- You can ask hard salary questions beforehand without offending a recruiter. Nothing worse than going through a long process to find out the company expects to pay below-market.
- You can set salary expectations with the recruiter directly without causing offense.
- Companies that can afford to pay a recruiter have passed a filter to show they are motivated and have budgetary flexibility.
- Often, companies that are growing faster than they can hire are great places to work. They will have more opportunities going forward, and stock that is worth more. To paraphrase Gordon Gecko, "growth is good!"
- You can work with several recruiters and line up a number of interviews in a short window to get multiple offers to ensure a strong salary.
> You can ask hard salary questions beforehand without offending a recruiter. Nothing worse than going through a long process to find out the company expects to pay below-market.
This right here is invaluable. When I talk to company recruiters (inside a company) I try to get an idea early on whether it's a waste of time due to below-market pay. I've had my share of people who were honest and open about it and those who give me the "we pay market rate" nonsense. I take that as dog whistling for below-market.
When talking to independent recruiters they're usually quite happy to give up this information, and/or find me positions more suitable. It tends to be more amicable.
Completely opposite experience here. Nothing good ever came from the recruiters (unlike the direct contacts with the companies). Usually they are hiring for the most undesirable roles/ problematic companies, they misrepresent the roles to the candidates and the candidates to the companies.
The most annoying thing is however when they cold email you saying "I have this great role for an awesome company". Without saying what the company name and the role is.
Reading that last paragraph reminds of a recruiter we had at a previous company. She emailed me and wanted to interview me for a position, for the same company! She said I was perfect for the role and would fit so good with the company and I agreed. Seems she didn't read either my Facebook, Twitter, Github or Stack Overflow profile where I had which company I currently work for, very visible.
In the end, I agreed to have a call with her, just to show her midways that I already was in the office of the company she was recruiting for.
She felt bad for it, and then we found new recruiters. Not saying all recruiters are like this, just a fun anecdote.
That is a really good point a truly annoying experience and a very common occurrence. Very often I get messages that specify the requirements and some buzz words but no mention of company or product that the potential candidate would be working at. I'm wondering if it's a thought through technique as it almost seems like a bait just to get people on the phone.
They won't tell you the company up front for a few reasons.
The actually company doesn't want to be inundated with resumes without being filtered by the recruiter.
Most companies don't have an exclusive agreement with the company. If they told you the company up front and you decided to apply directly. They won't get their commission.
In the same vein, if another recruiter caught wind that the target company is hiring, they may try to contact the company directly.
Ask them for the company. If they can't provide it, then move on. If you're still curious, you can take a snippet of the description of the job they provide and search for it verbatim on Google to find an entry from a recruiter who forgot to not disclose.
Either way, move on if they won't tell you who it is.
In my experience, do a web search with a unique phrase out of the company or job description. It will often lead to the same job posting directly from the company.
I think recruiters are great. I've been working with them for almost 20 years. As long as they are local recruiters working with local companies. I have 20 recruiters all from different companies in my contacts.
- They have always asked me for permission before submitting me to a company.
- My application never goes into a black hole like it would if I were applying for a company directly. I don't think I've ever been submitted to a company by a recruiter without going through the entire process -- resume submittal, phone screen -> in person interview -> offer. Unless I decided to stop the process somewhere.
- Going through a recruiter is the only way that I've found to filter based on salary requirements. Most job posting don't include them and it's only at the offer stage that you even know if you and the company are in the same ball park.
- I'm able to just sit back and wait for jobs to come to me. I don't have to scour career sites.
I have had recruiters that don't understand that no means no and that while money is the an important reason I work, it's not the only reason. Recruiters were shocked last time that I took a job that wasn't in the top of my pay range but offered more autonomy (the architect at a small company as opposed to just another developer at a large company), and a better commute with little travel.
>> My application never goes into a black hole like it would if I were applying for a company directly.
This. A recruiter is someone 'on the inside' fighting and pushing for you. It's a huge help if you don't have a referral inside the company or know other people that work there.
A little bit of both. I make sure my LinkedIn profile has the necessary keywords.
