doing so. That said, both of these scenarios will out themselves eventually. In my experience, any veneer of confidentiality will evaporate the second you approach your first serious candidate. Especially if you're talking to candidates at a competitor.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
I always assumed it had more to do with the recruiter trying to make sure you don't cut them out of the loop and negotiate directly with the company for a position.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. Could be. The financial motive is certainly there. Hadn't considered it, but it makes sense.
  - Someone 12y ago
    Maybe it's not that the recruiter thinks you would want to cut him out, it's that the recruiter cannot imagine that there are people who wouldn't. All people get motivated by both their work and money, but the relative weights of those factors can differ a lot.
redmattred 12y ago
The reason why recruiters don't want to share the company name is because they are afraid you will circumvent them, apply directly to the company and they won't get their commission. It's a pretty unfounded fear IMO and they would be better off just sharing the company name. I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm. Shameless plug: I'm building a job search tool for developers that screens out jobs from 3rd party recruiters and staffing agencies: http://www.codejobs.io/ http://www.codejobs.io/
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  "I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm." Yeah, I'd think the fear would be mostly unfounded. It's understandable, but it strikes me as an edge case. If you're telling me about a role, and I wasn't aware the company was hiring for that role, then it logically follows that I don't have deep, active connections into that company. So the danger that I'm going to maneuver around you is low. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but disclosure probably has a higher expected value than secrecy. Especially if disclosure improves response rates. I realize things are different on job sites. If you disclose the company, then anyone who comes across your posting can just go to the company's site and circumvent you. But axiomatically, you shouldn't be relying too heavily on job sites if you're a recruiter. The company hired you for your network, and for your ability to find (and vet) interesting people. If it wanted to post listings online, it wouldn't need a third party to do so.
- dbbolton 12y ago
  Why not just give the recruiter the commission if they can prove they contacted the prospect before the prospect contacted the company (i.e. that they were circumvented), or at least redirect the prospect back to the recruiter for any negotiations?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    It can't be a simple as "contacted" because a recruiter could then contact every dev they can find and claim a fee whenever one of them gets a job.
lazyant 12y ago
"Company, Location, Salary range?" is my low-pass filter quick reply to random recruiter approaches.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

I always assumed it had more to do with the recruiter trying to make sure you don't cut them out of the loop and negotiate directly with the company for a position.

jonnathanson 12y ago
That's an interesting perspective. Could be. The financial motive is certainly there. Hadn't considered it, but it makes sense.
- Someone 12y ago
  Maybe it's not that the recruiter thinks you would want to cut him out, it's that the recruiter cannot imagine that there are people who wouldn't. All people get motivated by both their work and money, but the relative weights of those factors can differ a lot.

redmattred 12y ago

The reason why recruiters don't want to share the company name is because they are afraid you will circumvent them, apply directly to the company and they won't get their commission. It's a pretty unfounded fear IMO and they would be better off just sharing the company name. I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm. Shameless plug: I'm building a job search tool for developers that screens out jobs from 3rd party recruiters and staffing agencies: http://www.codejobs.io/ http://www.codejobs.io/

jonnathanson 12y ago
"I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm." Yeah, I'd think the fear would be mostly unfounded. It's understandable, but it strikes me as an edge case. If you're telling me about a role, and I wasn't aware the company was hiring for that role, then it logically follows that I don't have deep, active connections into that company. So the danger that I'm going to maneuver around you is low. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but disclosure probably has a higher expected value than secrecy. Especially if disclosure improves response rates. I realize things are different on job sites. If you disclose the company, then anyone who comes across your posting can just go to the company's site and circumvent you. But axiomatically, you shouldn't be relying too heavily on job sites if you're a recruiter. The company hired you for your network, and for your ability to find (and vet) interesting people. If it wanted to post listings online, it wouldn't need a third party to do so.
dbbolton 12y ago
Why not just give the recruiter the commission if they can prove they contacted the prospect before the prospect contacted the company (i.e. that they were circumvented), or at least redirect the prospect back to the recruiter for any negotiations?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  It can't be a simple as "contacted" because a recruiter could then contact every dev they can find and claim a fee whenever one of them gets a job.

lazyant 12y ago

"Company, Location, Salary range?" is my low-pass filter quick reply to random recruiter approaches.