Why are technical recruiters so clueless? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#71

Post by BrandonM » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 7:09 PM UTC

tocomment wrote: post #13

leftnode wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have to do a lot to prove to me you're not just cold calling me and actually interested in my career and me as a developer. No recruiter has done that to date. Having a recruiter "keep in touch with me" now feels awfully a lot like they're cold calling/emailing me. I'll now go to great lengths to take a job not offered by a recruiter.

Yeah, I'd buy you drinks and stuff. You'd be one of my 200 top people that I cultivate. I'd be an awesome recruiter :-) But I'm too introverted I think.

> But I'm too introverted I think.

When it comes down to it, that's just an excuse. If you think being a recruiter would appeal to you, then do it. It's cheesy to say that you can do anything you can put your mind to, but there truly is no one holding you back other than yourself.

I think the whole recruiter/agent idea for young professionals makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I'd be happy to be one of your early clients :)

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#72

Post by eru » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 7:10 PM UTC

run4yourlives wrote: post #61

eru wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about negotiating a different pay-structure, that aligns interests better?

Isn't that exactly what I suggested?

In general, yes. Though I thought more about getting a low percentage of income for as long as the job lasts, instead of a big percentage of the first annual income after three months.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#73

Post by brudgers » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 7:10 PM UTC

The barrier to entry in the recruiting industry is low, i.e. a cellphone, an internet connection and some available time.

It beats trying to sell real-estate for those "in transition" because you can do it in your pajamas or pretend to be a career coach.

They're so clueless because most recruiters just search the web for jobs you could have found yourself, and then try to work their way into getting a cut. Therefore a typical recruiter reduces a person's chance for a job.

There are some good one's out there. But they're few and far between. Because they have done their research prior to contacting you, their emails will be short, to the point, and designed to screen for deal breakers, "Would you be interested in a job in St. Louis?"

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#74

Post by lsc » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 7:41 PM UTC

Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

because technical recruiters, contrary to popular belief, are not hired to get the best candidates.

Technical recruiters (and agencies) are hired to give the middle manager denyability if a hiring mistake is made. I mean, if you hire your brother's friend and he turns out to be some kind of crack fiend who ebays your spare parts bin for more drugs, well, you've got a fairly good chance of getting fired in the fallout. Now, if a recruiter recommends the same guy and the same thing happens, well, now you can push some of the blame off on the recruiter. there's no question about nepotism, etc.. the professional recruiter recommended the guy.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#75

Post by lsc » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 7:44 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #73

The barrier to entry in the recruiting industry is low, i.e. a cellphone, an internet connection and some available time. It beats trying to sell real-estate for those "in transition" because you can do it in your pajamas or pretend to be a career coach. They're so clueless because most recruiters just search the web for jobs you could have found yourself, and then try to work their way into getting a cut. Therefore…

>The barrier to entry in the recruiting industry is low, i.e. a cellphone, an internet connection and some available time.

There is something more to it than that. I've tried to become a recruiter several times, and I've gotten shot down every time I tried, even though I can demonstrate a history of hiring good people.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#76

Post by unshift » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 7:59 PM UTC

Timothee wrote: post #43

KoZeN wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love recruitment, I honestly do. Primarily because of the money I make! I loved working as a developer but there was a distinct lack of social and professional interaction that eventually led to me looking at other options. It was satisfying completing a difficult project and seeing it implemented but I get infinitely more satisfaction from finding someone their perfect job as well as landing a juicy commission pay…

No offense, but the fact that the money aspect is what you like the most puts me off a bit... it feels too much like the stereotypical "sales guy". However, it explains why I dealt with a couple of recruiters who touted their PhD in their email signature. I couldn't really understand why someone with a PhD would "end up" being a recruiter. But money can explain it I suppose. (they were still bad though)

really, it puts you off that people who exchange time for money would like to get the most money possible for their time?

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#77

Post by araneae » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 8:12 PM UTC

Technical recruiters may be clueless, but this is hardly evidence. This is spam. I got a similar e-mail today saying they had viewed my "portfolio." Well I'm not sure how they did that since I don't have any work under the e-mail address they sent it to.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#78

Post by brudgers » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 8:17 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #75

brudgers wrote: post #73

The barrier to entry in the recruiting industry is low, i.e. a cellphone, an internet connection and some available time. It beats trying to sell real-estate for those "in transition" because you can do it in your pajamas or pretend to be a career coach. They're so clueless because most recruiters just search the web for jobs you could have found yourself, and then try to work their way into getting a cut. Therefore…

>The barrier to entry in the recruiting industry is low, i.e. a cellphone, an internet connection and some available time. There is something more to it than that. I've tried to become a recruiter several times, and I've gotten shot down every time I tried, even though I can demonstrate a history of hiring good people.

Shot down by whom?

There's nothing preventing someone from hanging a shingle as a recruiter.

That's what I was getting at.

Edit: Recruiting is one of those "make your own jobs" Ehrenreich describes in Bait and Switch.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#79

Post by VladRussian » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 8:18 PM UTC

peteforde wrote: post #63

I'm disappointed to see someone as smart as David casually leaning on a stereotype like "shady Russians". I'm confident that he wouldn't have said "sneaky Jews" or "naive Canadians" or "cheap Mexicans".

have it ever crossed you mind that if someone as smart as David is casually leaning on a stereotype than there are some reasons behind the stereotype?

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#80

Post by lsc » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 8:27 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #78

lsc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The barrier to entry in the recruiting industry is low, i.e. a cellphone, an internet connection and some available time. There is something more to it than that. I've tried to become a recruiter several times, and I've gotten shot down every time I tried, even though I can demonstrate a history of hiring good people.

Shot down by whom? There's nothing preventing someone from hanging a shingle as a recruiter. That's what I was getting at. Edit: Recruiting is one of those "make your own jobs" Ehrenreich describes in Bait and Switch .

Shot down by whom?

the company I was attempting to recruit for.

I've got at least one example where I offered a person I knew was good to a company that had hired me in the past. He was rejected without an interview. Being as I couldn't help the guy, I recommended him to an agency that worked with that company, and he got the job. Everyone seemed pretty happy with the deal, the guy stayed on for several years and finally left because the agency involved was incredibly sketchy.

Of course, I didn't get a commission out of the deal. I mean, I'm not complaining too much; when I recommended the guy to the agency, I knew from that point forward that I had zero chance of earning anything from the deal. Maybe that's how it should be? I don't know.

My point is that recruiting goes way beyond just finding good people. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what the rest of the value you need to provide is, but I do know that I can provide good people, and that simply is not enough.