All that is wrong with the Recruitment Industry(hackerjobs.co.uk)
hackerjobs.co.uk
All that is wrong with the Recruitment Industry
http://hackerjobs.co.uk/blog/2012/6/15/all-that-is-wrong-with-the-recruitment-industry
67 comments
Ah, S3 group. The recruitment agency that for some reason feels it necessary to trade under more than twenty different brand names. One of the contractor bulletin boards in the UK puts up a list of the current ones every now and again IIRC. Purely as a public service to their readers you understand.
To spare curious readers some time here it is: http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/58258-sthree-group-in...
S3 are looked upon with disdain even by those WITHIN the recruitment industry. They are mind-blowingly terrible.
As a front-end developer who recently just went through the job-hunting process I can say that, for the most part, my biggest complaint on the US side for recruiters is that they have no idea what I do for a living. Never mind the fact that most of the job postings are seemingly written by people who have no idea what the job actually is. I really got tired of explaining that Java is in fact not the cool nickname for JavaScript.
I found my new job through a recruiter. He approached me and I found him to be quite good at his job. He talked with me first to get a feeling for my competency level and then suggested two positions with clients he has worked with before. One of them turned out to be my new job.
I think I talked to around ten recruiters total and only two of them knew what they were doing. The others really, really needed to find a new line of work.
I won't go into details of the oddities of my job hunt because I'm sure many here have similar stories. I just wanted to say there are recruiters out there worth knowing, if you can find them or if they find you.
I found my new job through a recruiter. He approached me and I found him to be quite good at his job. He talked with me first to get a feeling for my competency level and then suggested two positions with clients he has worked with before. One of them turned out to be my new job.
I think I talked to around ten recruiters total and only two of them knew what they were doing. The others really, really needed to find a new line of work.
I won't go into details of the oddities of my job hunt because I'm sure many here have similar stories. I just wanted to say there are recruiters out there worth knowing, if you can find them or if they find you.
"The reality is that passive racism and ageism is still extremely active within the recruitment industry."
I agree this is an issue in the industry, but I believe this point is a serious issue at the companies end rather than the responsibility of the recruiters. Surely the reason it is easier to "sell" white European candidates is that is what the companies want, and the people they end up hiring, this is completely unethical clearly, but recruiters are reacting to this. I am sure if recruiters could submit any C.V. regardless of age and race and still make the money they would.
I agree this is an issue in the industry, but I believe this point is a serious issue at the companies end rather than the responsibility of the recruiters. Surely the reason it is easier to "sell" white European candidates is that is what the companies want, and the people they end up hiring, this is completely unethical clearly, but recruiters are reacting to this. I am sure if recruiters could submit any C.V. regardless of age and race and still make the money they would.
I don't doubt that there are some employers who are as much to blame as recruiters but I firmly believe that in London at least, most tech companies would be as open to a non-UK candidate as they would to a UK national.
The point I was making is that racism and ageism are rampant purely because it's easier to sell UK based experience than it is to sell foreign experience whereas anyone who truly understands the technicalities of what the candidate has achieved in their career would pay no attention to the geographical location of said achievements.
Call it passive racism if you prefer.
The point I was making is that racism and ageism are rampant purely because it's easier to sell UK based experience than it is to sell foreign experience whereas anyone who truly understands the technicalities of what the candidate has achieved in their career would pay no attention to the geographical location of said achievements.
Call it passive racism if you prefer.
In a way yes, the companies should not behave like this. But that doesn't absolve the recruitment companies. They are still breaking the law and behaving immorally. Shame on them.
"had an unofficial yet extremely active rule where if the applicant had more vowels in their surname than consonants, their CV was instantly dismissed"
could somebody tell me who is it discriminating against? it sounds ridiculous, or I'm not getting the reference.
could somebody tell me who is it discriminating against? it sounds ridiculous, or I'm not getting the reference.
The most elegant way to "fix" a market is to change the incentives. There is a contract between employer and recruiter. The employer does not want to be pestered all day about useless candidates. Just subtract some percentage from the recruiters fee for each wasted call.
