Count me among those who has more sympathy than anything else for recruiters. Finding a job is hard. There’s so much uncertainty and fraught communication and rejection for reasons out of your control. What if finding jobs was your job? (That being said, the recruiters I’ve dealt with have been very professional and helpful, so I don’t mean to imply they are to be pitied, just that the realities of it are just as unpleasant as the realities of being a job seeker)
A Note About Recruiters
11–20 of 35 posts
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#12This feels like a fundamental mismatch between his expectations as an internal recruiter vs external recruiters > built the technical recruitment operations in the last 3 start-ups I worked for, so I feel I’m somewhat qualified in the subject matter Sure, your startup might have some very tight requirements for a position and the ability to research candidates before conversations. That's precisely what you should do…
For (some startups) it makes sense, especially if you onlu want a code monkey (for which I would recomend recriuters to go to colleges) but their teams (or they themselves) impose this stupid "minimum X years of experience". I've known golks with years and years of experience who know no shit, so if anything those years prove they are willing to suck it up bit no muvh more; as I have also knows some fresh college graduates who are a fucking bomb.
Now saying its a numbers game also makes sence yet they (recriuters) are ignorimg the fact that each one of those "numbers" they turn into an interview will require 2 or 3 hours from the developers who will actually serve as a filter... I (personally) am tired of having to interview people who from the first 10 minutes I know won't be a good fit just because the recruiter is playing the "numbers game"
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#13"You can’t just send random bullshit and expect meaningful results"
Unfortunately, this is entirely incorrect. The reason random bullshit occurs at all is precisely because it CAN produce meaningful results. The fact that it more often does compared to any other method is the reason why it is characteristic of tech recruiter behaviour.
It is matter of energy conservation.
Think of it like this: Recruiters can go one of two paths.
A)Carefully read resumes / profiles, up-level on tech know-how, even do a bit of programming as OP recommended. This is a ton of up front cost and therefore only those who can afford to risk the energy would do it.
or
B) Send lots of random shit, with low up front cost, accept low ratio return and only deal with the positives that come back.
The risk is front loaded in Option A, which is why it rarely happens. The recruiters that do do this, will basically be popular for the short time, but not last long as they get outcompeted by recruiters doing Option B.
It's not ideal but neither is global warming
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#14Count me among those who has more sympathy than anything else for recruiters. Finding a job is hard. There’s so much uncertainty and fraught communication and rejection for reasons out of your control. What if finding jobs was your job? (That being said, the recruiters I’ve dealt with have been very professional and helpful, so I don’t mean to imply they are to be pitied, just that the realities of it are just as unp…
I'm generally sympathetic to them because they have a very difficult - yet very important! - role.
The only time I've ever been really angry at a recruiter was when I came across a snarky LinkedIn post written by a recruiter (and upvoted by many others) that went something along the lines of "Joe contacted me because he had found himself out of work. However, I checked our internal database and found that we had reached out to him many times and he had never once responded to our inquiries. It was with great satisfaction that I told Joe, 'I'm sorry but we have nothing for you at this time...'"
I try not to put negative thoughts out there but I wish... very very bad misfortune on this particular recruiter.
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#15Cold calls/letters from recruiters are a waste of time. I've never had a cold call or letter from a recruiter that resulted in a job. If you have any talent at all, reaching out through your professional network is the way to go.
Anecdata... My current job was from a cold e-mail. Though FWIW, I was actively looking for new work at the time, so the recruiter just had good timing. But the recruiter also had a good e-mail, including the salary range, which was slightly above the band I was expecting.
Even more anecdata - I counted it up recently and I've had 10 different jobs in a little over 30 years. Half I found randomly through recruiters and the other half were from my "professional network". Consistently, every single "professional network"/"referred in" job turned out to be a complete nightmare and every single "through a recruiter" job turned out to be - well, better than the other ones, anyway. By far my most negative employment experiences have been the ones where I was actively recruited in by somebody I knew from my past.
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#16"You can’t just send random bullshit and expect meaningful results" Unfortunately, this is entirely incorrect. The reason random bullshit occurs at all is precisely because it CAN produce meaningful results. The fact that it more often does compared to any other method is the reason why it is characteristic of tech recruiter behaviour. It is matter of energy conservation. Think of it like this: Recruiters can go one…
A moment of empathizing will make it clear that option A is not an option. If I were a recruiter following that method, I would take 5-10 minutes to read someone's Github and only then send them a carefully crafted email that takes another 10 minutes, which will be ignored by all but 1 in 100?
I'm fine with ignoring unsolicited emails and politely declining phone calls.
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#17I think we have this post/rant every few months on this site, so let me explain how recruiting works.
There's 3 types/market for recruiters and they almost never overlap.
The first are "body shop style" recruiters. It's basically a numbers game where they try to cold-call as much people with githubs/linkedin or blogs that reference programming. They don't know programming (not even what's the difference between languages or front-end/back-end) and are looking for a list of buzzwords. They'll send copy-pasted messages (you can tell because it references tech you never used or never even claimed to have used). If you respond (and really you shouldn't) you won't be able to get any relevant information about the position because... they don't have it. These recruiters are often contracted by external firms in "best value countries" and are given canned response to message you. That's probably what the author encountered.
Second type are professional recruiters. Their salary is by commissions will often be a percentage of your salary. They are knowledgeable about programming and tech (often former engineers who wanted a break from coding!). They typically are looking to match specific profiles to specific jobs at client companies. This goes all the way to recruiters specialized in C-Suite executives (and you can picture the commission finding a CEO will bring in). Their messages will be personalized and you shouldn't hesitate to reply back even if you aren't looking for a job. They know that most great software engineers are almost never openly looking for a job so their goal is to be on good terms with a large number of talented developers so that the minute they start looking for a job they can match them with positions. You'll know when you encounter one.
Third type is basically referrals. A players attract A players, smart companies know it. Make sure your referral bonus is a percentage of total comp. It's probably the most effective way of recruiting (it has an insane signal to noise ratio). But you only get access to that type of network by... bringing value and being part of it in the first place!
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#18"You can’t just send random bullshit and expect meaningful results" Unfortunately, this is entirely incorrect. The reason random bullshit occurs at all is precisely because it CAN produce meaningful results. The fact that it more often does compared to any other method is the reason why it is characteristic of tech recruiter behaviour. It is matter of energy conservation. Think of it like this: Recruiters can go one…
This sounds very similar to how one can do online dating
Re: A Note About Recruiters
#19"You can’t just send random bullshit and expect meaningful results" Unfortunately, this is entirely incorrect. The reason random bullshit occurs at all is precisely because it CAN produce meaningful results. The fact that it more often does compared to any other method is the reason why it is characteristic of tech recruiter behaviour. It is matter of energy conservation. Think of it like this: Recruiters can go one…
I think there is a possibility of doing something in between A and B.
1. Select good candidates based on relevant criteria.
2. Spend 1 or 2 minutes reviewing each candidate with the Technical Hiring Manager who needs to fill a role.
3. Send the filtered candidates a templated message asking if they are interested.Re: A Note About Recruiters
#20Take the Time to Actually Research Someone
Nice sentiment, but it's never gonna happen.
Recruiters are spam bots, period. Their job is to smash square pegs into round holes. Use them or don't use them... but the sooner everyone on both sides of the hiring equation realizes this extremely basic and obvious fact, the better.