Here we go again with the recruiter bashing.<p>I'm a former tech recruiter. A few of you know that already. I hear these recruiter rants more than most. Most of it is justified however it's all noise and no feasible solutions.<p>That great little spiel the author mentioned at the end? The one where he said he would shout my name from the rooftops if I took that approach? How, exactly, does that fit in with <i>I certainly don't want cold-calls or cold emails, ever.</i> If I can't introduce myself to the guy, how am I ever meant to prove I'm not one of the many useless bottom-feeders he deals with on a daily basis?<p>I've blogged extensively about the problem: <a href="http://hackerjobs.co.uk/blog/2012/6/15/all-that-is-wrong-with-the-recruitment-industry" rel="nofollow">http://hackerjobs.co.uk/blog/2012/6/15/all-that-is-wrong-wit...</a><p>The facts are simple, regardless of the fact that most recruiters can't even spell PHP, the industry is worth hundreds of billions globally and isn't going anywhere fast and it's certainly not innovating any time soon. Sure their marketing methods are improving and their sales pitches becoming sleaker but ultimately, you are paying a ridiculous sum of money to get a guy with no clue about tech to spend a week or two on the phone harassing every developer that comes even close to some of the tricky but cool sounding words on your job spec.<p>My prediction: more and more tech companies adopt internal recruitment teams and someone will actually create a useful, multipurpose, recruiter free (<i>cough</i> print: <a href="http://hackerjobs.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://hackerjobs.co.uk</a> <i>cough</i>) job site or web service that eliminates, crowd sources or automates the leg work that you are paying an incompetent human thousands of dollars to do on your behalf.
The fundamental problem is that scammy tactics is the value most recruiters add. You as a company can't cold call developers at your competitor and convince them to work for you, you can however pay a recruiter who does it at an arms length.<p>At any point of time the vast majority of good developers are off the market, they need to be cold-sold on a job before they even consider looking.<p>Unless you've got an alternative that has a proven track record of reaching developers who aren't actively job hunting, you're not going to replace recruiters.<p>I ran a job board that did go after this group by heavily targeting through passive ads (i.e. display ads, facebook, dating sites), and even though it was successful in reaching that group once I'd convinced a developer that job hunting was a good idea they'd often go and use other job boards, recruiters, etc. in addition to my own one.<p>So not only do you have to capture non-active job seekers, once you've got them you've got to close them almost immediately otherwise they'll convert to becoming an "active job seeker" and using other options for job hunting destroying your advantage.<p>Hence "capture-and-close" are the dynamics of the market, and recruiters are perfectly suited to those dynamics. I've yet to see a truly viable alternative.<p>Almost all recruitment startups focus on active job seekers, but that's not where most of the value in the market is.
I think there is a insight hanging around here. This thread reminded me of the thread on 99designs, and the attitude of (some) designers towards a fairly "robust" contest format.<p>The idea that a recruiter will "get to know you" and "deeply understand your needs" whilst <i>still being on commission at another company</i> is foolish.<p>I think the OP is a bit confused - he seems to want things both ways - the faceless contest approach (where he sees the Twitter feeds and linkediN pages early) and some how also have the deep and meaningful (where the recruiter says you should meet this guy, and <i>without looking at a twitter feed you trust the recrtuiter and set up the interview</i><p>Either bring recruitment in house, and see it as long term nuturing of talent, or turn on a beauty parade and expect to do a lot of the weeding out of bad candidates yourself.<p>Now, if I was paying a few hundred a month for the beauty parade, I suspect that would be fine. If I am paying 20K / hire I want the recrutier to send over Mr and Mrs right.<p>Its that fact that recruiters are lining up beauty parades but charging for deep and meaningful that gets the ire of the OP up