Let's say the employer gets on average 20 calls until a candidate qualifies and the third of those gets the job. This means 60 wasted calls for 3 candidates. If you subtract 1% per wasted call from the recruiters fee, he should make sure to reduce the number of wasted calls. Of course, the original fee must be a little bit larger than the mentioned £5k-£15k, since some waste is expected. Start with £18k, reduce wasted calls to 20, which results in a £14k fee and more time for the employer.
Let's say the employer gets on average 20 calls until a candidate qualifies and the third of those gets the job. This means 60 wasted calls for 3 candidates. If you subtract 1% per wasted call from the recruiters fee, he should make sure to reduce the number of wasted calls. Of course, the original fee must be a little bit larger than the mentioned £5k-£15k, since some waste is expected. Start with £18k, reduce wasted calls to 20, which results in a £14k fee and more time for the employer.
Interesting concept however it won't work.
The pestering calls are random agencies trying to get your permission to recruit for their roles. Give them permission and they won't pester you unless they legitimately have a good candidate. Usually a recruiter will send a maximum of 5 candidates per vacancy.
The pestering calls are random agencies trying to get your permission to recruit for their roles. Give them permission and they won't pester you unless they legitimately have a good candidate. Usually a recruiter will send a maximum of 5 candidates per vacancy.
You say that, but we've sent back plenty of candidate cvs with a firm "no" the moment they arrive from a recruiter.
Would be interesting to have financial repercussions for low quality cvs coming through.
Would be interesting to have financial repercussions for low quality cvs coming through.
Do you still use the recruiters? Why give them financial INCENTIVES for mixing good with bad CV's?
Isn't the financial repercussion not hiring their candidate and credibility for the future?
The rewards are all wrong in this market.
(1) Most companies are bad at recruitment. It's just very far from whatever their core business is.
(2) Since the value of a better employee is huge companies are willing to pay for it. In most markets, when people are willing to pay for quality, firms are able to take that money and turn it into a higher quality product. If a market appears for $100k cars, car makers will spend that money making Ferraris. The value of that may be questionable given that 10k can do most of the stuff you'd be doing with the Ferrari but that's besides the point. The point is that the manufacturer found some way of spending your money on the product.
The problem with recruiting is that they have no way of spending your money in any decent way. They can spend to get volume up, to a degree, but there isn't really of reliably spending your way into getting better candidates. Instead of doing something useful (to the employer or candidate), everything goes into a zero sum game of fighting each-other for openings and candidates.
(1) Most companies are bad at recruitment. It's just very far from whatever their core business is.
(2) Since the value of a better employee is huge companies are willing to pay for it. In most markets, when people are willing to pay for quality, firms are able to take that money and turn it into a higher quality product. If a market appears for $100k cars, car makers will spend that money making Ferraris. The value of that may be questionable given that 10k can do most of the stuff you'd be doing with the Ferrari but that's besides the point. The point is that the manufacturer found some way of spending your money on the product.
The problem with recruiting is that they have no way of spending your money in any decent way. They can spend to get volume up, to a degree, but there isn't really of reliably spending your way into getting better candidates. Instead of doing something useful (to the employer or candidate), everything goes into a zero sum game of fighting each-other for openings and candidates.
Another issue is that open jobs become protected secrets to the extent that it becomes hard to find positions without a recruiter. It's some type of strange cyclic dependency where companies turn to recruiters because the employees have given up looking for openings on their own--which leads to job opening info residing only with recruiters (and, yes, an about us -> jobs page buried on the corporate web site), which in turn fuels the employees turning to recruiters.
I feel the glut of job boards hurts this as well. Everyone is so eager to start a site to get their own $20 job posting fee that employees are overwhelmed over where to spend their money. Postings are broadly scattered across dozens of sites, and as a result job postings get worse results than recruiters. So, companies turn to recruiters, which helps start the whole cycle up.
Then there's a different form of blacklisting--if you get hired via a recruitment agency, sometimes you can't get access to their exclusive jobs if you go looking again, for fear that the hiring company will fire them. Of course the agency will choose a portfolio of jobs over one hiring fee if the land the right company.
I was shocked to find out that in other industries, the workers pay the recruiters to find them a job.
I feel the glut of job boards hurts this as well. Everyone is so eager to start a site to get their own $20 job posting fee that employees are overwhelmed over where to spend their money. Postings are broadly scattered across dozens of sites, and as a result job postings get worse results than recruiters. So, companies turn to recruiters, which helps start the whole cycle up.