I respond to every recruiter that works for a local, reputable agency where I don't have a contact and input them in my contact list.
Three scenarios:
I'm not looking at all - my response is "I'm not looking for a job right now, but let's keep in touch, send me opportunities that match my skill set and pay at least $x. For the right opportunity, I might be able to pulled away or know someone who is looking." This keeps me knowledgeable about market salaries and popular technologies that I need to focus on.
I'm "passively looking". Almost the same as above but usually by now, I'm looking to change jobs within the next three to six months, I've been invited to lunch by one or two companies, and actively preparing. My response then is, "I'm passively looking for a job. Here is my resume, I'm looking to leave in the next three to six months. My salary requirements are $X"
I'm actively looking. By now, I'm proactively sending my resume to recruiters, I've spoken to, telling them what I'm looking for, etc.
Notice, I'm not waiting for my status to change to "actively looking" to start preparing. By that time I've been priming the pump for six months to a year.
Find and message them on LinkedIn. Pay for the messaging plan; it is way more effective than stuffing your message in the connection request. Also, be prepared to talk salary and have a resume on hand.
LinkedIn is their tool of choice these days. StackOverflow Careers is another popular option for them. Facebook Jobs might pick up steam, so I'd experiment with that too.
If you want to move to a new town, and just need a job to get you there, they can help. If you get surprised by a layoff, and just need a place to sit and collect a paycheck for 6 months while looking for something that will last, they can get you a short-term gig.
That's all I've got. They won't make your career, they won't make you happy, but they can help you cover the bills when you are in a bind.
I love recruiters. One of the things I find myself missing when I conduct job searches without their help is that they manage the process so that I don't have to. The big thing that I don't do myself that they do, is collect feedback. I'm not all that great at interviewing so it takes me a little while to ramp up so I can make a really good impression.
Feedback allows me to look in the mirror and analyze my flaws. I don't begrudge them their fees.
I've had exactly _zero_ fruitful interactions with recruiters as a candidate.
Direct contacts have always worked best, and although I got a couple of interesting offers through recruiters, those were all the result of a prior interaction with their customers.
There is nothing I like about recruiters after understanding that they are in the business of finding and selling people for their own profit or their company's profit.
I find them to be pushy, inconsiderate, unthoughtful, and lacking real, hard skills that are useful to society. I find it interesting to think that in colleges / universities there is not a career path to be a "professional recruiter" like there is for "doctors, lawyers, engineers". Most people do not go to college to be a "recruiter".
In fact, after many terrible experiences with them, it is my goal to develop software which can completely replace human recruiters and automate their jobs.
It must be a hard day at work to do the following:
Task: Find candidates for a list of positions
Steps To Complete:
#1) Search LinkedIn, Other professional databases, Google, and other sources
#2) From #1, write a list of prospective candidates
#3) Email or call prospective candidates to discuss the position and optionally set up an interview
#4) Connect the prospective candidates with the client company.
Besides being incredibly interesting people, their sole purpose in life (as a recruiter) is to find you a job at the highest salary possible.
Why? Their commission, and their company's profitability, is wholly dependent on it.
This is important. They not only know how much you're worth in your given market, but because they are salespeople, they are likely connected to recruiters all around the country (US) that can provide you with that information in any market. They will also attempt to keep a long-running relationship with you, as they know that, eventually, you will be in the position to buy their services and are more likely to get that sale if they help you out now.
They literally benefit on both sides of the fence.
Recruiters helped me get to that coveted six figure land in leas than two years after graduating school. They helped me land jobs at some of the best companies in the country. They've taken me out on so many free lunches. They're great.
Now, I don't like all recruiters.
Robot recruiters are pretty useless (the ones recruiting from India for massive orgs that can afford to waste money). They collect your resume and go poof. Avoid them.
In-company recruiters are nice people, but, unfortunately, have the exact opposite motive: to hire as many people as possible as cheaply as possible. They will say whatever they need to say to get your body into a seat. They are the kinds of salespeople I don't like working with, since they work purely on volume and don't have time to get to know you.
This is how I got screwed by Google and regressed in my salary curve. (Mind you, the decision to work there was mine. I mean, who doesn't think about working at a place like that?)
