I for one will not miss the blatant pandering you espoused here, but wish you luck nonetheless. Hopefully your future contribution 'justifies' your remuneration in your next assignment.
Having been watching your interactions on here evolve, I read your comments as a heartfelt thank you rather than as pandering. Apply the usual principle that those who disagree are significantly more likely to post than those that agree and draw your own conclusions.
Agree with not offering the first number. Also tell them, 'money is important, but more important is the opportunity and the people I'd be working with.' If this fails and they offer you a low number, tell them, 'I'll have to think about any offer less that X, however, I'll accept right now if you can somehow offer X.'
Is the question how much is earned per placement or per year? Each is very dependent on the individual and firm.
In the US recruiters charge 15-30% of base and/or total comp...depends how good you are and your relationship with your client. Good US recruiters bill 300K+, great recruiters bill 500K+, and avg recruiters will bill 100-200K. How much you keep as an individual depends on the deal you have with your firm or if you are self employed.
The second part of the question ~ does being a developer make a person a better recruiter? My initial answer would be 'no'. In fact, I would argue that being a developer could hinder being a successful recruiter.
Understanding what your client is looking for is absolutely key to being successful. However, the skills that make you a good devlpr are almost polar opposite the skills that make someone a good recruiter. Being a recruiter takes a strong sales aptitude.
The other problem that comes to mind is a condition we, in the US, call 'experting'. It happens when you're candidate has 60-90% of what the client is looking for, but because you're too focused on delivering perfection, and because you know what perfection is, you neglect to send this place-able candidate in for an interview. Sometimes it's better to not know what you don't know.
However, the skills that make you a good devlpr are almost polar opposite the skills that make someone a good recruiter. Being a recruiter takes a strong sales aptitude.
The sales aptitude gets your foot in the door, a thorough understanding of your clients business and needs keeps you there. Your argument is one of a sales orientated recruiter grasping at straws.
A significant pay packet and a 1st class client list negates your argument that a technical understanding is a hindrance.
The same reason companies hiring developers get mostly bad developers applying. The bad developers are on the market the longest and apply to the most jobs.
The same applies with bad recruiters, they're desperate and will try and hit as many people as possible to work the numbers game. Hence you're much more likely to get called by a bad recruiter than a good one.
I've yet to hear anyone make that claim. The issue is that most of the calls are from bad recruiters, not all. The reason for that is because most recruiters are terrible, not all.
That's an interesting (and uncomfortable) idea, but a deeper problem is how to tell the "good" and "bad" recruiters apart. This is the same problem of telling "good" and "bad" candidates apart, and the irony is not lost on me.
What is your constructive advice about how a "good" developer should get your attention, while simultaneously discouraging contact from bad ones?
I suspect that the answer is something like "be an experienced executive", which is obviously not an option for most people in the early part of their careers.
Good question and difficult to answer...truthfully I hadn't ever given it much thought until this article.
But first, I can tell good candidates from bad by what they've accomplished, who they've accomplished it for, what they say, and what people say about them.
I'm a good recruiter not because I never talk to the wrong candidate, I'm a good recruiter because I know the difference between the right and wrong candidate.
So yes you are still going to have to talk to bad recruiters. However, the best way to attract great recruiters is to be great at what you do!
'there are plenty of good recruiters out their however there are infinitely more bad recruiters...' I know there are plenty of others out there just as fed up with the self-inflicted negative attitude towards the industry, the difference is I am making my opinion heard.'
Perhaps you should provide equal time and write about good recruiters and the value they bring to candidates and companies alike. Maybe "All that's right with the recruitment industry"
Perhaps you should provide equal time and write about good recruiters...
No is the short answer. The purpose of the blog is to expose the flaws in the industry and motivate people to start making changes. The mere existence of the industry is testament to the fact that it's a necessary service and it wouldn't succeed if some people weren't doing a good job. A multi-billion pound industry doesn't need any more champions.
I love the relevance of the username! I'm not aware of any particular recruitment forums, mainly because I avoid them like the plague however the general consensus is that a lot of coders, particularly the more experienced ones are arrogant and self-centred. Most recruiters don't realise that the attitude they face is primarily based on the fact that coders don't like dealing with recruiters.
Thanks, I've been an executive recruiter for 15 years and only read HN because of the thought leaders who write here. I recruit and work with high level execs who actually understand and respect the value of a good recruiter. Your posts are interest generating because they showcase the low underbelly of the industry and not the well respected recruiter. Still thanks for writing.
I recruit and work with high level execs who actually understand and respect the value of a good recruiter.
The difference between executive search & volume recruitment is chalk & cheese. The two are mutually exclusive.
Your posts are interest generating because they showcase the low underbelly of the industry and not the well respected recruiter.
As I stated categorically in all my posts, there are plenty of good recruiters out their however there are infinitely more bad recruiters that drown them out. I'm not claiming to be a lone ranger in a rogue industry, I know there are plenty of others out there just as fed up with the self-inflicted negative attitude towards the industry, the difference is I am making my opinion heard.
Perhaps you should provide equal time and write about good recruiters and the value they bring to candidates and companies alike. Maybe "All that's right with the recruitment industry"
I fail to see how speaking negatively about an industry helps promote it's value.
Cheers