Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#11

Post by kbaautumn »

codegeek wrote: post #4

Recruiters are there because they are useful. Yes, not all recruiters are scum and low life bottom feeders that we love to hate. To answer your question, systems are just systems. They can never replace the human element which is required when dealing with people. Hiring is a friggin tough job and I can totally see the value of "good" recruiters now that I have been looking to hire people even though I am too small t…

I totally agree that systems are just systems and good recruiters can be really helpful.

The problem is that there are way more bad/spam recruiters. And those are what people most complained about. I often receive emails that really has nothing that matched my background (e.g. received an job description that required 10 yrs experience when I was fresh out of college)

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#12

Post by samk3nny »

tboyd47 hit the nail on the head - filtering is the value add. Recruiters are expensive though. And as codegeek says, hiring is tough. I work at untapt and our AI ensures that we send hiring managers quality not quantity - dramatically streamlining the process for a fraction of the cost of a traditional recruiter. For niche roles (specific skill sets, senior positions) I envision recruiters will continue to play an important role. But for the masses, platforms like ours will become more and more prevalent.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#13

Post by seem_2211 »

I am a recruiter (albeit for salespeople), and I think there are a few big value points that we provide, when we do our jobs right.

1: Filtering. The downside of the internet making it easy to apply for jobs is that the candidates that do apply, don't tend to be the candidates you want. If you put a job up on Monster / Indeed etc, you're going to get a lot of candidates who aren't remotely qualified for what you're looking for. There's a lot of sifting that needs to happen. If you're a hiring manager you don't want to spend 20 hours initially qualifying and disqualifying candidates, when you can spend 2-3 hours talking to the most qualified people.

2: Talent attraction. A good recruiter finds out what someone wants in their career and then matches them with an opportunity. This sort of discovery doesn't happen that well on the internet.

3: Candidate pipeline management: A lot of companies have stupid complicated interview processes and end up losing a lot of talent that way. If you aren't Google, you can't put people through that sort of thing (and even Google lose a lot of candidates like that).

By and large HN doesn't understand sales particularly well. Selling companies things for $XX,XXX - $XXX,XXX is that you aren't doing the greasy used car / insurance sell. A lot of enterprise is project management with multiple stakeholders. Permanent recruiting is a similar situation.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#14

Post by bobbby »

Most companies understandably don't like publishing a salary so the recruiter acts a filter on both sides.

I'm a hiring manager and having a firehose of applicants would fill me with dread. My company has tried various "hacker" recruitment sites and they are all terrible - in terms of candidates and the supposed tests they use to rank applicants.

Recruiters are expensive but so is my time, they are very much a necessary evil for the foreseeable future.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#15

Post by xmt »

seem_2211 wrote: post #13

I am a recruiter (albeit for salespeople), and I think there are a few big value points that we provide, when we do our jobs right. 1: Filtering. The downside of the internet making it easy to apply for jobs is that the candidates that do apply, don't tend to be the candidates you want. If you put a job up on Monster / Indeed etc, you're going to get a lot of candidates who aren't remotely qualified for what you're l…

This. I've stopped applying to companies directly because it takes too much of my time and the response rate is too low. With a recruiter I'm pretty much guaranteed at least the first round of interviews with just a 15 minute phone call.

I imagine it's gotten to that point for a lot of job seekers.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#16

Post by bsvalley »

I agree with you only for places like Silicon Valley. It can totally be automated. You'd hear the exact same speech if you were to apply at 5 different companies at the same time. You would go through the exact same process, you would be treated exactly like any other candidate, forget about customized experience, your past projects are completely obsolete here it's all about the pen, a whiteboard and a lot of repetitive immature college-like questions. So, simply replace the name of the company, rinse and repeat.

On top of that, from my linkedin I see the same recruiters moving around from one company to another every 1-2 years. You may find yourself talking to the same recruiter from company A now that you're applying at company B.

I don't know outside of SV if recruiters sound like a broken record too...

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#18

Post by seem_2211 »

xmt wrote: post #15
seem_2211 wrote: post #13

I am a recruiter (albeit for salespeople), and I think there are a few big value points that we provide, when we do our jobs right. 1: Filtering. The downside of the internet making it easy to apply for jobs is that the candidates that do apply, don't tend to be the candidates you want. If you put a job up on Monster / Indeed etc, you're going to get a lot of candidates who aren't remotely qualified for what you're l…

This. I've stopped applying to companies directly because it takes too much of my time and the response rate is too low. With a recruiter I'm pretty much guaranteed at least the first round of interviews with just a 15 minute phone call. I imagine it's gotten to that point for a lot of job seekers.

Yep exactly. Apply online and you fall into a black hole of no reply. A big part of my value prop for candidates is we collapse the client interview side into two steps (occasionally 3), and our value prop for clients is we only send them 3-4 good candidates to talk to.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#19

Post by JSeymourATL »

> Is there some underlying economic reasoning that explains why the middlemen persist?

Laws of Supply & Demand intersect with basic human needs and wants. Good Talent is in short supply, always.

Good Talent craves purpose, significance, meaning, growth, certainty, variety, contribution, love, and respect.

Until Skynet can start engineering that match between employers and Good Talent -- recruiters are safe.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there still recruiters?

#20

Post by dat66 »

codegeek wrote: post #8
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not had any use for recruiters at all. Neither have my Engineering progeny. Sure they contact us all the time, but have yet to produce anything of value. I imagine they can; I see they continue to be paid. But as experienced Engineers, we get only bottom-feeding job spam from them.

I hear you. The issue is that those "Recruiters" who just spam you are not the ones I am talking about. I actually have worked with recruiters who are well connected in the industry and hire only for positions that are a good fit for the candidate. I have found at least 3 jobs in my past using those "good" recruiters. So I know that they work but are very hard to find. Needle in a Haystack.

How do we find good recruiters? I've worked with a few recruiters but never left with a good impression.
Post reply on HN