So I usually go around them by messaging managers on LinkedIn and establishing rapport that way. By going this route, those recruiters become a formality instead of a gate, and you are way more likely to get paid at or over market. They are also much nicer to work with, since all they need to do to get their checkmark is move the process along and get your offer signed.
That is how I recovered from my mistake at Google and had one of my best working experiences to date.
That is a bit of a myth that recruiters always get you the highest salary. They are competing on price, just like every other transaction in any other business. If they try to maximize salary, some other recruiter with a cheaper candidate will get the gig, and they will get zero commission because you won't get the job.
And like you said, they look for long-term value. Which means they want a reputation for bringing a good value to the companies, not always bringing in expensive candidates.
So you cannot have it both ways... if they benefit on both sides of the fence, then they cannot always be maximizing the benefit to the side of the candidate.
No, they are not incentivized to get you a higher salary.
It doesn't matter to them whether you make +-10k$ at the end of the year. It's about the same commission for them, they just need you to accept and move to the next candidate.
If anything they are competing on price and selling you for cheaper makes it easier to place you.
Not to mention that if they only have positions and companies that pay poorly in their portfolio, they're not gonna say it.
If you haven't watched/read about the real estate agents' incentives from Freakonomics, this[1] video will shed some light. There are a lot of parallels with the recruiters.
Do you think they have much incentive to make that extra $2k, while introducing more risk, and not spending time on the other openings they're working?
Of course they do. If they can negotiate with the hiring manager to place you at the higher salary, and have a fairly good chance of doing so, then they will.
Why? Two reasons:
1. Because they are salespeople. In sales, you never leave money on the table if you can avoid it.
2. Good engineers are really hard to find, which is why the companies that use external recruiters do so in the first place.
Oh, and yes, external recruiters will negotiate salary on your behalf.
Yes, there are a lot of things that I think good, solid recruiters bring to the table.
Here's why: I have a great relationship with a couple recruiters that have a) introduced me to opportunities, and b) helped me fill roles as I was hiring. In my past four roles I've worked with a small number of recruiters to place engineers with my team — they know I'm respectful of their time, clear about my expectations, etc. and therefore they work hard to deliver good candidates, filter out the resume "chaff", and communicate realistically about what candidates they see being available. And when it was time for me to move on, besides my own meeting people and talking with different companies, this same set of recruiters supported me through introductions and potential roles. They've helped me as much as I've helped them. Mutual respect is abundantly required when working with recruiters.
I think, though, this requires a willingness to ignore the recruiters that tend towards being ambulance chasers (your cybercoders level), and not-insignificant amount of time "interviewing" and building up relationship with any recruiter I work with (on both sides of the table.)
Tbh most recruiters (from startups to large software companies) I engaged with so far have been attentive and respectful, sometimes even very nice on a personal level.
I find it quite hard to judge them professionaly as I do not know what they know.
So what do you dislike about recruiters?
I think the problem is that the incentives generally aren't aligned and it's in your interest to be informed anyway about the opportunities near you. If you're employable spend a few hours or so and do your own research. Make a list of interesting companies that meet your criteria and contact 'em directly. You get to know you are making the more informed choice and from the money they save on not using a recruiter you can try to leverage a starting bonus or additional compensation.
I'd maybe pay for a recruiter that would be willing to do this for me but that isn't how they work. They get reqs and fill them which works for them and their clients but really isn't in your best interests.
I think the problem is that the incentives generally aren't aligned and it's in your interest to be informed anyway about the opportunities near you.
How are their incentives not aligned with yours? They want to find you a job that is a good fit for both you and the company so you stick around for at least a year so they can get their commission. Your incentive is that you want a job that meets your requirements.
They give you the initial lead. It is still your responsibility to close the deal.
There is a difference between filling the reqs they've been given and finding you the best job in your area (or even outside for remote/relocate).
They could have a SWE job for, say, Disney and suggest hey that is the best fit but there are at least hundreds of places near me who need software engineers they aren't going to consider because they didn't hire them.
