Headhunter or no?

April 13, 2007 9:11 PM

A headhunter has contacted me about a job that I'm really interested in. Would it be better to go through them, or approach the company on my own?

I've already done a decent amount of research on the company and the position and I know who the direct supervisor would be (I even was able to track down their contact info). What would be the best way to proceed?

posted by talkingplant to human relations (20 comments total)

Did you know about the job before they contacted you? Were you already contacting the client before? Because if you found out about the job FROM the headhunter then it's really not quite right. That would be pretty unethical.

If you can pursue leads and get work on your own then obviously you will make more money than if you go through a recruiter and so that's obviously a good thing. You should do so ethically, though.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:25 PM on April 13, 2007

My concern, and I have no idea how valid this is, so take this as the female equivalent of male answer syndrome that it is, is that if you go behind the recruiter's back and they find out about, they will find a way to screw you. "Oh, we met with talkingplant, but we had grave concerns about his suitability because of X..." might be all it takes for you to not get the job.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:26 PM on April 13, 2007

Do not go on your own. If you get the job on your own the headhunter will sue your new employer for the fee. Not good. If you learned of this job through the headhunter you had better let them get the fee.
posted by caddis at 9:30 PM on April 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, approaching the company on your own would be unethical, but just as bad, it would be tacky as hell, and if I were a company, I damned sure wouldn't hire an employee with so few scruples.
posted by jayder at 9:57 PM on April 13, 2007

It's for exactly this reason that most headhunters won't tell you the name of the company they want to submit you to until you agree to let them submit you. They'll usually tell you anything else about the job, but not the name of the company.

Apparently the headhunter you're using doesn't work that way, though, which means he/she trusts you to some degree. Violating that trust by making an end run around the headhunter would be pretty scummy.

Besides, what benefit would you derive from doing so? All reputable headhunters get their commission from the hiring company, and it's based on a percentage of the starting salary the hiree gets. This is what gives them the incentive to get the absolute most money they can for you.
posted by cerebus19 at 10:08 PM on April 13, 2007

If both are offering you a permanent job then go through the headhunter. If the headhunter is offering you a contract position, then go to the company directly and request to be hired as a company employee. The reason the headhunter doesn't tell you the name of the company usually (I think?) is that then there's nothing to legally stop you from going direct. A one time fee is different from the contractor fees, which skim a signifigant amount of money from your salary yearly. I wouldn't hesitate to do it if that was the case.
posted by xammerboy at 11:29 PM on April 13, 2007

err - significant.
posted by xammerboy at 11:30 PM on April 13, 2007

Nthing the idea.... you didn't know about it until the headhunter contacted you, so you have a responsibility to him or her. If you want that job, you should go through that agency.

Besides, with a headhunter, sometimes you can get better leverage on your salary negotiations if they're involved.... they want you to get paid as much as possible so their fee is higher! Sometimes, though, they can try to get you to lowball to get SOME fee instead of nothing at all, so watch for whose side they seem to be on. :)

Whatever else happens... don't approach the company on your own. That's unfair.
posted by Malor at 11:34 PM on April 13, 2007

Not only would it be rude and possibly unethical, but headhunters are valuable resources. No matter how much research you've done on the company, they've most likely had contact with the company. It's a much less chancy proposition if you're on the good side of a headhunter--it's like a bonus reference!
(Of course, my mother is a headhunter, so actually, I might just need your money.)
posted by crayolarabbit at 11:35 PM on April 13, 2007

Actually, what will happen in many cases is the company will themselves explicitly NOT hire you outside of the headhunting agency, or in some cases, are under contract with the headhunting agency to pay their commission no matter how the position goes about being filled.

My father found his dream job on Monster, where it described a packaging position at a "multinational consumer/household products/soap" company headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ.

As ambiguous as the headhunter may have been trying to be, that could only have been Dial Corp. He knew that, and *did* contact them directly (as he wasn't himself approached by any headhunter).

And while he would have liked to leverage the ex parte element for a higher salary (since they weren't going to have to pay 30% of his hiring salary to the agency), they informed him that they had to pay anyway, and indeed did.

