Seattle 2.0 Blog

June 16, 2008

Over the last 15 days I’ve been on a recruiter hunt. I’ve got our team to suggest recruiting agencies, I’ve put a blog post calling for recruiting agencies and I sent email to other entrepreneurs. Wow, I’ve been overwhelmed by responses. I didn’t know there were that many people working on the recruiting space and that many firms in town. I’ve probably got 25 recommendations, and I’ve talked face-to-face with 13 of them and on the phone with 2. Most meetings were just 20-30 minutes long, so it didn’t take that much time.

I won’t go into the detailed process I used to decide the companies I picked, but I’ll tell two things that were a constant on how some of them pitch their business which made me look the other way.

In summary, the two wrong phrases were “We work with Amazon and Microsoft” and “We’ve been doing IT recruiting for X years”. They might sound fine and harmless, but they show a lack of understanding of working with tech startups.

First, the more big companies a service provider lists the less likely I’m to work with them, as simple as that. The reason is the lack of understanding of my needs (i.e., a “startup” need). Using Microsoft, Amazon, Expedia, Real, etc. to showcase your competencies just make you look weak. If you said BuddyTV, Picnik, Redfin, mPire or Yapta then you are way more likely to get my attention and interest. I need somebody that knows how to work and find talent for my company’s needs.

Second, the “IT” word being used by recruiters just prove most of them are clueless about hiring to a tech company. Never in a million years has a tech software company called itself an IT company (w/ exceptions for companies that are IT outsourcing providers). Never Microsoft will call itself an IT company looking for IT employees. Never will Amazon, Expedia, Picnik or Sampa say they are an IT company. So why on Earth would a recruiter come to me and say they have N-years of expertise w/ the IT industry? I can see employees of a tech companies thinking this is obvious, yet, recruiters put IT developers and Tech-companies developers in the same bucket. Not that one is better or worse, but they are very different. IT recruiting is what Boing, WaMu, Nordstrom and Weyerhaeuser do. It would be the equivalent of my confusing a recruiter with an office manager. I could explain the difference, but that’s not what this post is for. If you are a recruiter, ask your favorite tech-company employee for him/her to explain this to you.

Hope I helped a few recruiters get a clue and a few entrepreneurs on how to select their service providers.

Comments (4) for "When recruiters tell you the...

Are you planning to publish a list of those recruiters that got it? I'd love to get one. Also could you add my company 3rd i Designs (www.3rdidesigns.com) to your startup list? By Jon Poland - 6/16/2008 4:30 AM

In the meantime, feel free to use fellow local startup's applicant tracking and resume management tool - Catch the Best. You can use for free here: http://catchthebest.com/startup-hiring/ I joined Ben a couple months back to help on the business side of things. One feature that was quietly released might help you; now you can automatically post the position you create to Indeed and then of coarse track and collaborate on all responses. Just let me know if you have any product feedback if you decide to use and happy hiring. By Mike Wagner - 6/16/2008 7:18 AM

Recruiters come in many flavors and many types. Do you have multiple hire needs? An inhouse contract recruiter is likely a far better solution for a startup because they are working only for you and are marketing your firm to candidates and not seeing who they can plug into which company. Hiring a team is a marketing activity for your firm and using a staffing firm or contingency recruiting agency won't let you differentiate yourself from the Microsofts and Amazons with candidates nor will it let you target the startup interested candidates from the mercenaries. By Janis Machala - 6/16/2008 10:47 PM

Recruiting Agencies, on the whole, are the anathema of startups. I am convinced the recruiting costs involved in using them (instead of going towards operations or product development) can quickly kill a startup. I agree with Janis. I am the Recruiting and HR Manager for a Social Media startup in Seattle. In the past six months I have personally recruited dozens of employees. Being in-house, I have a distinct advantage because: 1. I passionately care about the future and well-being of my Company. 2. I recognize that I am the first person a potential candidate hears outlining my Company and our products. I take that responsibility very seriously. If I am not passionate to be here why would a candidate? People want to work at a Company people are passionate about; this gives me a huge advantage over some of those Companies you listed in your post. 3. A lot of candidates don't use recruiters, nor care to. I work with contingent recruiters and recruiting agencies at times. There are some good recruiting agencies out there but most only try to fill the req and don't have a large stake in the fit. 4. Recruiting agencies rarely (and I mean rarely) go below 20% placement fee structures. Their candidates better be 20% better than anyone I can source (which is not a normal occurrence - again I know the culture and fit of my Company and evangelize it passionately). If you plan on hiring more than 5 or 6 employees in a year, do yourself a favor and hire a good fulltime HR and Recruiting Manager, not only you will get better candidates, but you will also reduce liability (which there is, and don't kid yourself, a lot from a HR standpoint), and save money. Plus every candidate who doesn't get a job, now knows our Company from someone who loves it and they have a positive lasting, impression, which has cascading effects in the long term. Dan Hall HR Manager By Dan Hall - 6/17/2008 7:36 AM