Then there's a different form of blacklisting--if you get hired via a recruitment agency, sometimes you can't get access to their exclusive jobs if you go looking again, for fear that the hiring company will fire them. Of course the agency will choose a portfolio of jobs over one hiring fee if the land the right company.
I was shocked to find out that in other industries, the workers pay the recruiters to find them a job.
I agree - having recently been through tech recruitment processes its pretty painful - at the end of the day recruiters are just sales people, their single goal is to sell you and the roles, regardless of what your goals or skills are.
As a result, with a few friends I have been working as part of a team working on a product to try and disrupt the recruitment industry (was actually going to do a Show HN, as we have just launched two days ago!) - Its a online resume building site, that lets developers plug in to GitHub, stackoverflow, etc, to demonstrate their projects and experiences.
As well as this though, we are working on the companies section, where companies can register and effectively create their resumes pitching to developers why they should work for them (developer hardware setup, training agenda, oss contribs etc) - so making more incentives for companies to register themselves (and less so for agencies), and hopefully reduce that burden of recruiting on companies as they can easily see github contributions, stack answers etc and get a better indication of potential candidates skills.
Feel free to check out the site (in beta) http://nerdability.com
As a result, with a few friends I have been working as part of a team working on a product to try and disrupt the recruitment industry (was actually going to do a Show HN, as we have just launched two days ago!) - Its a online resume building site, that lets developers plug in to GitHub, stackoverflow, etc, to demonstrate their projects and experiences.
As well as this though, we are working on the companies section, where companies can register and effectively create their resumes pitching to developers why they should work for them (developer hardware setup, training agenda, oss contribs etc) - so making more incentives for companies to register themselves (and less so for agencies), and hopefully reduce that burden of recruiting on companies as they can easily see github contributions, stack answers etc and get a better indication of potential candidates skills.
Feel free to check out the site (in beta) http://nerdability.com
This is what I'm talking about.
Bit of advice, stick up some form of an 'about us' as it's not immediately evident what you are trying to achieve with the site. Had I not read your comment first I would have been a bit confused.
Bit of advice, stick up some form of an 'about us' as it's not immediately evident what you are trying to achieve with the site. Had I not read your comment first I would have been a bit confused.
Thanks, thats good advice - we did have an about blurb in one of the early design iterations, but we obviously decided to drop it - will add some details back in.
Thanks for checking out the site.
Thanks for checking out the site.
> Its a online resume building site, that lets developers plug in to GitHub, stackoverflow, etc, to demonstrate their projects and experiences
sth like https://masterbranch.com/ ? except the latter lets you connect other repos than github.
sth like https://masterbranch.com/ ? except the latter lets you connect other repos than github.
yep, it would certainly appear so..
Just as we were finishing build I also got a private invite to the StackOverflow beta career profile site (now publicly open i believe) which is the same thing but more mature (connects Stack score and a tonne of code repos etc)
So it seems we are not first to the party, but at least we can try and enjoy building a (hopefully) nice product!!
Hopefully a differentiating factor might be that we are planning on focusing more on the company profile/job stuff and generally the whole end-to-end recruitment experience, but lets see..
Thanks for letting me know about masterbranch though, seems like a really nice site.
Just as we were finishing build I also got a private invite to the StackOverflow beta career profile site (now publicly open i believe) which is the same thing but more mature (connects Stack score and a tonne of code repos etc)
So it seems we are not first to the party, but at least we can try and enjoy building a (hopefully) nice product!!
Hopefully a differentiating factor might be that we are planning on focusing more on the company profile/job stuff and generally the whole end-to-end recruitment experience, but lets see..
Thanks for letting me know about masterbranch though, seems like a really nice site.
also, we are developing further integration with other repos and third parties, but as we are only second day live it will be incremental..!
"I've come across many employers complaining that recruiters have actually copied their job postings word for word despite not engaging said recruiters to represent them."
I have been hit by this, and I believe I may have lost one or two opportunities because of this. My first hint of this practice was during a phone interview when the hiring manager said something to the effect of, "your recruiter will get in contact with you". Not "our recruiter", not $NAME. I got the distinct impression that I had been put in front of this company unsolicited.