For many of these staffing firms, it's really a numbers game for them. They throw <i>everything</i> against the wall and see what sticks. On perm roles, when you are getting $15-20,000 just for making an "introduction", there is heavy competition and incentive to try to "win" as many placements as possible.<p>In the contract IT space, fake resumes are the norm. There are some firms that just train up people in a technology, build them a fake resume with 4 years experience, then hope they perform on a phone interview and last past the first week or two of the contract and have learned enough to fulfill the contract.<p>For disruption, I like what Developer Auction[1] is doing. Where the companies bid on each person they wish to employ and drive up the salary / signing bonus. Seems to be a better model than what is currently out there.<p>[1] <a href="http://developerauction.com/" rel="nofollow">http://developerauction.com/</a>
15 years recruiting software engineers, and I agree that the industry needs some major changes. The problem you mention about candidates being used unknowingly to bait potential new customers has been around for a while, and many recruiters are not providing the proper value for the price.<p>I've started using a different model with my clients. I don't want to go into too much detail, but my clients pay me a smaller up front fee to initiate a search, and then a fee upon hire. The combined fees (front and back end) per candidate end up being much lower than the industry standards, perhaps even half what others are charging.<p>Why would I provide my service at approximately half the cost of other companies? For one, when a client pays me up front, it guarantees my fee and reduces my risk. Contingency recruiters take on 100% of the risk, whereas in a retained relationship the hiring entity assumes 100% of the risk. My model spreads that risk. I'm willing to take a lower fee, so long as my fee is guaranteed.<p>My model will surely not be popular with contingency firms that have hundreds of recruiters that they can burn through (pay them peanuts + commission until they burn out), but I think if more small boutique firms used this model regionally, many small software firms would jump at the chance to work with one small firm that is going to produce with a minimal number of candidates (usually 2-3 per search for my clients). Having the up front payment allows me to be more selective to find the right fit, instead of just trying to find ANY fit.
"Twitter and Facebook pages full of photos from barbaric rituals and poems about killing penguins?"<p>Right, because that's so relevant compared to photos indicating that the candidate is pregnant, black, or of a religion the CTO hates passionately. This sort of thing is either an irrational fear or a cover for excluding the sort of person he's not allowed to say he doesn't want.<p>It's not that I want to force him to hire penguin murderers; it's that I find myself wondering how likely it is that some crazy will find their way into a technical interview process.
<i>I can go onto LinkedIn myself and harvest profiles (as agency recs have to). I can "touch base" with 100+ developers myself if I need to.</i><p>I doubt you can. Not easily, anyway. Think about the social implications for a minute.<p>If you do this in the most efficient way - grab profiles with a simple algorithm, then send the same pitch email to everyone using blind-carbon-copy - you're cold-calling. The problem with cold-calling is that it doesn't enhance your reputation. Do you really want your name and email address filed in the spam filter along with the clumsiest of recruiters? Do you really want to experience the indignity of being unfriended on LinkedIn?<p>Just wait until your amateur spam-o-rama accidentally hits four employees <i>and</i> a hiring manager at another company. They will talk to each other, and figure out that you're attempting to "poach" their employees in the clumsiest possible way, and now your name is mud, twice over.<p>Cold-calling does work, though. (There's no shortage of evidence.) Most of the best candidates don't surf job listings for entertainment, and those few who do are window-shoppers, who have trained themselves to read but not to act. But they might respond to a little poke, when it happens to arrive at the right time. But: You can't be doing that nagging yourself. Frankly, you need a scapegoat. A third party. Perhaps someone whose job description protects their reputation a bit: Everyone knows that recruiters gotta recruit, or be fired.<p>Alternatively, to be kind to your colleagues, you can screen profiles more carefully, making sure not to email people who are obviously not a fit, and making sure not to target the employees of companies run by your friends, and making sure to write lovingly personalized emails to each person, asking about their dog and their kids and then oh-so-discreetly suggesting, as if by accident, that maybe they'd like a new job? This strategy works to some degree - it is, in fact, what most of us do as we wander down the hall at a conference - but it doesn't scale. We call it <i>networking</i>, but when you have to do it with 100+ developers it is a full-time job called <i>recruiting</i>. Perhaps you should consider outsourcing it? And now we're back to square one.
