>> would you rather make your client happy by getting them a bargain
Recruiters are usually paid based on a percentage of the salary. It's actually in the interests of the recruiter that you are paid as much as possible, strictly speaking.
In reality, my goals as recruiter are:
* happy client
* find a new employee who the employer is super happy with six months down the track
* find a new employee who wants and enjoys this job, and will thus stay
* at a salary that the new employee is happy with, that will not have them looking over their shoulder thinking they have udnersold themselves
* at a salary that will ensure we are not beaten to the punch by another higher paying employer
* at a salary that fits the goals of the employer
The idea of "getting an employer a bargain" implies that I don't care about the job seeker. Believe it or not, I do. When someone comes to me who is a great developer, and is asking under market rates, I discuss that will them and let them know where I think market rate is for their skills and experience.
It might sound cliched, but my job is to negotiate a deal that everyone is happy with, and every gets what they want. Anything less will fail because the employee feels they are underpaid, or the employer feels they overpaid.
I believe the above approach to dealing with salary gets everyone what they want. And yes, I the more it is the happier I am, but it would be very much against my interests to manipulate that.
> Recruiters are usually paid based on a percentage of the salary. It's actually in the interests of the recruiter that you are paid as much as possible, strictly speaking.
Similar studies for real estate agents who are also paid on commission shows that this is not true. It’s more about velocity than optimizing a single candidate.
> Recruiters are usually paid based on a percentage of the salary. It's actually in the interests of the recruiter that you are paid as much as possible, strictly speaking.
Seems like a recruiter is much more likely to double his compensation by spending half as much time per hire versus paying twice as much, given that salaries are relatively inelastic. Similarly, real estate agents are incentivized to get a pretty good price but mostly optimize for lower effort per sale.
Thank you! It's almost exactly the same as real estate agents or anyone who takes a small % of a transaction: they are incentivized to prioritize throughput above (and often at the expense of) anything else.
And yet, I've been screwed over by recruiters many times.
Simply because recruiting is a very low barrier job - you get countless bad recruiters... even at reputable recruitment agencies - horrible child-recruiters.
Recruiters are usually paid based on a percentage of the salary. It's actually in the interests of the recruiter that you are paid as much as possible, strictly speaking.
In reality, my goals as recruiter are:
* happy client
* find a new employee who the employer is super happy with six months down the track
* find a new employee who wants and enjoys this job, and will thus stay
* at a salary that the new employee is happy with, that will not have them looking over their shoulder thinking they have udnersold themselves
* at a salary that will ensure we are not beaten to the punch by another higher paying employer
* at a salary that fits the goals of the employer
The idea of "getting an employer a bargain" implies that I don't care about the job seeker. Believe it or not, I do. When someone comes to me who is a great developer, and is asking under market rates, I discuss that will them and let them know where I think market rate is for their skills and experience.
It might sound cliched, but my job is to negotiate a deal that everyone is happy with, and every gets what they want. Anything less will fail because the employee feels they are underpaid, or the employer feels they overpaid.
I believe the above approach to dealing with salary gets everyone what they want. And yes, I the more it is the happier I am, but it would be very much against my interests to manipulate that.