From then on I started Googling for reqs that recruiters sent me that I was interested in. I soon discovered a pattern of recruiters copying open reqs, sticking a contract period on them [0], and posting them on job boards. I have seen multiple recruiters do this for the same position, sometimes with the actual company posting the same position on the same boards. A few even manage to leave the company's name in the posting. This more than anything drove me away from job boards, except SO Careers and the HN threads).
[0] These are all full-time regular positions.
I have been hit by this, and I believe I may have lost one or two opportunities because of this. My first hint of this practice was during a phone interview when the hiring manager said something to the effect of, "your recruiter will get in contact with you". Not "our recruiter", not $NAME. I got the distinct impression that I had been put in front of this company unsolicited.
From then on I started Googling for reqs that recruiters sent me that I was interested in. I soon discovered a pattern of recruiters copying open reqs, sticking a contract period on them [0], and posting them on job boards. I have seen multiple recruiters do this for the same position, sometimes with the actual company posting the same position on the same boards. A few even manage to leave the company's name in the posting. This more than anything drove me away from job boards, except SO Careers and the HN threads).
[0] These are all full-time regular positions.
My Key Recruiter Indicators, based on my experiences in the US:
Good: Working with a founder of a company that's more than a few years old.
Bad: Talking to someone different each time a company contacts you.
Toxic: Talking to someone new each time, and them making you go through the same "getting to know you" interview questions each time.
Good: The recruiter sends you job opportunities that match what you've told them to look for, and what they send you gets progressively better with more feedback.
Bad: Repeatedly send you jobs that don't match your skills or interests.
Toxic: Send you jobs that don't even match your location requirements.
Good: Gives you "behind the scenes" details about postings - what skills are really required and what they're willing to train, what the work environment is like, etc.
Bad: Only knows what's on the job listing, and, if you match the requirements, will tell you whatever you need to hear to get you to agree to the interview.
Toxic: Won't even tell you the name of the company they're submitting you to.
Good: Talking openly with you about their "cut", or at least open to ideas for increasing your take-home pay. (US contracting example: how much will they increase your rate if you switch from W-2 to 1099?)
Bad: Asking you for your rate/salary range to begin with, and using your bottom-of-range number as the starting point to negotiate you down from.
Toxic: Negotiating you down on your rate repeatedly, practically at every step of the recruiting process.
What really sucks about working with recruiters is, an average-to-bad recruiter can still get you a good job. Since it's a numbers game for everyone involved, there's at least some incentive to put up with assholes, as long as there's a chance that they will find you something good.
Good: Working with a founder of a company that's more than a few years old.
Bad: Talking to someone different each time a company contacts you.
Toxic: Talking to someone new each time, and them making you go through the same "getting to know you" interview questions each time.
Good: The recruiter sends you job opportunities that match what you've told them to look for, and what they send you gets progressively better with more feedback.
Bad: Repeatedly send you jobs that don't match your skills or interests.
Toxic: Send you jobs that don't even match your location requirements.
Good: Gives you "behind the scenes" details about postings - what skills are really required and what they're willing to train, what the work environment is like, etc.
Bad: Only knows what's on the job listing, and, if you match the requirements, will tell you whatever you need to hear to get you to agree to the interview.
Toxic: Won't even tell you the name of the company they're submitting you to.
Good: Talking openly with you about their "cut", or at least open to ideas for increasing your take-home pay. (US contracting example: how much will they increase your rate if you switch from W-2 to 1099?)
Bad: Asking you for your rate/salary range to begin with, and using your bottom-of-range number as the starting point to negotiate you down from.
Toxic: Negotiating you down on your rate repeatedly, practically at every step of the recruiting process.
What really sucks about working with recruiters is, an average-to-bad recruiter can still get you a good job. Since it's a numbers game for everyone involved, there's at least some incentive to put up with assholes, as long as there's a chance that they will find you something good.
Recruitment agents work particularly well for contract developers, the ethics notwithstanding. Permanent is a whole different ball game that I'm not going to touch on.
TLDR: The model isn't broken, it could use some optimization.
Everyone likes to bash a recruiter. And, some guy who takes 80 quid a day out of your pocket for months should be an object of derision, no?
Look at the flip side: agents act as stimulus for the market, pushing through deals quickly and raising the ceiling on rates.
