Recruiter or not?

[A-Head]

I know people have talked about the good, the bad, and the ugly about using recruiters but I'd like some more input...

Do recruiters really get you a better deal in the end? I know they set everything up and do the negotiating which is appreciated. But when it comes down to it, would you use them for a job that's publicly advertised (company website, monster, hotjobs, etc)? Can they negotiate a better salary for you so, even after their cut, you're better off in the end?

Also, if you see a job posting online and then your recruiter sends it to you, would you apply for it yourself since you originally found it or let the recruiter take care of that?

Thanks!

[Not Mike]

I know people have talked about the good, the bad, and the ugly about using recruiters but I'd like some more input...

Do recruiters really get you a better deal in the end? I know they set everything up and do the negotiating which is appreciated. But when it comes down to it, would you use them for a job that's publicly advertised (company website, monster, hotjobs, etc)? Can they negotiate a better salary for you so, even after their cut, you're better off in the end?

Also, if you see a job posting online and then your recruiter sends it to you, would you apply for it yourself since you originally found it or let the recruiter take care of that?

Thanks!

With respect to the negotiating, I've had a mixed bag of results (and know of others that have run into the same thing). Sometimes, when you get to the endgame, and you're getting an offer, the recruiter stops representing you and starts seeing dollar signs, because they are about to get paid. At that point, sealing the deal is more important to that recruiter than getting you the best deal. Because if you don't seal the deal, then the past 3 months that they've spent working with you leave them without any compensation.

To say the least, I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to how much negotiating some recruiters are really doing. In some cases, I think you're better off applying on your own. Personally, I think the real value of the recruiter is GETTING you an interview, not necessarily any of the stuff that happens after that.

[actexp]

Unless recruiter knows of a job that you don't (for example, on a retained search), or has a special "in" with a particular company, I personally don't think they help all that much. The recruiter fee is a hefty amount, so from employer standpoint I much prefer candidate coming to me directly.

[SamAdams]

I applied to an actuarial job posted on the company website and monster.com. Actually I even emailed some employees that I found off of the soa directory. I heard nothing back until my recruiter talked to them and I got a home office interview without even speaking to anyone from the company.

[Westley]

It depends on how good the recruiter is and how good you are at the things that the recruiter can do for you. I think the critical areas are:

1 Finding a job that makes sense for a person (or finding the person, depending on whether you are hiring or looking to be hired)
2 Selling the person and getting them in the door for an interview (includes interview prep)
3 Negotiating

For 1, depends on how specific your criteria are. Even if you have good connections, a good recruiter can cover more ground than you.
For 2, it varies wildly based on lots of circumstances.
For 3, it depends on how good you and the employer are at handling this.

Point 1: My first and last jobs that I got through a recruiter, I would never have found without a recruiter.
Point 2 and 3: my recruiters have spent a lot of time telling me how much they are helping me, but they have rarely actually helped on these. On the other hand, I think most actuaries are very clumsy when it comes to negotiating, and recruiters can probably help in a large majority of situations.

[dec0y]

You can always use a recruiter and continue the job search on your own as well.

[LifeAct]

You can always use a recruiter and continue the job search on your own as well.

If you do this, then you need to be careful that you are the recruiter don't both contact the same company.

[JMO]

If you do this, then you need to be careful that you are the recruiter don't both contact the same company.

Professional recruiters always check with you first to be sure it's not a company you already contacted.

[Westley]

Professional recruiters always check with you first to be sure it's not a company you already contacted.
Both of them do that?

[Westley]

Just kidding... sort of. JMO is correct, but don't be too quick to assume you are dealing with somebody who is protecting your interests/acting ethically/professional/whatever.

I always advocate getting to know a recruiter a lot better than the average candidate does before being willing to work with them.

[Westley]

Also, read the recruiter links in the "Best of..." thread to understand some of what you deal with when you aren't careful about the recruiters you work with. Be aware that, if those stories sound bad, most people probably aren't willing to post their worst stories (I'm certainly not).

Good recruiters are worth their weight in gold. Bad recruiters aren't worthless, they are destructive, and sometimes severely so.

[JMO]

Both of them do that?

Well, yeah, at least they did when I was searching.:tup:

[A-Head]

...On the other hand, I think most actuaries are very clumsy when it comes to negotiating, and recruiters can probably help in a large majority of situations.

I think this is where I get caught up. Maybe I'm not the best at negotiating but would I be able to get more without a recruiter than a recruiter could get, taking into account their fee?

And not that it's all about the money but from what I've seen, we're not talking small dollars for the recruiters.

[Westley]

No, it's not small, recruiters get paid well, often for being completely useless, getting in my way, and mostly acting like a tool.

On the other hand, like I said, recruiters can be extremely valuable if they know the market and can add their expertise on the company, your role, etc

I think, as a very general statement, if a company is willing to pay a recruiter's fee, it's not going to have very much impact on how much they are willing to pay you. For example, HR at Prudential doesn't have the salary scale for people that come through recruiters, and then the separate, higher, salary scale for those who do not. Moving expenses are often set on company policy. Signing bonus - maybe you lose out a bit here, as I think there are individuals (probably not company policies, but individuals) who will look at a signing bonus as a luxury that they cannot afford on top of a recruiter fee. So, even if you are a very savvy negotiator, I'm just not sure that companies have a lot of lattitude built into the way that they do budgets and salary plans to give you lots of extras for not using a recruiter. So, balance that against the potential for leaving money on the table because you don't understand the market, etc., and it's not clear which way it goes, but I think most actuaries are lacking in negotiating skills to the extent where it probably helps more than hinders the process.

