Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do Good Programmers Need Agents?

Posted by Soulskill on from the agents-sure-think-so dept.

braindrainbahrain writes: A rock star needs an agent, so maybe a rock star programmer needs one, too. As described in The New Yorker, a talent agency called 10x, which got started in the music business, is not your typical head hunter/recruiter agency. "The company's name comes from the idea, well established in the tech world, that the very best programmers are superstars, capable of achieving ten times the productivity of their merely competent colleagues." The writer talks with a number of programmers using agents to find work, who generally seem pleased with it, though the article has viewpoints from skeptics as well.

9 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Here's the deal by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The value of an agent to me is the difference between what I can get and what the agent can get, minus the amount the agent skims off the top. The worse I am at negotiating, the larger the difference is... but the greater the amount the agent skims off the top. Most likely outcome: the agent, whose entire compensation is based on separating me from as much cash as possible, manages to take more than that difference and I get screwed while thinking I got a good deal.

    1. Re:Here's the deal by Matheus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Generally right.

      There's a bit of benefit on the "I don't want to have to do that crap" or "I don't know the right person to talk to but they do" side but when it comes down to it in our field there's a pretty fine line between an Agent and a Recruiter. The big difference being that technically the Recruiter is working for the employer (they get paid from that side not from you) whereas an agent is technically working for you (ergo the skim) but the benefits they provide should balance out to the same in a perfect world.

      Honestly I think this is just another company trying to get $ out of the other side of the equation. Not a bad business model since plenty of people will buy into it BUT I honestly don't believe they will do any better at the job so negligible benefit to the person taking 85% of their paycheck.

    2. Re:Here's the deal by hax4bux · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have been contracting since 1992. It is true we both want to get paid max($$). It is not true these are separate money pots. Most companies will look at your commission and my hourly rate as my total burn rate.

      I will agree that recruiting is difficult because I don't know anyone who sticks w/the job even though it can be a license to print money. I will also agree that a competent recruiter is a joy. I switch jobs perhaps every year which means I am always looking for my next contract. Most recruiters are on to some other sales position in a matter of months, so there is constant churn.

      Yes, there is a hostile attitude to recruiters. Some of it is silly, some of it is well earned. The fake jobs on DICE just to collect resumes are one bad example. The meat market, commodity skill attitude is another. I have a dedicated phone line that I keep just for recruiters to leave voice mail, and I have an amazing collection of WAV files containing broken english about skills I never had for jobs I would never consider.

      My favorite ploy is the agencies who stalk me on LinkedIn. When I move to a new contract, they call my old employer to ask if they need any additional help. And they call my new employer to ask if they need any additional help. The kicker is they drop my name as if I endorse this action, which frequently gets me a email about "which side are you playing?" Needless to say, I do not return the phone calls of these agencies.

      To wrap up, I would starve without recruiters and I am happy to do business w/them when it works out. You just have to be picky about who represents you.

    3. Re:Here's the deal by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with most of what you have said. The total cost factor can come in to it when looking at who is the most expensive contractor but I have agreement with my clients that sees the transfer fee reduce over time. So after a while my contractors shift across to direct contracts. This tends to be the norm here in Australia but was not the process in the UK. I don't know about the US.

      The other comments you have put tends to be the actions of less experienced agents. I don't advertise at all. I lose more time to calls from people applying for jobs then it generates for me as an income. Also the name dropping like that is very very dangerous. LinkedIn is quite often out of date and calling up and saying I see Hax4Bux has just left when you moved 6 months ago is a fast track to being blown out.

      Most of my contractors have been long term with me. I've even been to a few of their weddings. But I am an old dog in this industry at nearly 15 years.

    4. Re:Here's the deal by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In reverse order:

      3. Not in IT, Not in the states. I have no idea what any of those clauses or things mean other than the bitching I head about H1B visas on here.

      2. I don't believe I ever mentioned salary or pay levels. These are important factors but fall far down the list. I believe I said I spend all day talking to candidates finding out what their ideal job looks like and where they want to go in the careers.