Sales is dirty and hard work (I've done it). Agents need to be like bulldogs as roles go fast, within days or hours. Without an agent in the mix contracts take longer to get signed.
They are far from the best judges of quality candidates. The closest they get is keyword matching and telephone screening if you're able to string a sentence together. But often this is a good 'low bar'.
Agent fees are expensive. As a contractor it's never good to find out what the client is actually paying for you vs. what you get. That said, the rates here in London are good compared to what I found in Vancouver and elsewhere in the UK. The difference I observed was the aggressive and competitive agencies here, where if they can squeeze more money out of a client they'll pocket a good chunk of it.
London's well-established and healthy contracting market is due in part to the agencies that have grown up around the candidates and companies here.
TLDR: The model isn't broken, it could use some optimization.
Everyone likes to bash a recruiter. And, some guy who takes 80 quid a day out of your pocket for months should be an object of derision, no?
Look at the flip side: agents act as stimulus for the market, pushing through deals quickly and raising the ceiling on rates.
Sales is dirty and hard work (I've done it). Agents need to be like bulldogs as roles go fast, within days or hours. Without an agent in the mix contracts take longer to get signed.
They are far from the best judges of quality candidates. The closest they get is keyword matching and telephone screening if you're able to string a sentence together. But often this is a good 'low bar'.
Agent fees are expensive. As a contractor it's never good to find out what the client is actually paying for you vs. what you get. That said, the rates here in London are good compared to what I found in Vancouver and elsewhere in the UK. The difference I observed was the aggressive and competitive agencies here, where if they can squeeze more money out of a client they'll pocket a good chunk of it.
London's well-established and healthy contracting market is due in part to the agencies that have grown up around the candidates and companies here.
Everyone likes to bash a recruiter. And, some guy who takes 80 quid a day out of your pocket for months should be an object of derision, no?
People don't hate recruiters because they take money, but because they are rubbish at their job.
People don't hate recruiters because they take money, but because they are rubbish at their job.
Their job is to place a candidate with a client. They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago.
The gripe I hear from colleagues is X, Y, Z always ending in 'and they take £££ from me a day!'
My post notes the problems with the model, but it isn't broken.
The gripe I hear from colleagues is X, Y, Z always ending in 'and they take £££ from me a day!'
My post notes the problems with the model, but it isn't broken.
They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago.
That is only a true conclusion if the hiring market is a Perfect Market.
That is only a true conclusion if the hiring market is a Perfect Market.
"They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago."
Not necessarily. They have not died out only because of lazy employers. Employers do not mind paying extra cash since they are too busy to even take an extra 10 mins out to quickly screen candidates. Having said that, I have come across some good recruiters who actually know the employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks. But that is like a needle in a haystack.
Not necessarily. They have not died out only because of lazy employers. Employers do not mind paying extra cash since they are too busy to even take an extra 10 mins out to quickly screen candidates. Having said that, I have come across some good recruiters who actually know the employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks. But that is like a needle in a haystack.
Exactly. There will always be lazy employers, and agents are good at giving them a kick up the ass to make sure the process gets completed in as little time as possible. (Self interest of course, as this corresponds to when they'll get their commission)
Good at recruiting is not equal to "know their employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks". Good is getting a candidate placed as smoothly and swiftly as possible.
"taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates". Better become a better negotiator then. If you know your market value, this is what the client is willing to pay for you. They don't even factor in the agent fee as they are paying £xxx for a developer.
Good at recruiting is not equal to "know their employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks". Good is getting a candidate placed as smoothly and swiftly as possible.
"taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates". Better become a better negotiator then. If you know your market value, this is what the client is willing to pay for you. They don't even factor in the agent fee as they are paying £xxx for a developer.
"'and they take £££ from me a day"
People do not gripe about recruiters taking money. People gripe about recruiter taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates. If you are a good developer and have a decent idea of your market value, then it hurts to find out that you had to take a cut just because the recruiter wanted to keep extra even though the employer paid market value.
Isn't it like the recruiters are just bloody businessmen? They will snatch your (contractors) portion too if they can, and they can. So they suck money from both parties.
It's a shame really that the employer and contractor don't negotiate directly.
It's a shame really that the employer and contractor don't negotiate directly.
