Ask HN: “Agents” instead of recruiters for tech professionals?
I have consulted, on and off, for a good portion of my career. In that time I have found new gigs either though networking with existing contacts, or through recruiters at dedicated recruiting firms, both of which have been successful.
Of course, there are issues with both approaches. When using my own contacts and networking, time and effort must be spent to cultivate more than the relationship. I must also cultivate the business needed to get the next contract. This time and effort is expensive but ultimate becomes very rewarding when a new contract is landed.
With recruiters there is less time and effort put into cultivating the business of getting a contract. However, recruiters come and go and so I am constantly cultivating relationships with recruiting firms to find the ones who understand the business, the clients, and my skills and can match me up correctly. Again this is time and effort which can be quite profitable, of course, in the end when a new gig is started.
However, I imagine there is a more efficient method of handling this. Right now, as the engineer, I am trading time for finding lucrative consulting gigs. Often the company either pays me hourly (or more accurately daily, or on a fixed bid rate), or they pay the recruitment firm. I do not have to pay any monetary sum to get a contract. However, I do make a sizable rate. Why are there not technical "Agents" much like in the entertainment, writing, or sports industries, who will keep that relationship with me, understand my skills and my business, and find new clients for me where in I can pay them a percentage of my rate? This would eliminate the need for me to constantly curate my list of recruiting firms and keep up ever changing relationships as well as focus on what I do and enjoy best which is engineering solutions.
15 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 50.7 ms ] threadWe have recruiters (basically agents for employers) because our industry has excess supply of positions and insufficient demand for these positions. Since we can relatively easily go find another job, it doesn't make sense for us to pay someone to help us look.
For a contrary example - actors have agents because their industry has a small supply of jobs, and high demand for acting jobs. And so they benefit from paying an agent to help them find what few jobs there are.
I would like to take a look at the entertainment business in comparison to engineering positions for a moment. You are absolutely right there is an excess supply of positions and an insufficient demand for those positions. However, that is a general statement that can be narrowed down I believe.
While in the entertainment industry there is a very small supply of jobs for high dollar actors and actresses, there is a excess supply of positions for small walk on, non-speaking characters with insufficient demand for those positions. People don't want small, low paying, non-speaking, uncredited acting positions. They are willing to pay an agent to try to get them the small supply of high paying acting positions that they want.
I still think your difference holds true though. I am not trying to set up a straw man here. I fully admit that I can walk out today, talk to 20 businesses in a relatively short period of time, and land a new high paying gig. I could also walk out and talk to a dozen recruiting firms and accomplish the same thing. It's easier for me than it is for an actor in the entertainment industry.
But I still see that there are a significant number of engineers who are willing to pay an agent to keep up these relationships for them. What would make it worthwhile to the Agent? 10% of 20 engineers who make on average $150,000 a year? Is there not room in the industry for that type of service?
I get contacted by recruiters all of the time and that is the problem! Which should I listen to? Which should I make a relationship with moving forward to find more business? Which are going to negotiate well for me?
The other issue is that we are paying them for their services, whether we like that idea or not. We may not be having to handle the tax implications and whatnot, but ultimately they negotiate a rate for me of say, $100 an hour. They negotiate a rate with the client of say, $150 an hour. To the client I cost $150 an hour (in fact most recruiters put it that way to them, that is my "bill rate"). I am paying them 50% anyway, in this scenario.
I have often wondered if I could offer my account management services independently to a handful of freelance engineers and make enough money to sustain myself. It doesn't sound too incredibly different from what you are talking about. I could also see myself being very good at weeding out the recruiters that don't fit my clients needs.
Edit: I should clarify that the agency I work for is full service and we handle web projects all the way from design through development. So I have a fairly in depth understanding of tech, just not a hacker per se.
I think it's more important to cultivate an entrepreneurial attitude and business skills with consultants / freelancers. Many freelancers still see themselves as mere coders / temporary employees whereas I think they rather should consider themselves business problem solvers and entrepreneurs.
The IT freelance market pretty much depends on recruiters, who are nothing else but expensive middleman and gatekeepers. At least part of the reason for this is that freelance developers apparently can't be bothered with lowly stuff such as the everyday problems of running a business.
This attitude is a fallacy in my opinion. Not only are business problem solvers paid better than developers but approaching your work from this perspective is also a lot more rewarding in the long run. Using JavaScript framework A or B or Java technology C or D? I couldn't care less. Solving an interesting business problem? That's something entirely different.
Besides, seeing yourself as an entrepreneur instead of a temp worker will allow you to talk more confidently with recruiters and clients alike.
To be introspective, I will admit when I have built product based businesses I have done that. I wonder why my mindset is so different when I am in the consulting space.
Many freelancers are coders and temporary employees.
There are freelancers who have the skills and experience necessary to become members of the consultant class, but there are many freelancers who don't. Just because you can code doesn't mean you're a business problem solver or entrepreneur, or want to be.
If I need to hire somebody to knock out some code for a few months, I'm not going to hire somebody who is pitching himself or herself as a panacea for all of my business problems. Solos should be thoughtful about the personal and professional implications of their positioning. It's one thing to want the financial rewards of consulting, but it's another thing to deal with the day-to-day demands.
Then there are different degrees of business problems: Somebody churning out cheap logos on Fiverr solves a vastly different and vastly smaller problem than someone who say troubleshoots manufacturing processes at a large plant but both are still business problems. That doesn't mean that someone being able to solve them is a panacea nor should he probably market himself as such.
Turns out that tech talent are often viewed as mercenaries and corporate recruiting is dysfunctional. The leverage in this marketplace remains still with the employer. They have deeper pockets.
Consider the agent model you're looking for-- you'll want a sales/biz dev guy who gets your space, has superior business acumen, and authentic industry contacts.
How much are you really willing to pay him to market you? Would you pay 20-33% of your first year salary? Would you pay that amount upon your start date?
The employer, desperate to meet his goals will.
But I think you make a good point about the employer having the leverage. It may be that the market isn't ready for recruiting Agents who work for the technical talent. It may be that the market is only able to handle recruiters who give the perception of working for the companies that need the talent.
Nobody likes paying a middleman fee, especially true in the professional workspace.
Yet even with the global Linkedin platform-- Buyers & Sellers of talent have an impossible time connecting.
That's why.
The current drive-by-recruiter model exists because developers are valuable and companies don't know how to find them on their own.
The entire developer+job problem is a classic information asymmetry issue. If all companies registered their open jobs publicly at a centralized site (then if the same site knew all available developers and their skills) then the site could match available developers to openings [modulo culture fit, relocations, aggressive salary negotiations, etc]. Maybe it could even stabilize salaries so we correct the pay rates. A lot of developers generate in excess of $5 million in value every year yet get paid 1/40th to 1/30th of their productive output.
Basically we need a non-evil version of LinkedIn combined with Angel List combined with Indeed. Jobs would have to be better specified (no 10 years nodejs required!!!) and people would need to be better specified (not 'recommendations' or 'credentialing' — perhaps trust-but-verify). Then tricky issues come into play like: do you let companies who interview you post their subjective "skills scores" back to your profile? Maybe that is allowed, but then as profile owner you can reject bad reviews.
Lots of options and lots of opportunity. Just takes focus and marketing and ambition to drive it home.