Live data from Hacker News

Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

kvonhorn.github.io

171–180 of 231 posts

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#171
So the first thing I looked for in this post was whether this was based on experience in the UK because my experience (when I lived there) was absolutely godawful. Like soul-destroying awful. And honestly I don't think the rest of the EU (+Switzerland) was much better. I see no mention of it however.

Tactics I saw included fake interviews (cancelled at the last minute; in some cases with places I knew people so I definitively found out they were fake), being forwarded to positions without consent, modifying my resume, pocketing pay raises from the employer (this was a contracting ie hourly/daily rate type deal), being told they were putting me forward for something when they didn't. Honestly the list goes on.

So it's been more than a decade since I lived in London and I STILL get emails from some of these agencies (luckily to a now largely abandoned email address).

Nowadays, at least in tech, I wonder if you should ever talk to a recruiter at all. The big guys do direct recruitment. Smaller startups tend to be via existing relationships and word-of-mouth (at least that's my impression). And in my experience company recruiters are orders of magnitude better than independent recruiters.

On the subject of references, it's been awhile since I've had to deal with this, but the principle of being prudent with revealing your references resonates. In the past I've only done this as part of the company's due diligence after accepting an offer. No one is going to seriously check your references when you're still a resume in a pile. I can totally see recruiters cold calling references.

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#173
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't imagine being able to judge that in a two week period unless it's a total shit show. I have no reason to doubt the GP and I think its more likely this is just a case of "I know better".

And honestly unless the hiring manager straight up lied during interviewing that's the employees fault for not asking better questions about the position during the interview process. So many people forget that interviews are a two way street. I don't want to hire someone that is going to be unhappy in the position because unhappy programmers have poor output and bring down team morale. They need to ask specific ques…

It's difficult to get an accurate perception of a team without working with them for a bit.

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#174
post #16

> I do know that my manager called me up pissed off about the phone call he’d received, and told me to not use him as a reference in the future. It's also important for your references to know that they're your references ahead of time. You may think you have a good relationship with someone only to discover that they aren't a reliable positive reference. People also don't like being caught off guard.

> It's also important for your references to know that they're your references ahead of time.

It's always good practice to get someone's permission anyway before you pass on their contact details. If it's time critical and you need to put people in contact, you get the contact details of the person who's asking and you pass those details on to the person they want to talk to.

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#175
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recruiters in the UK are much sleazier than in the US, in my experience.

This goes for Australia, considering most tech recruiters in Australia are from the UK for some reason.

IT recruitment in Australia doesn't require a tertiary education, fluent(ish) English is a must and the job is relatively highly paid if you're good/sociopathic enough.

There are also a lot of vacancies as the working holiday visas rotate the backpackers in and out - hence all the cold-calling, cheeky, chirpy cockneys

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#176
post #160
post #95

I got a call from an external recruiter: "I have a candidate who would be a great fit for your company." I'm just a lowly data scientist with no hiring power, and at that job the entire data science team was quitting. So, I mentioned that I didn't think the team was growing since it seemed to be actively shrinking with no new reqs that I was aware of. Recruiter immediately turned it around and said they could represe…

> Nope nope nope nope nope. I'm not giving you a resume that you can modify however you see fit, only to cold call and cold email it around to random people you find on linkedin. But... that's exactly the services a recruiter provides. Someone needs to make those calls if you want a new job, unless you feel that you're such a catch that you can rely exclusively on networking with former coworkers to find you new posi…

There's an alternative though, which is to do all of your fulltime recruiting in-house, and hire a software development agency instead of a recruiting agency to fill the gaps when you're short on employees.

The model of the recruiting agency is that they produce a headcount you're willing to hire, and once you do it they take a finder's fee and are no longer involved.

The model of the software development agency, when you manage them correctly (which is certainly non-trivial), is they produce code which your dev lead approves of via a transparent process which you have approved of, and they have an incentive to get their contract renewed every year. This keeps them honest.

IMO when understaffed, all software companies should contract out their least essential engineering to a well-supervised dev agency rather than rush the hiring process with some dumbo external recruiter. In my experience most of these recruiting agencies have no technical people at all, can't judge the quality of a candidate, and are basically just marketing operations trying to circulate as many resumes as they can.

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#178
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recruiters in the UK are much sleazier than in the US, in my experience.

And unfortunately they tend to migrate to Australia. I swear half the recruiters in this country are from the UK.

Remember, our country founded as a place for storing bad, bad, Britons. In the long run, it doesn't seem to do much harm.

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#179
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nope nope nope nope nope. I'm not giving you a resume that you can modify however you see fit, only to cold call and cold email it around to random people you find on linkedin. But... that's exactly the services a recruiter provides. Someone needs to make those calls if you want a new job, unless you feel that you're such a catch that you can rely exclusively on networking with former coworkers to find you new posi…

> rely exclusively on networking with former coworkers to find you new positions Maybe not exclusively, but having a strong network is one of (if not the) best ways to stay gainfully employed. The best jobs I’ve had were found through former coworkers, friends from conferences, or folks I’ve corresponded with on technical issues. Knowing and being respected by someone internal to a company typically bypasses the firs…

It's very helpful, yes, for your third or fourth job. People fresh out of school - or going into a career change, or moving to a new city - typically do not have much of a 'professional network', at least of any relevance.

I've had good experiences and bad with recruiters - the bad ones, fortunately, from the employer's side of the table, although they can't have been good for the candidates in that case either.

Re: Don't Provide Your References to a Recruiter Until After Your Last Interview

#180
post #114
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The higher you rise in your career, and the better companies you work for, the more you'll find your references are checked. When I applied for a part-time Christmas season job at a Photos with Santa booth last year, no one checked my references. For my current salaried job, they checked every single one (I gave four).

What is the downside to just always giving a positive review, though? To rephrase the original question - this is recruiter/company A calling a person who works at company B to see if someone is suitable for company A. If you just always give a nice review, what is the downside for you? Unless you had genuine personal issues with the candidate, why wouldn't you just always give a good review? If the person doesn't wo…

Recruiter and former CTO here. References are a box-ticking exercise that you pay someone like Experian to do, so that you can say it was done as part of a security review.
Post reply on HN