Agreed, if the client is wise then they'll have a fixed fee or fixed percentage agreement in place. Most agents will accept this. The contractor and client negotiating the day rate directly is the best way to make sure the agent doesn't exploit the contractor.
Yep! Dead on target. A very impressive article. But, Cheese and Peas, Steve, the recruitment mafia has probably put a contract out on you - so cool.
The only thing you didn’t say directly though clearly indicate throughout is that no one (employers nor recruiters) cares about the candidates or their careers. Great article - it’s about time someone said it out loud. Congratulations on your website and business, it looks great and certainly has the right idea.
The only thing you didn’t say directly though clearly indicate throughout is that no one (employers nor recruiters) cares about the candidates or their careers. Great article - it’s about time someone said it out loud. Congratulations on your website and business, it looks great and certainly has the right idea.
Thanks for the awesome words.
I've been thinking of a new recruitment model: guaranteed employment. Suppose a recruiting agency guaranteed their recruits, as in, "We'll pay their salary for the [six months | year | whatever]. If they are acceptable, at the end of that period, you pay us back double. If they don't work out, let us know ASAP and we'll eat the cost."
The incentives are all right here. The employers essentially get a year long job interview. Qualified candidates are basically guaranteed a job. And the recruiters are rewarded for successfully meeting their clients' needs, and punished if they get it wrong. The current situation rewards harassment and puffing up their candidates' resumes.
The incentives are all right here. The employers essentially get a year long job interview. Qualified candidates are basically guaranteed a job. And the recruiters are rewarded for successfully meeting their clients' needs, and punished if they get it wrong. The current situation rewards harassment and puffing up their candidates' resumes.
You could get many of the same beneficial incentives (and few of the really negative ones that your model creates) just by splitting the recruitment fee into two parts: 50% upon candidate placement, 50% once they pass a 3-month milestone.
As long as we're talking incentives, your plan gives a huge incentive to fire someone just before the end of their first year of employment. At the end of the year you're faced with paying a recruiter 2 years of salary, but if you fire them you just got a year of work for free.
That's just a technicality. :P
But seriously, I think this sort of service would be aimed at employers looking for long term professional employees, not some temporary code jockey. In that case, dismissing a proven employee in order to save a years' salary would be counterproductive.
However, your criticism is valid, and measures would have to be taken to keep employers like that at bay.
But seriously, I think this sort of service would be aimed at employers looking for long term professional employees, not some temporary code jockey. In that case, dismissing a proven employee in order to save a years' salary would be counterproductive.
However, your criticism is valid, and measures would have to be taken to keep employers like that at bay.
Once I had more than about 4-5 years of experience, I never saw the need for working with a recruiter. I tried a few and they always sent me to those kind of shops where you can just smell in the air that everyone hates their jobs and the devs are just code monkeys churning out whatever garbage some product guy pitched. If I want a job at a company, I apply. There's enough demand (and I'm confident enough in my skill set) that I don't see how a recruiter could help me.
Frankly in my mind, if I hear about a company through a recruiter, I figure it must suck to work there, or else they'd be able to find people on their own.
Frankly in my mind, if I hear about a company through a recruiter, I figure it must suck to work there, or else they'd be able to find people on their own.
Once I had more than about 4-5 years of experience.
How did you get a job before you had the experience and the skillset?
I think recruiters are not that effective (at least in programming), but it seems like a 'safe' and 'obvious' investment for someone with money and no idea of how engineers think and work.
How did you get a job before you had the experience and the skillset?
I think recruiters are not that effective (at least in programming), but it seems like a 'safe' and 'obvious' investment for someone with money and no idea of how engineers think and work.
Even before then I found jobs on my own, but I was willing to give recruiters a shot. Never had one send me to a job I was remotely interested in.
> Job boards are not doing anything even remotely innovative enough to disrupt the recruitment industry and the primary reason for that is purely because no-one wants to upset their cash cow. Except us that is. We don't pander to the recruitment industry. Quite the opposite in fact. We've sent a number of warning shots into the air to make them aware that we intend on impacting the need for reliance on their industry. It's very early days but in my view at least, the demise of the industry is only just beginning.
What are you doing different? Would be interested to read about it.
What are you doing different? Would be interested to read about it.