One angle on the idea of disrupting the industry; It seems like a lot of programmers would be in a good position to do recruiting on the side for a few hours a week. They already know a lot of other people in the field. And they obviously are able to recognize technical skills and filter people.<p>Could a startup make a setup where anyone can sign up and become a part time recruiter? Maybe you set up a real recruiting company to handle the paper work and billing, and let programmers sign on to be your staff. Then give them a big cut of any fees they make.<p>Anyone interested in helping me flush out this idea? It might be a viable startup, no?
It's interesting he starts with the claim he needs to find talented people with technical skills and then immediately starts talking about his need to cyberstalk the personal lives of candidates in order to disqualify those whose beliefs and hobbies he disagrees with.
Recruiting is like dating. The problem is still not solved - but I also think it will never be solved. The nature of process requires involvement on both parties and that can be outsourced only to a very small extend.<p>So in dating you have guys saying: "I want to date supermodel. Lets go this dating site ... after a couple of months... oh online dating sucks it needs disruption".
Here's why it, at its heart, is wrong.<p>A good recruiter is good on both sides - people want to have their resume in the recruiter's portfolio, and companies want that recruiter's card on their hiring manager's desk. Because of this, technology has only made recruiting more empowering for good recruiters - they can manage more clients on both ends, can schedule easier, and are more agile.<p>I've got two particular recruiters in mind, but I know that with either of them, if I quit my job on a Friday both my employer (who works with one of them) and myself would have interviews lined up on Monday if that's what we were looking for.<p>Just because there are a lot of bad recruiters out there (for the same reason there are a lot of bad realtors, or marketers, or hair stylists), doesn't mean there isn't immense value in the good recruiters.<p>This rant is just a rant, probably the result of one too many recruiter emails in the inbox on a Friday morning.
The problem is not that recruiting as an industry is obsolete.<p>The problem is that you can't find a good recruiter based on your needs (price, specialty, experience level, etc).<p>The quality of recruiters is variable, but the need for them is constant. I appreciate more systems to post jobs and review candidates directly, but after LinkedIn and Craigslist, the value diminishes. I've also worked with recruiters who are highly qualified and present good candidates.<p>A solution would be a system to help you find a better recruiter and create more transparency in that industry.<p>I can envision a system whereby you can rate your interactions with recruiters (ie., Yelp for recruiting).<p>"I used [recruiter] and they found me [x] candidates in [y] days. The quality of the candidates was [z] and I [hired/didnt hire] someone that they presented. I [would/wouldn't] work with them again. They charged [x] per [candidate/hour/placement]"<p>When a recruiter contacts you, and knows nothing about your [Technology/Industry/Company], you can look them up on a site and rate them. You would rate them on these vectors, and then you could build a search tool that helps you find the right recruiter. ("Find me a BioTech Recruiter in Seattle who works with Genentech on a flat fee" etc)<p>This would also have a benefit keep recruiters more honest. The good recruiters would rise to the top, and potentially get more leads. You wouldn't have to waste as much time with poor recruiters since they would be outed pretty quickly. Frustration levels (as evinced by this thread) are pretty high when incompetent recruiters waste your time.
"I can go onto LinkedIn myself and harvest profiles (as agency recs have to). I can "touch base" with 100+ developers myself if I need to. If that's all the agency recs are doing, they're not adding value"<p>Exactly. I still don't understand (after 9 years of being in industry and consulting the last 5) why it is too much for a hiring manager to spend some time himeself to vet a candidate esepcially if they will be critical to the team,project and company's success. As much as I hate to work with thetse agency recruiters, the underlying issue is not them. The issue is the employers who depend on these recruiters even though they rant about how bad the quality is etc.<p>Employers: it is simple. To hire the best, you need to do a lot more than asking agency/vendors to send u resumes/cvs. Interview your recruiter first. Test them if they know and understand what and who you really need. Just saying "PHP developer" doesn't cut it. Provide more specifics. Any good candidate will be more inclined to talk to you.
