Live data from Hacker News

Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

chiefpieguy.tumblr.com

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

#31
Recruiter here, worked for a bunch of the "bigger" tech companies and now I focus on startups. The biggest problem I see, over and over again is this:

People assume recruiting isn't important, they focus on building a great product, etc. It is only once they get to the point a light seems to turn on that they will need to hire more people to execute the idea they're working on that they actually do anything about recruiting, and by then it is usually a bit too late. The last company I worked for had a recruiter for awhile, let them go and had someone who wasn't really qualified to be recruiting handling things. They hadn't really hired anyone in 8 months. When I came in they had this idea that we would be hiring people from day 1, but that's really not how it works. The process takes some time, so not addressing a need that takes time until the exact second you need it seems to be the biggest problem to me.

Oh and all those contract recruiters, fuck those guys.

Re: Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

#32

I feel the need to chip in here, as I've been a lurker for a year or so. I'm a recruitment consultant. I recruit for front end web developers. In my spare time I've been teaching myself Javascript and (with the help of my flatmate, who is a software developer) C#. I do this because I enjoy it, and consider it a valuable skill to have as technology becomes more and more integral to my life. But I also do it because it…

Great reply, and [official] welcome to HN!

I have a question, so here's some backstory: I went to a design and development 'placement' agency because they touted a technical prowess unlike others in the area, but when I sat down with them, they had absolutely no clue what they were talking about. Because of this, they didn't so much as go to bat for me with the resumé I had because they couldn't parse it (I should also add that this lowly piece of paper is all they used to determine whether or not to represent me). Being as I'm merely front-end, this made me question their ability to do this for anyone with an even deeper development background. They didn't care about anything besides seniority levels, and being that titles can be deceiving/confusing in this industry to begin with, I found it pretty incompetent that they'd base your experience on those keywords alone.

I could just as easily avoid them, but knowing all it takes to get into their database is to throw in a fancy title (and knowing how often people round up on resumés), should I say something (to them, or maybe as a Buyer Beware)? It rubs me the wrong way that qualified people are being turned away, and worse that companies are paying for this 'expertise'.

Maybe this is just the unfortunate truth of the technical recruiter industry as a whole?

Re: Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

#33
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not maintaining good relations to ask a recruiter to give you $500.. you're communicating that you have entitlement issues. Here's a possible helpful adjustment, if a recruiter is serious about representing you, ask them to write up a contract guaranteeing that they will donate $500 from the placement fee to the charity of your choice. If they fail to do so within 30 days of your starting date, then they are l…

A recruiter improves hist relation with his client for every good C.V. he sends. My time is not worthless, why should I let a recruiter profit from it?

Your premise is incorrect; a recruiter only makes himself vulnerable with every good person (or C.V.) he introduces. If that person has no interest in the role/company or is not a good fit for the role then the recruiter's credibility suffers.

Re: Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

#34
post #32

I feel the need to chip in here, as I've been a lurker for a year or so. I'm a recruitment consultant. I recruit for front end web developers. In my spare time I've been teaching myself Javascript and (with the help of my flatmate, who is a software developer) C#. I do this because I enjoy it, and consider it a valuable skill to have as technology becomes more and more integral to my life. But I also do it because it…

Great reply, and [official] welcome to HN! I have a question, so here's some backstory: I went to a design and development 'placement' agency because they touted a technical prowess unlike others in the area, but when I sat down with them, they had absolutely no clue what they were talking about. Because of this, they didn't so much as go to bat for me with the resumé I had because they couldn't parse it (I should al…

Hi (thanks for the welcome. Long time listener first time caller and all that!). Tbh, your experience is symptomatic of many places in the industry. The consultants know next to nothing about the tech industry, cant tell their C from their C++ and think Ruby gems are literally precious stones. As for your point about not recognising seniority levels, I can't begin to tell you how many times this has come up in conversation, especially with my manager. It is keyword/buzzword recruitment at its finest. If the words on the job spec don't match the words on your CV, most people will just disregard it.

I'm on a literal quest to try and get people in my company to be able to at least recognise code on Github, or recognise the importance of things like Stack Overflow, but they don't want to. The harsh point is that really good technically able people who would suit a role we come across won't be on the job boards, or have their CV registered with us. They'll be on online communities like these, or at tech meetups etc. A lot of the CV's we get through aren't the sort of CV's that our clients want to see. Hell, they don't even want to see a CV. They want to see code samples, HN profiles etc. But it's an uphill battle for me.

I think that if consultants DID do this, they'd be a lot more reputable and respected in the market. As it is, more focus is put on speed rather than quality/customer service unfortunately.

If I were you, if you don't think they'll represent you properly, I'd cut and run, and make a point of NOT recommending them on further. Anything you say in complaint will most likely be ignored. Just ensure that they're not putting you in front of companies you might actually like to work for, as they obviously won't be doing a very good job.

Re: Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

#35

Recruiter here, worked for a bunch of the "bigger" tech companies and now I focus on startups. The biggest problem I see, over and over again is this: People assume recruiting isn't important, they focus on building a great product, etc. It is only once they get to the point a light seems to turn on that they will need to hire more people to execute the idea they're working on that they actually do anything about rec…

Are you in the SF bay area? Please contact me.

Re: Why Recruiters Exist (and what to do about it)

#36

I feel the need to chip in here, as I've been a lurker for a year or so. I'm a recruitment consultant. I recruit for front end web developers. In my spare time I've been teaching myself Javascript and (with the help of my flatmate, who is a software developer) C#. I do this because I enjoy it, and consider it a valuable skill to have as technology becomes more and more integral to my life. But I also do it because it…

There are definitely good ones out there. And those that take the time to learn to write a little code have a much better chance of being on that list. We know a few good ones too. Few and far between, but clearly possible. One thing I didn't mention in the post is that, in a lot of cases, the incentive system for recruiters isn't necessarily aligned with the best interests of the companies and developers they work w…

That's an interesting point. The way to combat that is with long term relationships.

For example, I work as a software developer for a real estate brokerage, and have mentioned the sell side realtor scenario you bring up.

The answer is always: yes, it is in the short term interest of the realtor to take the first offer. But in the long term (as they screw more and more people) they will be hurt by this behavior.

In fact, there is long term incentive (because, in the US at least, people buy and sell homes multiple times over a lifetime) to get the best deal for the seller, so that they will: * refer the realtor * use the realtor again

To bring it back to recruiting, if you had a relationship with the recruiter, and they knew you were going to go back to them in 1 or 5 years when you were ready to move on to your next job, they would have a rational interest in finding you the right job (and the same interests hold true if employers have a relationship with the recruiter).

This relationship, if it exists, really turns the recruiter into a headhunter. (Aside, here's my favorite headhunter/recruiting information source: http://asktheheadhunter.com/ )

Post reply on HN