Comments on: Headhunters: Friend Or Foe?

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:41:30 +0000

Not sure I understand what you’re asking for here - you can’t really “retain” a headhunter, at least I’ve never heard of such a thing. I was just illustrating above what % of your salary they get from the hiring firm when you get hired.

If you’re trying to break in with little financial experience, I would start by getting some kind of finance/business experience (even small places are fine - you just need something) first, then going the headhunter route - will be very difficult to get them to pay attention to you if you don’t have the finance experience.

By: smartrip

smartrip — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:39:16 +0000

Thanks for the post. One “rookie” question:

Assuming that I’m alright with dedicating 20 to 33.33% of my base, is using a headhunter a realistic option for me? I ask because I am looking to get INTO the business with little financial experience. It sounds as if headhunters may not even look at me if I don’t already come from one of the firms that gives them an attractive commission. Thanks again.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:23:51 +0000

Thanks Mark! Now just have to keep going until I hit 5,000….

By: mark

mark — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:31:17 +0000

Congrads for reaching the 500 readers mark!

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:11:01 +0000

I’m sure you are reputable and yes, this article is somewhat of an over-generalization as it is introductory rather than comprehensive in scope.

As I said in the article: I strongly, strongly recommend that everyone consult with recruiters as they think about next steps in their career. As with anything else, though, there are some things to be cautious of, especially given the market/economy we are currently in.

I attempted to stay “fair and balanced” here (and not in that Fox News way) and show the good and the bad, so sorry if you considered this “bad press.”

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:43:02 +0000

There are many firms and headhunters that do not employ best practices however there are also many of us that do. While I enjoyed many points in the article it is not fair to “lump” us all together. There are many of us that encourage our candidates and clients to make the right long term decision rather than the easy money making decision. It is unfortunate to read bad press on headhunters as a whole, as many of us work heard each day to destroy these stereotypes.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:40:00 +0000

Elizabeth,

You may be right on the compensation - I’m no expert. 20% was an estimate to illustrate just how well they get paid.

On the second point, you’re right that some more reputable recruiters will not urge you to accept if the offer’s not right - but my point is that many recruiters are NOT in fact reputable and will do this.

To be more specific, I had a recruiter at one of the top 3 firms in the PE recruiting industry (obviously won’t mention name here) try to get me to accept an offer that I didn’t like.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:18:20 +0000

Author, your statement regarding the percentage of payment headhunter’s recieve is incorrect /not universal. Good, retained firms take 33 and 1/3% of the annual estimated total cash. Also the section that mentions headhunters “will almost always urge you to accept it. Unless there’s something else that would generate a higher commission.” Is false, we do not make recommendations to accept an offer unless we feel this will be a good long term fit. Again most good, retained, reputable firms will guarantee that the candidate will remain gainfully employed with the client for a certain amount of time.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:20:39 +0000

Excellent points Robert. I didn’t go into detail on retained vs. contingency firms here because it was more of an introduction to recruiters.

Still, I feel it is important to note that headhunters always work for the firm(s) and get paid by the firm(s) rather than the individuals and that they should not be relied upon for deciding on whether to accept offers.

By: Robert Friedland

Robert Friedland — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:09:13 +0000

In discussing recruiters, it is important to note the difference between firms that are retained and those that work on contingency. Retained firms are paid when the search begins; contingency firms only get paid when someone gets hired. Retainer firms conduct higher level searches wherein they examine the marketplace, personally interview all of the candidates, provide detailed written descriptions of the candidates, check references and act in a consultative manner. They do not send candidates to more than one client at a time. Contingency firms often don’t meet candiates, just send resumes and often send the same candidate to multiple potential hirers.
The contingency recruiter works for him/herself, and cannot maintain objectivity or the candidate’s interests because of the transactional nature of their relationships with their clients.
Retained search professionals do work for the clients who pay their fees. The fundamental difference resides in their desire to maintain long-term relationships with clients and candidates by seeking the most highly qualified candidate for the positions, even if that candidate makes less money than someone who is not as good.
We always recommend that candidates ask the recruiter if they are working on a retainer basis or contingency. It is an important distinction and will be a good predictor of what they can expect.