Two points.<p>"I want to see the candidate's twitter feeds, Facebook pages, LinkedIn profiles, activity on mailing lists and github, etc."<p>This is the very reason I keep all my social network to myself and not under my name. Unless I tell you what my Twitter page and Facebook page are, you'll never find them and I do this on purpose.<p>I agree this industry needs some help. A company I was recently working for developed an application for the pharmaceutical sales industry which assigns a score to each sales person based on various criteria, which is then tracked by employers looking hire the best talent. As soon as I saw it, I thought it could just as easily be used in tech field for developers or any other technical position.<p>This is just a start, but at least its something that's gaining traction in a industry that is similar in size and revenue generation.
I sometimes think I could eventually go into recruiting. As a freelancer I have met many many developers, I try to stay in touch with many of them, and I know what they can do, what they dislike to do, and so forth. And I know the technology. But so far the engineering itself is making me happy. However, one day perhaps..
I think it is interesting that the author mentions, "I want to see the candidate's twitter feeds, Facebook pages, LinkedIn profiles, activity on mailing lists and github, etc."<p>I found TalentBin.com comes the closest to solving this need. This is a screenshot that shows all the profile information accessible on a TB profile- <a href="http://screencast.com/t/DgePgGRj" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/DgePgGRj</a><p>Not only do you get access to what they are tweeting about, but you also can see their personal blogs, google+, Meetup, and Stackoverflow? <a href="http://screencast.com/t/SfFqIMXWIzlg" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/SfFqIMXWIzlg</a><p>So far nothing comes close to Talentbin in terms of information quantity and quality.<p>And if that isn't enough- TalentBin.com recently added the entire patent database. Soon will come the day where we hire by looking at only implicit web information and resumes are long forgotten.
I recruit technical people. Our clients seem to like working with us. We try to treat job seekers with respect. We take an ethical approach to everything we do. But like any business, we do of course go to market to sell our services directly to the target clients, and we go directly to the people we wish to sell. No apologies to anyone for that. The reason recruitment exists is because employers pay money for it. If anyone has an issue with recruiters then stop whining about it and instead make sure your company stops using them. People who whine about recruiters but still get jobs through them or work for a company that hires from recruiters are like people who criticise the oil industry but are happy to drive a car and consume the thousands of oil derived products. Hypocrites.
In the two decades I have been consulting, I notice that in the past few years, many of the job shop calls I receive sound as though they come from offshore call centers (I am attempting to put this delicately). I invariably ignore these, for several reasons. The first is that they tend to act put upon if one asks for a job description that goes beyond a few acronyms or "Mathematica and Ph.D. required," as if I were being uncooperative to ask for something more informative than the few matching keywords they have in front of them. They seem to be interested in receiving the goahead to send a resume somewhere on the basis of a keyword search. Asking for details eats into their time. Secondly, they tend to offer lowball rates and seem as if they go in and out of business.
Curation, Transparency, Quality & NO CONTACTS. 100% agree, I think this rant perfectly sums up how this industry could work. A great user experience and reasonable rates for finding quality people, that's a service people will happily pay for... and they are. Which is why we build Dragonfly (<a href="http://dragonflylist.com" rel="nofollow">http://dragonflylist.com</a>) but we're not the only ones that have realised this. Its a big market, plenty of room for other niche/geo specific recruitment solutions.
as i've been talking more and more to developers, i keep hearing these same complaints about recruiters. I'm finally trying to make a difference by launching matchist.com, which will be a different kind of recruiting. we'll be catering to freelance developers by vetting projects they want to work on. we think the process is simple: tell us what projects you want to work on, what kinds of clients you'd like, and we'll send them your way.
What you're expecting from a recruiter who are trying to catch good writers by checking their spelling, punctuation and knowledge (but not the meaning) of long words?)<p>Writer could be measured only by (the value of) his texts. It is not about the knowledge of grammar, even if it is a relevant knowledge.<p>And, of course, appearance and manners of a potential writer have almost nothing to do with his talent.
I wrote a response to this at my blog jobtipsforgeeks.com. For all of you that want to see what actions can be taken to disrupt recruiting, (hiring an agent, flat fees, etc.) check it out. <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535547" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535547</a>
We have robots.txt, humans.txt, business.txt<p>so whats wrong with jobs.txt<p>Parseable, searchable, uptodate (one assumes, and can easily be deprecated) and simple to throw up a cottage industry around.