      1. Completely disagree. Any service is an operating expense, some things though are cheaper to do internally and some are cheaper to do externally. Recruitment costs are a cost of doing business. Same as lawyer, accountancy or other sub-consultancy costs. Believing you are astute and thinking that recruitment costs means you are paid less actually points to you being naive. Companies pay recruitment costs because it is CHEAPER than doing the recruitment themselves. Otherwise why would they use a recruitment company. This means that a recruitment spend frees up capital that could be used somewhere else. Maybe it will be used to pay you more money, maybe it will be used for something else that the company determines is more valuable.

    5. Re:Here's the deal by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess it is more of an art than a science.

      Couple of generic points (and these are guides rather than set in stone)
      * Good people work with good people.
      * Good people tend not to boast
      * Good people are willing to say they can't do something or that it would be a challenge for them
      * Good people are specific in what they want
      * Good people tend to have longer stints in each company

      On top of that I have been in the civil engineering space for a long time. And while I couldn't design or build a bridge I can hold a conversation about what is involved in doing it. So when someone is talking to me I can get a feel for if I am being spun a line or not.

      Finally, after 10 years in the same market I am close friends with a number of the managers in the consultancies and have long working relationships with many more. One of them will know you or of you.

      I normally don't post about work on here so try to keep it separate - send an email to harlequin80@mailinator.com and I will email you directly with my contact details.

  2. Re:10x Productivity by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You will be the first one let go when the hammer falls.

    No, I really won't. Cheapskate organizations don't hire senior devs in the first place: only managers are paid well. Mature software shops, on the other hand, value devs on the technical track highly - they're harder to hire than managers. Especially once you get past the equivalent of first-level managers: Principle Engineers (or whatever you call the equivalent to a second-level manager) are golden. Middle management comes and goes with every re-org, but those few guys who work as engineers at that level certainly don't need agents - I know my company has an entire team of recruiters that do nothing but look for those guys.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. Old story by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This company was already covered on Slashdot. In the story here they're talking $150-$250 an hour, which is reachable for the right set of skills (even without an agent). The reason recruiters get paid so much right now is because of the scarcity of programmers. If you get hired through a recruiter, know that they are getting up to 30% of your first year salary in payment, think that could be going to you as a hiring bonus.

    I tried signing up with this company last time this story came around, and they weren't very helpful. Said they were working on getting more clients, and had enough programmers already. If they did get me $200 an hour, it would be worth it, but it seems they were having trouble at that time. Maybe things have changed now.

    The article itself is a nice portrait of an area of the programming industry. Increased my respect for the writers of the New Yorker.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. You are not an agent for the employee by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am an agent. Though I would argue there is no difference between an agent and a recruiter or a headhunter.

    There is a huge difference depending on who you represent and who pays your commissions. An agent works on behalf of someone typically for a talented individual. A recruiter or headhunter typically works for a company though they are an agent of a sort but not in the usual use of the word. An agent for Lebron James represent's Lebron, is hired by Lebron, and their sole goal is to get as good a deal for Lebron (and thereby themselves) as possible. The needs of the company only matter so far as they affect the negotiation. Recruiters (usually) are hired by the company and are a middle man who is hired to find talent the company might otherwise be unable to locate. Their financial interest is to get as high a salary as possible for whoever the company hires but they have no obligation to represent the interests of any particular individual seeking employment.

    The IT industry in particular sees that as me taking a cut of your wages, but I don't negotiate with you about my rate. I negotiate with the company about what they are going to pay me for my finders service.

    That means you are NOT an agent (for the employee) because you do not represent interests of the person seeking employment. If you represented the talent the company would have no involvement whatsoever in the negotiations regarding your pay rate. That would be entirely between you and the individuals you represent. Yes it is in your interest to negotiate as high a percentage for the employee as possible but they aren't who you work for. If Person A doesn't fit with BigCorp then you can move to Person B. That means you aren't an agent for Person A or Person B.

    But for most of us this job is thankless with companies telling us to go jump and candidates thinking we are ripping them off

    Welcome to sales. That's the life of any salesman. And you are right that not everyone can do it well.