Do Good Programmers Need Agents?

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.

Comments

Here's the deal

[russotto]

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.

Re:Here's the deal

[Matheus]

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.

Re:Here's the deal

[Harlequin80]

Time to get flamed out of existence.... I am an agent. Though I would argue there is no difference between an agent and a recruiter or a headhunter. They are different skillsets of the same job.

To a "candidate" the primary service I provide is I spend all day every day talking to companies and hiring managers about their projects, their workloads and what they see as the main challenge to delivering their projects from a manpower perspective. I also learn what their capabilities are vs their competitors. This means when I speak to you and you tell me your skills, your motivations and what you want in a future employer I, hopefully, will be able to say company A, C, and X are actively looking for someone of your background and companies B, V & Q want to know about your type of skillsets when they come on to the market. Because I do this all day everyday I will know this information, where as you, doing what ever it is you do, will not.

From a Company perspective, the service I provide is that I spend all day every day speaking with candidates, about what their ideal job would be in the future and where they want to go with their career. So when the company asks me for a particular skillset I will know 20,30,100+ people with that skillset that would be tempted by what they as a potential employer would offer. Again something that they can't do themselves because they need to be doing what ever their real job is.

Now as for fees and charges. If I find you a permanent job the company pays me a fee based on your salary. If I find you a contract job the company pays me a fee based on your salary on an hourly rate. 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. What I don't see is two people working in the same job in the same company with the agency guy getting less take home then the direct guy, as a general rule. In my market sectors the lower paid person will just leave.

So if you want to look at it another way, given I am paid a % markup, I want you to get paid the most I can negotiate for you.

Just as an aside I don't recruit in the IT space. I recruit for civil engineers. I did have a brief stint in the early 2000s in IT recruitment but I left that sector as fast as I could as it is extremely difficult to determine if someone can do what they say they can and the general attitude from "candidates" is extremely hostile to recruiters.

Finally, I would like to add that recruitment is a very difficult job that most people can't do. Not because it is technically difficult (it's really quite simple) it is however very difficult emotionally. There is a reason most recruiters only have a couple of years of experience, it is because most people just can't keep doing the job. Most of us try to do the right thing, we are in the end normal people. But for most of us this job is thankless with companies telling us to go jump and candidates thinking we are ripping them off. You will however find that if someone has done this for a long time it is because they have found their niche and they are respected by both their clients and the candidates.

Re:Here's the deal

[hax4bux]

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.

Re:Here's the deal

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:Here's the deal

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:Here's the deal

[Harlequin80]

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.

10x Productivity

[lgw]

The "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow - sure, some people are quite productive, but mostly if one guy is 10x another, the other guy just sucks.

I'm not valued because I can bang out more code than the next guy - I'm valued because I can lead a team of people and make them more productive: through design review, best practices, experience doing agile right, and so on. Sure, all those things make me more productive to, but it's much more valuable as a force multiplier for a large team.

That's what the job is, as a senior dev. That and doing all the horrible wrangling with project management systems, clarifying user requirements coming from PMs and translating them into sanity, and so on. The more senior I become, the less time I spend coding, because there's only so much value I add working by myself.

Re:10x Productivity

[lgw]

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.

Re:10x Productivity

[lgw]

I suspect you're a self-proclaimed "rock star" who's convinced he's God's gift to programming, but hasn't worked on a team of equally-smart people, or who doesn't understand the reality of large projects.

Ability to bang out lots of code is the right way to measure a junior developer, but is not the essence of productivity. Two guys drive from NYC to LA - one at 10 MPH, one at 100 MPH. Who get there first? Well, it's important to know which one is headed in the right direction, and which one drives into the ocean, and is either of them so careless they're unlikely to make it there alive in the first place.

If your job skill is "given a clear design with unambiguous requirements and success criteria, I can bang out that code very fast," well, that's great for a junior dev. If you write well-tested, debugable, supportable, maintainable, secure, scalable code given ambiguous requirements, great, that's a successful mid-career dev. If you can fix everything wrong process-wise with your 100-dev organization so that everyone can work twice as fast, well, you're 10x as productive as the guy who sits in a corner and bangs out 10x the code, aren't you? If you can invent a product that solves a problem that everyone has, but no one else thought there was a solution to, well, the guy banging out code isn't even on the same scale.

Re:10x Productivity

[Pulzar]

I hate managing with "rockstar" developers because they're always too arrogant and full of themselves. They detract from the team, argue and refuse to listen to others.

Those aren't rock-star developers. As another poster said, you likely have never worked with a rock-star developer. They are great at what they do, *and* they make the team better. They are rare, but it's awesome when you see somebody that inspires others around them by what they can do.

They help the junior devs and often their time is better spent doing this than banging out code even though their code is a lot better than the juniors. Someone who can manage a team is valued for more than just their coding skills, if they've got people skills they are definitely a force multiplier.

You sound like you work in a big company, on big teams. This is certainly true there, and in order to have a large team productive, you need a lot of good people keeping those juniors productive.

Several times, though, I've seen those similar good people bang out their much superior code and finish the project in the same amount of time, while have a team that's 6 or 7 times smaller, with no juniors.

Re:10x Productivity

[lgw]

Have you ever worked for a big software company? That's not the job of management at all. It's the essence of engineering: improving the performance of a complex system (a system of made of programmers), or alternatively, to invent the stuff that really matters. That's why the tech track exists, and that's how you get paid the same as those senior managers.

The whole point is: your productivity as a coder is just nice, but there are more important skills for senior developers to focus on: skills that scale with team size.

Old story

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:About as little as...

[iggymanz]

Systems architectects are a real profession and are not software developers. Also, there is a kind of software development that IS engineering, such as the type Linux kernel or BSD or Apache server project team does. That includes design, source control, testing, and QA processes. It is much more than just development.

Re:somewhat diffrent

[narcc]

Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?

Imagine?

You are not an agent for the employee

[sjbe]

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.