It may be exaggerating if I claim that http://jobs.usethesource.com/ is "doing something even remotely innovative enough to disrupt the recruitment industry" but it does have some pretty simple rules:
1. To post a job you have to have high Hacker News karma
2. You can't be a recruiter
1. To post a job you have to have high Hacker News karma
2. You can't be a recruiter
I personally love this site but the biggest barrier to entry is that you're preventing a massive amount of the market from advertising. Our goal is to raise the standard across the board.
Those rules work to a degree, but I posted two jobs on Hacker Jobs and then spent the next two weeks telling recruiters to get bent, as they apparently didn't waste time in finding the site and mining it.
Good question.
We are still pretty much at MVP stage but you can hopefully get a hint in our intro blog:http://hackerjobs.co.uk/blog/2012/3/25/when-jonny-met-stevie
Long story short, all job boards with a tiny number exceptions are catering primarily to the recruitment industry. Our priority is currently, and will always remain with the direct employer and the job seeker.
As the site grows we will be adding features that don't currently exist on any job board we know of with the intention being to elevate HJ to the point where people can use it as a more effective alternative to recruitment companies.
Once we have a more clearly defined timeframe for our future iterations, I'll create a blog post highlighting more details on how we plan to achieve the above.
We are still pretty much at MVP stage but you can hopefully get a hint in our intro blog:http://hackerjobs.co.uk/blog/2012/3/25/when-jonny-met-stevie
Long story short, all job boards with a tiny number exceptions are catering primarily to the recruitment industry. Our priority is currently, and will always remain with the direct employer and the job seeker.
As the site grows we will be adding features that don't currently exist on any job board we know of with the intention being to elevate HJ to the point where people can use it as a more effective alternative to recruitment companies.
Once we have a more clearly defined timeframe for our future iterations, I'll create a blog post highlighting more details on how we plan to achieve the above.
But why launch even an MVP that is essentially no different to the vast majority of other portals (HN, stackoverflow careers, gumtree) etc? Would it not be more useful to launch with at least some of the innovative features you've hinted at? What value are you adding to direct employers or job seekers?
But why launch even an MVP that is essentially no different...
In the short few months we've been up, we've had confirmation from a large number of companies having successfully filled vacancies via our site. That alone is justification to get it up and live. Also it's the best way of testing what works and what doesn't and more importantly, getting feedback on what users like and what they don't.
Would it not be more useful to launch with at least some of the innovative features you've hinted at?
If they were complete, they'd be live! The process we follow is to launch an MVP and iterate often. As we get a feature to a usable level, we'll update.
What value are you adding to direct employers or job seekers?
At the moment there are few publicly known job sites in the UK that contain zero recruiter vacancies. As a minimum, we provide that alternative right now with the promise of a lot more to come.
In the short few months we've been up, we've had confirmation from a large number of companies having successfully filled vacancies via our site. That alone is justification to get it up and live. Also it's the best way of testing what works and what doesn't and more importantly, getting feedback on what users like and what they don't.
Would it not be more useful to launch with at least some of the innovative features you've hinted at?
If they were complete, they'd be live! The process we follow is to launch an MVP and iterate often. As we get a feature to a usable level, we'll update.
What value are you adding to direct employers or job seekers?
At the moment there are few publicly known job sites in the UK that contain zero recruiter vacancies. As a minimum, we provide that alternative right now with the promise of a lot more to come.
I'm hoping that http://jobstractor.com is doing it's bit to disrupt things. I actively try to filter out jobs from recruiters (some improvements to that coming next week actually) and focus on the more word-of-mouth jobs you perhaps wouldn't always find unless you had the right contacts.
I think the things recruiters have in their favour is a big network of job seekers and employers. The lower barrier to publishing a job brought about by social media can I think help disrupt that model. There's a way to go though and I think recruiters will always play some part even if that role changes.
I think the things recruiters have in their favour is a big network of job seekers and employers. The lower barrier to publishing a job brought about by social media can I think help disrupt that model. There's a way to go though and I think recruiters will always play some part even if that role changes.
Well, since this came up I thought I'd share what I'm doing: http://www.teamcruiting.com. Would love feedback.
I am a technology recruiter and I have to say that I can't disagree with 90% of the post. Unfortunately agencies have been started by people with little class on only desire money. I have always known that I will leave the business and I care more about my reputation than anything else. Like an infection, I am trying to espouse my style and philosophy, one built on trust, understanding of technology and LOBs and transparency. I don't want to chase I want to become a hub that people seek.
