Tech Recruiters Defend 'Blacklists,' Lack of Feedback, Screening Techniques

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes Remember when executives at Apple, Google, and other firms "fixed" the market for highly skilled tech workers by agreeing not to steal each other's employees? That little incident made a lot of people think about the true modus operandi of corporate and third-party tech recruiters. Dice sat down with some of those recruiters, who talked about everything from "no poaching" tactics to the "blacklist" that exists for candidates who make boneheaded mistakes in interviews. The bottom line? Recruiters seem to pass the blame for some of the industry's most egregious errors on "junior recruiters and agencies," while insisting that their goal in life is to get you a job. How does that align with your experience?

Comments

oh boy!

[notequinoxe]

From my experience, the boneheads were almost exclusively in the HR agencies. And that's a light term for fucking-unbelievable-idiots. I have tons of incompetence-filled horror stories. Techies (anything from coders to any branch of engineering), IMHO, should only be recruited by their peers. Period.

Re:oh boy!

[ShanghaiBill]

Yeah, but then the female employment ratio would fall even lower,

Would it? My experience, at several tech companies, is that the techies prefer a more gender balanced workplace, and would prefer to have more qualified female co-workers. Research has shown that much anti-women discrimination is actually coming from other women. Most female managers will tell you that they have more resistance from female subordinates than males.

Recruiters are my second least favorite people

[sinij]

Recruiters, right after realtors and used car salespeople, are my least favorite people in the world. They rarely help you, instead they frequently impede and often profit off your risks and successes.

Fortunately, technology now allows you to bypass these people. LinkedIn allows you to directly apply to companies, without having to go through recruiters. Even small companies that normally wouldn't have online application process.

Re:Scum

[briancork]

I run a recruiting company. And, I am genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms. On the other hand, most people looking at career transitions lament the lack of response they get from technology-centric recruiting platforms like Monster, DICE, and Linkedin (there are a great many). Several years ago, the process of almost any online application realized a 90%+ non-response rate and job seekers were more frustrated by that silence more than anything else. From what I'm hearing from candidates its not getting much better - and, this includes hot hiring areas that include IT development, Accounting, and even Actuaries. In my organization we certainly like to make money. However, we typically earn it by understanding our clients and caring about candidates finding a terrific cultural fit. In fact, we guarantee our placements for a year. That requires solid work and great results. That benefits all three elements - the company, the candidate, and the recruiter. - Cork

Re:TL;DR "Recruiters" Suck.

[CrankyFool]

I work for a tech company that, for exactly this reason, tends to hire people who've never recruited before into its recruiting group -- that way, they're less likely to be broken (we also consider hiring managers responsible for recruiting, and recruiters don't have any technical conversations with candidates).

That said, I'm not all that opposed to blacklists, and I know that we use them ourselves. If you interview with us and make profoundly idiotic statements (I was once in a hiring loop where the candidate told the recruiter, an Asian-American woman, that he'd never hire an Asian woman because they're too diffident. After a moment's pause, he then amended to note that it wasn't that he was sexist -- he wouldn't hire an Asian-American man, either) I don't see a huge reason why we'd want to bring you in, ever again, for another position.

(Anti-poaching agreements, though, are just evil)

Bull

[gurps_npc]

Recruiters job is not to help you. Nor is it to help the employers.

Their job is not to screw up. That means they have to take the SAFE choices.

Companies dislike training. They would rather hire someone who already has all the named skills to do the job. So they go looking for that.

The problem is that those named skills? The reason they are named is that they have classes to teach you them.

What corporations usually really want and need are those qualities and un-named nebulous skill that can not be taught. They are not named because their are no classes, because they can't be taught in anything less than years. Or they are innate qualities - like intelligence and creativity - that people are born with.

As a direct result, recruiters go looking for the one thing they should NOT look for - the people that have the sills that can be taught. All the time ignoring the qualities and skills that can not be taught.

As for messing up an interview - that is just plain bad luck. You get sick, you have a bad day, etc.

Recruiters are a necessary part of a very flawed system. But they did not create the system, they merely try to make money satisfying the system.