There's another side - this goes back to my point that you really need to understand your recruiter and how he's operating - of it that's not so pretty. It's not uncommon for recruiters to get your resume (there's some stories on the site about this) and just start submitting it to public listings on websites and such. The company hasn't decided that they are willing to pay a recruiter, but they haven't exactly decided they won't, they just post a job on the company website or monster or whatever, and get a resume from Joe Recruiter for A-Head. I've never been on either side of this and would appreciate if some other people (especially claude) would comment on this as I don't know how it works, but I would guess that the person has a certain budget to fill the position, and Joe putting himself in the middle of that is basically taking money off the table that the A-Head could get - the hiring person probably looks at it as it's not his "fault" that there's a recruiter fee, since he didn't decide to go through a recruiter, A-Head did. Just to be clear: I'm talking about a situation where Joe has zero to do with the company, doesn't know them, hasn't worked with them (by the way, Joe will almost never tell A-Head this, and likely will talk a lot about how much he knows about the company and meetings with HR, etc, as if this is one of the few companies he works with). Anyway, this is why I usually recommend entry level candidates especially, and younger candidates in general, to work on their own as well as with a recruiter - if all he's doing is submitting your resume on monster to a company that he knows nothing about, then (numbering corresponds to my post above):
1 He didn't find you a contact you couldn't have found on your own with a minimal amount of work
2 He doesn't know the company or you well enough to prep you or otherwise provide value in the interviewing
3 He doesn't have advance knowledge of what the company's expectations are, so his value in negotiating is reduced, although it's not zero

[JMO]

Westley' post is awesome.

To respond to the second part. Long ago, pre-internet job applications, I got a call from A-Head*. The recruiter told me that Transamerica had a job opening that was perfect for me. I wasn't all that interested in going to Transamerica, but eventually the jerk talked me into sending my resume to him (OK, I was the jerk), on the understanding that he would submit it to Transamerica and see just how interested they were.
Long story short, the guy mass-mailed my resume to every insurance company in Los Angeles. I was not happy. Not at all.
When I did go to Transamerica, it was several years later, and believe me, no headhunter got any fee for that move.

I'm sure that the newer communication methods have not changed the sleaziness of guys like this. ;)

* I really like that name. :judge:

[hardlife]

someone mentioned that recruiter fees are hefty. How hefty? say if they manage to place someone with about 2.5 yrs experience, a close FSA, earning about 74k per year.

[Take 2]

Recruiter fees generally range from 20-35% of annual salary, in my experience.

[Maine-iac]

And they are paid by the employer, not the candidate.

Keep it in perspective, though. It's a one-time fee not an annual cut. The more difficult it is to dig up quality candidates, the better deal the recruiter becomes.

So for entry level, where viable non-recruiter candidates are more plentiful, some will use recruiters, some won't. The further beyond entry level, the less of an issue a recruiter fee becomes. Sure, a company is not going to spurn the ideal candidate if he or she falls into their lap without a recruiter (though finding the correct lap that will recognize your perfection can be a challenge ;)) but at higher levels if a company passes you over for the sake of the fee, I'd be worried about their overall cheapness factor.

[hardlife]

Recruiter fees generally range from 20-35% of annual salary, in my experience.

Wow...this is way way above my expectation. Initially, I thought it is about 10% !!
Given these cost, I think I really should try job hunting myself. However, my main issue with applying on job sites like Monster etc is getting through the flitering engine, HR and avoiding the trash bin.

[JMO]

I suggest you do a search here for threads on using the actuarial directory.
After you have done that, you could try the directory at soa.org. (Note that CAS is represented as well. So are various other minor actuarial organizations.)
Please don't spam all the actuaries at a company, though. You'll see that mentioned from time to time when you search for threads.

[EweTupper]

I'm in Pension Consulting. I know the big firms. I know people at the other big firms. I can call around and get myself interviews with all the firms in a heartbeat. Can I tell a recruiter "you can represent me, and help me find something, but I don't want or need your help finding jobs at these 5 firms"? Or, more importantly, if I tell a reputable recruiter that, can I trust them to keep to my wishes?

[Westley]

You don't really need to trust him, just tell him that you've contacted those companies, and he is not to contact them on your behalf. If he does, then it doesn't really matter, becaue when he says "I sent your resume to Mercer", you're going to tell Mercer that he wasn't authorized to represent you, and too bad for him.

It's usually easier if you contact them first and just tell the recruiter that you've already contacted them, as opposed to telling him that you will - if you say you will, then you have to listen to the whole shpiel on how he will represent you better than you can represent yourself, and sometimes that's a long conversation. I've had it take over an hour, when a recruiter knew I would be a good fit for a company and he was (I'm reading between the lines, but I'm pretty sure) looking for his first entry into this company. If you just tell him it's already been done, he can't really say much.

I'm of course ignoring the fact that, for reasons listed above, you might actually WANT him to represent you there, even if you're capable of getting an interview on your own.

The recruiter won't be happy, but if you feel you're better represented by yourself than by him for some companies, then that's not really your problem, it's his.

[JMO Fan]

:iatp:

FWIW, I believe good recruiters are worth their pay. My current job was w/o recruiter help. My previous job would never have happened without a persistent recruiter, who got the prospective boss to add a position that fit me. Some recruiters (esp. DWS) have helped me do better with my job hunting and interviewing even when the job I ultimately got was not through them. :tup: