|
|
|
|
|
by ryandrake
3411 days ago
|
|
I think we're agreeing with each other. Recruiters are needed if the job does not fill itself naturally, and a job will tend to get the candidate flow it deserves. If there's an awesome job available out there, with way above average pay, benefits, great opportunities for advancement, good work/life balance, etc., you'll fill it with a top talent. You're not going to need a recruiter. Word will get around even to people who are not actively looking, trust me. Similarly, if you have an "average pay for an average worker" kind of job, you'll find that average worker. When you have a ho-hum average job but you want top talent, then you're going to need that recruiter because the job needs to be actively sold. I invite anyone who works at a company that pays 3X average salaries or is well known for being an unbelievably great place to work to reply and tell me they have trouble hiring. |
|
They could definitely fill their need for new software engineers naturally, but presumably have data that the quality of candidates they get by bothering a substantial fraction of the world's software engineers on ~a yearly basis gets them better applicants and engineers.