HN Explorer

Notes from a job hunter

9 points by itgoon ↗ HN
I've been doing contracting for about ten years now, and here's what I've been seeing. This isn't about the good recruiters, or the bad recruiters. It's about the normal, everyday recruiters.

- Recruiters aren't looking for the best match, or even a good match. They are looking for the easiest match.

- Recruiters try to be negotiators, but have little authority to negotiate.

- What authority recruiters have is limited to their company. The hiring company doesn't save money, the worker doesn't make more money, it just goes to the middleman.

I don't even mean this against any individual recruiter. For the most part, they just seem to be doing the job the way they were taught to do it. I also get that the companies are just reacting to what employers say they want.

There's just too many conflicts of interest. These days, my initial contact with my "employer" is adversarial. I treat them just as I would a used car salesman. Is that a good way to start a relationship?

9 comments

[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 30.7 ms ] thread
lscore720
For the most part, you are absolutely right and it's a shame - a damn shame! It's the system, and while broken in many ways, is essentially all there is right now. With that being said, recruiter-employer relationships are not all the same; fortunately, the rare very good recruiter is capable of navigating some of these problems faced by average recruiters, minimizing the negatives.
JSeymourATL
Contractor often connotes low status like a tradesmen in construction work. Business development (sales) is a learned and practiced skill. Can you teach yourself how to pitch your skills and expertise to a potential client like a consultant? It will raise your status.

I've found the bigger the company, the dumber they are and more insular the culture. Smaller and mid-size companies may be more receptive to you.

itgoon
I'm not discussing maximization, nor am I trying portray myself as anything other than what I am: just some guy with good skills looking for work.

I'm pretty much a tradesman, much like thousands of others out there.

I see so much discussion about getting the best, being the best, etc. What about that huge middle which is so poorly served by the status quo?

JSeymourATL
> What about that huge middle which is so poorly served by the status quo?

Change the system or change your approach is the proposition. Even an Average Joe (myself included) can figure a work around. I try to limit low-level recruiter discussions. Prefer upfront conversations with the hiring execs.

itgoon
My approach is fine. I'm not having trouble finding work. Your approach sounds fine, too.

That doesn't help the huge middle who only seek work every few years. Nor does it help those employers who are just trying to find someone who's good at their job.

I'm trying to change (oh so slightly) the system. Plenty of employers and hiring managers read HN.

In the best of systems, there eventually has to be some trust between the principles. The current system begins by establishing _distrust_ from the outset.

I'd think there would be plenty of people who would be interested in doing something about that.

Or maybe everyone is happy with the status quo except me.

JSeymourATL
> I'm trying to change (oh so slightly) the system.

Right On... Every now and then, you hear of startups promising platforms that will be the Match DotCom for recruiting. I've yet to actually see one. The deciding human element in hiring is difficult at best.

lscore720
You really do raise an interesting question, and no, you're not the only one frustrated with the recruiting status quo! And whether you're the best of the best, or just somewhere in the top 90%, there's probably an employer out there and an appropriate recruiter to match you isn't asking too much. It's the incentives inherent to the recruiting profession. To drastically improve it would require a massive overhaul and is improbable (like drastically improving literally any sales profession).

In the meantime, it's the little things that count and can eventually cause positive change. A couple quick examples come to mind:

1. Recruiting start-ups/show HN ideas: a few successful ones are adding efficiencies, which is indirectly great for people like you. Because the successful recruiter/hiring manager/etc. can devote that extra time to making their little changes towards improving the system. Still, it's not hitting the real pain point.

2. HN posters like you, who remind hiring professionals, that there's yet another frustrated customer - you sound like a reasonable, capable person that a recruiter would be fortunate to work with; this especially lights a fire under people's asses, so thank you!

My theory is that it'll require a serious effort by industry experts with zero expectation of financial return. It's going to have to be about the purpose, not the money, for the very (very) long-term. I shudder imagining the hardcore YC community response to this "non-profit"-esque prospect, but I don't know how else to solve it :-/

kohanz
What percentage of people actually use recruiters? I'm genuinely curious. I imagine it varies greatly by geographic location. Personally, although I have interacted with recruiters, I never found work through them nor did I ever feel the need to rely on them. I was able to find the jobs I wanted through a personal network or by simply applying to postings. So while I do feel the recruiters are a pain to deal with, isn't the alternative simply to do the work yourself? I see recruiters as a convenience service - like a mortgage or insurance broker.
contechual
The only way for recruiters to become viable solutions as "middlemen/middlewomen" are to learn about the technical aspects of the roles they are marketing.

So often, a good majority of them do not understand what's an ideal candidate profile vs. what's a potential candidate profile look like.

This all stems from experience and in my experience, many are lacking in that department at the moment.