ASK HN: Going around a tech recruiter

Too late. That would be unethical. You'd be branded as someone who does unethical things. Not worth it.

No. That's one of the all-time big no-nos in recruitment. You're stuck with the recruiter, even if they hinder the process. Also, dumb as it may seem (most recruiters don't have a clue about technology) many companies have good reasons to use them, and probably don't want you subverting that process.

Good luck with the job anyway :)

Build a positive relationship with the headhunter. If you leave the startup, they can help you find a new job. If you stay and the startup succeeds, they can help you recruit new teammates.

So what is the issue if they are all over you?

A good, effective recruiter can be of HUGE value when you're looking for a job. They can help you better gauge salary range (and likelihood of the company extended the pay scale if you're top-notch but otherwise "unaffordable").

While many companies will post jobs on their website as well, not many hiring managers actually like to screen through resumes.

What you mostly have to determine though is if you're working with a quality head-hunter, or just someone who tries to find random personnel matches for random companies.

Some questions to ask this, or any other recruiter: Are they retained/exclusive for the search on this position? For the company overall or at some level (all development jobs, etc)?

How do you compare to other candidates they have submitted for the position?

What kind of feedback have the other candidates received so far?

Who else have they placed at the current company (I know you said this is a 3-person company)?

Who else at the company have they placed in the past in other positions?

Who do they know on the management team, and what is their relationship with those people?

What can they tell you about the company beyond what is on the "About Us" page?

I once was going through a headhunter -- a rather pushy and 'slick' one -- for a gig at IBM. During the initial phone interview with the hiring manager, it became clear that the position was not as described, and I wasn't a good fit for that piece of the project.

As she described the scenario, it turned out she had a gap in a related position that was much more suited to my skillset. I told her so and she indicated interest.

A few days later, the phone rang, and I picked it up to a torrent of profanity from the headhunter, who was accusing me of 'backdooring' him and swearing up a storm, promising I'd never work in this industry again and calling me all sorts of four-letter things.

I was taken aback, and set him straight on what I had intended, not to mention how I did and didn't expect to be spoken to by a headhunter.

The phonecall wrapped up with him unctuously promising to find me a 'real nice position' somewhere... but judging by the treatment I had gotten from him, I'd have to be retarded to have any further dealings with him.

As a headhunter (my day job), I can tell you that this would be a real shitty thing to do. Unless of course they've been unethical towards you -- for example, like one commenter said here, trumping up the job description.

Also, as another commenter implied -- you are going to get stronger consideration for the job by going through the headhunter than if you apply directly, especially if it's an attractive position that they receive a lot of applicants for. If they're good, they'll get you a better offer, too.

Be nice to recruiters; most of us are trying hard to provide a valuable service.

Stick with the headhunter. The company that engaged them expects to work with them. It seems odd that they'd also post the position on their own jobs page. It's possible they weren't getting any responses, so they added the head hunter.

It's hard hiring tech people, and most small companies aren't very skilled at hiring people.

My company had this difficulty recently...we posted the job on craigslist and on our site but didnt' get what we were looking for.

A headhunter finally contacted me and offered me a great developer. We loved him and hired him. That was 6 months ago and he's still doing great work for us.

The headhunter got a 5-figure fee on the deal...for what? Probably just helping my developer out with his paperwork and then interceding with us on his behalf. He couldn't have spent more than 8 hours working with us and working with our developer.

And yet, I love my new developer and we would not have found him without this headhunter's help.

Moral of the story: Think of headhunters like investment bankers. They make enormous sums of money (sometimes) and seemingly do no real "work", but they can play a very useful role in the functioning of the market (in this case the "talent" market).

I'd stick with your guy.

My advice is contrary to what most people here are saying: avoid both the headhunter firm, and companies that utilize headhunter firms.

To begin, there's a _reason_ they're "all over you." I know and have been there, too, sometimes getting several calls in one day from various agencies. Any phone call that begins with "I'm so and so with such and such IT staffing. I have a client that. . ." is a no-no in my book. Headhunters don't care how much money you make, only how much you can make them.

They tend to like to leech the maximum amounts possible both from you and from the company you are sent to work for "for them." The really pathetic thing is most headhunters/recruiters don't even know what they're talking about tech-wise. Sure, they may have some smooth telephone skills, but that's about it. The most laughable one called me up to ask if I knew what RHEL stood for.

The constant barrage of calls and such from them should tell you: (a) that there are more leeches like them than there are people like you and (b) that your time and talent are potentially valuable to somebody somewhere, but that various obstacles exist in your line of communication.

Maybe I'm just a stickler for efficiencies, but seriously. Putting yourself behind a "brick wall" (IT staffing/headhunter) even if the company you want to work for is indeed on the other side of that brick wall can be really frustrating. It's especially frustrating when you have to re-arrange that brick wall every time, just to get anything done.

One more thing to note: The fact that this "startup" is already utilizing a headhunter firm would worry me if I were you. Usually companies don't tend to need to pawn off hiring duties until they're unable to handle hiring on their own: this can be an early warning sign.

I don't know if I can speak for the group, but I think most of us here on HN value our independence and as someone earlier mentioned "being stuck" anywhere just doesn't factor into the equation.

P.S. I'm sorry, but it's not a "valuable service" when it's something that anybody can easily do on their own. MBA Rule #1: managers should not ask others to do something they can do themselves; this includes searching for, seeking out and talking to potential employees _directly_.

Early in my career I used headhunters to find a job simply because they either had a connection in the company and could circumvent some processing or because they were on "approved vendor" lists (bigger companies).

10+ years later, whenever I need work, I never call a recruiter. My first calls/emails/IMs are to my network. They are infinitely more valuable than any headhunter.

At the last startup I worked at, we used both direct hire and firms. I will tell you that there was a LOT more flexibility when going direct. I mean more pay, bonuses, vacation, etc. A recruiter makes a % of your salary. So if the company can pay up to 100k, and the recruiter will get 10% (usually it's more like 20+%) then how much do you think they will be able to pay you? I bet they won't offer more than 91k. If you'd come direct you'd've had more leverage to get that $9k as a bonus or straight salary.

That said, I think that you might be too late in the process...

Am I the only one who senses a bit of a red flag in a startup using a recruiter to find their 4th employee? I could be wrong; it's impossible to tell based on next to no information. But it does suggest that they might not be plugged in to the right communities, and/or that they're already afflicted with bureaucratic thinking.

Edit: I think I'm probably just being prejudiced here. But I'll leave the comment because I'm curious to know what others think.