If you do your research, interview at several places you find interesting, and negotiate you're are almost certainly going to a find a place you like better and be better compensated because you're working within the entire possibility space and they're working within their client list.
Looking at my spreadsheet that I used to track jobs I was applying to last year, I started the process (phone screen -> in person interview -> offer) with 16 companies using 7 recruiters. I had six phone screens in one day. The next week after coming back into town, I had three in person interviews in two days. I had the offer combination I wanted within two weeks with the right combination of salary/technology/commute/title.
Those 16 only represent the companies I actively engaged with, there were others I didn't pursue because they didn't meet my requirements. Similar with recruiters. The 6-7 recruiters only represent the subset of 20 that had anything interesting at the time I was looking.
As far as negotiating, if you have studied the market, and interviewed at a lot of places - by talking to lots of recruiters and former coworkers you kept in touch with - you basically know your salary range within 3%.
If going in, you were realistic with your salary requirements, and you set a minimum with your recruiter. Negotiation isn't necessary. You should be able to get your market value.
From my experience (on the hiring side), the good recruiters were autonomous and sourced qualified people. Bad recruiters wasted my team's time and brought and endless stream of unqualified candidates. It seemed like the good ones were 1 in 5.
If you are actually "bringing in" unqualified candidates and interrupting your team by asking them to interview people who are not at all qualified, that is your fault, not the recruiters.
A 30-45 minute phone screen that you do one on one could quickly filter out those who don't meet the minimum bar for the job.
I went to one interview three years ago without a phone screen, a phone screen would have been better for both sides. After 20 minutes in the on site interview, I couldn't even feign interest anymore. I just went through the process after the first 20 minutes so the recruiter -- that I had worked with off and on for years -- wouldn't look bad.
I said I would never waste my time going to an in person interview without a phone screen.
I've had deeply mediocre experiences with recruiters in tech - but my girlfriend was recently looking for a private equity job. She interviewed at ~15 places, and most of these interviews were placed by "headhunters" (i.e. recruiters).
According to her, it is deeply impractical to look for a PE job without enlisting the services of a top-tier recruiting firm.
I like these recruiters! Most people in PE are looking for jobs based on 1) prestige and 2) salary, but she was optimizing for a less rat-race-y function - and they were able to help her find a job that she really likes.
In HBO's Silicon Valley, Gilfoyle starts getting all kinds of gifts couriered to him from recruiters just so that they get noticed. Is there any truth to this?
They're always positive people. I always enjoy talking to them even though they do not represent the real culture of a company. As soon as you start the iterviewing process then the tone drops and people are cold and competitive with absolutely zero communication skills. Sometimes I ask myself - am I really working in the right department? Developers really suck. And I'm one of them :)
Third party recruiters are all salesmen - yes. Scummy - not all of them.
You just have to understand their incentives and who there customer is - the company not you.
Your incentives and the recruiters incentives are partially aligned. The more your first years salary is, the more they make. But they don't care if you make the most possible. They would rather leave some money on the table to get their commission and not take the chance you get a better offer from another company.
They could care less whether the job is the best for your long term career goals. Two jobs ago I was working for a large well known stable company but was severely underpaid - over 20K based on the market value. Some recruiters said I should "settle" for a 10K increase and most companies wouldn't be willing to give me a 20K+ increase. I told them I wouldn't start with the process with any company unless they were willing to offer me at least that minimum.
I've dealt with both nice and competent 3rd party recruiters and with terrible internal recruiters (Amazon...)
It's usually easy to tell when a 3rd party recruiter is wasting your time (sometimes they don't even read the first line of your LinkedIn profile summary). On the other hand, there isn't much you can do when an otherwise good company has a chaotic recruiting process.
- You can set salary expectations with the recruiter directly without causing offense.
- Companies that can afford to pay a recruiter have passed a filter to show they are motivated and have budgetary flexibility.
- Often, companies that are growing faster than they can hire are great places to work. They will have more opportunities going forward, and stock that is worth more. To paraphrase Gordon Gecko, "growth is good!"
- You can work with several recruiters and line up a number of interviews in a short window to get multiple offers to ensure a strong salary.