I was in your shoes benkross.
There are a few decent recruiters out there mate. Keep your head up and keep your dignity at all costs.
There are a few decent recruiters out there mate. Keep your head up and keep your dignity at all costs.
The easiest way to kill this is to use stackoverflow jobs or emptylemon or something like that.
The moment you involve humans in the process, you're going to get asshat middlemen. Other equally bad forms of asshat middlemen: car sales, estate agents and letting agents and buyers - they are all the same.
The whole point of computing is to automate, solve problems and get rid of middlemen but we seem to have failed to solve our own problems.
The only positive with recruitment agents (at least in the UK), is that you can treat them like shit and they always come crawling back.
The moment you involve humans in the process, you're going to get asshat middlemen. Other equally bad forms of asshat middlemen: car sales, estate agents and letting agents and buyers - they are all the same.
The whole point of computing is to automate, solve problems and get rid of middlemen but we seem to have failed to solve our own problems.
The only positive with recruitment agents (at least in the UK), is that you can treat them like shit and they always come crawling back.
I've found the jobs section on Stackoverflow to either be
(a) company looky-loos doing a market survey to see who's available with what skillsets for a cheaper price (the buzzword for this is topgrading), or
(b) a company with an actual opening but you've got to dig so much to find really what the job & compay environment is that interest is lost in the process
(a) company looky-loos doing a market survey to see who's available with what skillsets for a cheaper price (the buzzword for this is topgrading), or
(b) a company with an actual opening but you've got to dig so much to find really what the job & compay environment is that interest is lost in the process
(we're working on the same problem, so thanks for bringing this up).I think it is a real and HUGE problem.
There are various startups who are trying to attack it from different angles. E.g. checkout Path.to, geekli.st, branchout.
We think the solution is make matching process more efficient, with software. Instead of people recruiters trying to make a match through "numbers game" we match with algorithm and user feedback to make it better.
Check it out at monday52.com and let me know what d'you think.
There are various startups who are trying to attack it from different angles. E.g. checkout Path.to, geekli.st, branchout.
We think the solution is make matching process more efficient, with software. Instead of people recruiters trying to make a match through "numbers game" we match with algorithm and user feedback to make it better.
Check it out at monday52.com and let me know what d'you think.
Discrimination is far too common. I'm deaf. As soon as they ask me for my number to call me and I tell them to use email instead... I never ever hear from them again. It's very rare for one to respond to emails unless it's a new "client".
Personally I've found recruiters people who would excel at being used car salesmen or attorneys, except for the morals part - they're lower.
Here in DC they'll get $20-30K per person they refer that gets hired. Meanwhile the worker-bee is left trying to get $60-$65K as a developer because the company overpays the recruiter. So you try to change companys hoping for a $2.50/hr raise, only to meet up with a recruiter who'll get $30K off you if you do.
F*ck them and everything about them.
What's wrong with the recruitment industry - recruiters.
Here in DC they'll get $20-30K per person they refer that gets hired. Meanwhile the worker-bee is left trying to get $60-$65K as a developer because the company overpays the recruiter. So you try to change companys hoping for a $2.50/hr raise, only to meet up with a recruiter who'll get $30K off you if you do.
F*ck them and everything about them.
What's wrong with the recruitment industry - recruiters.
[deleted]
Great post, but I'm not sure how a jobs board solves this problem.. where is the innovation? We're going to shaking up the creative recruiting industry here in Australia with Dragonfly. Our beta goes live next week, keen for feedback. http://dragonflylist.com
Nice hijack attempt. Have a read of our blog to understand the vision. Good luck with your company.
Protip: Disparaging companies attempting to solve the same problem as you is a dick move.
Protip: Disparaging companies attempting to solve the same problem as you is a dick move.
You're right that did come of a bit dickish, my apologies. But I was genuinely wondering what you were going to do to innovate. Your original blog post is pretty vague on where it is going. We're also looking to disrupt the recruitment industry here in Australia because it is similarly broken.
[1] - http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/2401/tech-recruiter...
[2] - http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/2403/tech-recruiter...
[3] - http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/2404/the-10-sleazie...