Truth be told, he wouldn't have found that position without the agency's post, but most companies won't futz with headhunter contracts, especially if they're of any reasonable size.
posted by disillusioned at 12:29 AM on April 14, 2007

There's lots of good reasons to go with the agency.
1. The job is real, so you don't have to worry about the normal "we'll find you a job" bullship.
2.The agency may be under contract to be paid regardless of where the applicants come from.
3.The agency may be the preferred way that company X does its hiring.
4. Company X's HR department may not be capable, or may have outsourced the vetting process, and going directly to company X may put you on the bottom of the pile.
5. The agency will know about other unpublicized positions, so if the fit for job A isn't quite right, or if the salary isn't quite a match... etc.
posted by Gungho at 6:06 AM on April 14, 2007

If you can pursue leads and get work on your own then obviously you will make more money than if you go through a recruiter...

This isn't always true. I consider the work that recruiters do a service that saves me time & money. I'm paying for this service through the fee and I don't mentally take the fee off the top of what I will offer the candidate.

But if I have two candidates that are close, one that I found direct and one through a recruiter, it might influence my decision.
posted by sexymofo at 6:55 AM on April 14, 2007

Go through the headhunter, by all means. They are far more likely to look at your resume that way than if you just apply. It is a free ticket inside.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:04 AM on April 14, 2007

I think going through the headhunter is better. In that senario they are looking for you, not the otherway around.
This may increase your value and you are in a better position to negotiate your package.
posted by WizKid at 9:34 AM on April 14, 2007

I'm going to go against the grain here.

If you get the job on your own the headhunter will sue your new employer for the fee.

They could sue you, and they would lose. If there is no signed contract between the agency and the hire, there is absolutely, positively no obligation to use them if they are stupid enough to give you the information. It's no different than if a friend told you of a job lead.

And while some companies may decide not to hire outside of headhunting agencies, I think you'll find that a large number of places have a strong distaste for headhunters, recruiters and their ilk. If a company can find a good match without having to pay the finder's fee, they're not going to shed too many tears.

It's not 100% ethical, but welcome to the business world. People take advantage of opportunities all the time. If this really fell into your lap as you say (and there's no contract in play), all's fair... and all that.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:56 PM on April 14, 2007

Potentially pissing off a person who, almost definitionally, knows lots of people who might hire you now or in the future is a bad idea.

The fact that the recruiter gave you the company name strongly suggests that the recruiter is not worried about you cutting him or her out, so trying to do so will be, at best, counterproductive.
posted by backupjesus at 3:31 PM on April 14, 2007

The math on this is really simple.

The company has hired the head hunter to staff a position. If they are not advertising the vacancy, then they prefer the headhunter do the screening for them, and you should apply via the headhunter.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:38 PM on April 14, 2007

Frankly, it depresses me that you even have to ask this question. How to proceed? Like a decent, rational, human being

First of all, there's the whole Do Unto Others thing.

Second, like a realtor, he might be able to help you a few years down the line when another even better job comes along.

Finally, there's the cliche about being careful who you step on going up, because you never know who you're going to meet coming down.

People are watching and they will remember.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:20 PM on April 14, 2007

Since everyone seems to be so concerned with my ethics and not my question I guess I should clarify. This position showed up in my inbox via a job alert. Then a few days later a headhunter contacted me about the position. So yes, I was aware of the position before they contacted me and was furiously researching it already.
What I'm asking is whether a headhunter would give me any advantage over going it alone as I was already doing.
Sorry if this caused any confusion, and thanks for the honest (though somewhat pessimistic) feedback.
posted by talkingplant at 10:35 AM on April 16, 2007

That's very different, and I apologize for any intemperance and incorrect inferences. Thing is, I've seen it from the other side, sleazy types who get the lead from the head hunter then try to go around him. Not nice, and clearly not the case here. (PS- it also tended not to work.) Again, my sincerest apologies.

As to your problem- no doubt resolved by now and I hope to your advantage - hard to say. There are head hunters and head hunters. Who knows what kind of relationship, if any, this one has with the company? Could be good, could be he's just a volume guy who tries to place anyone he can and is considered something of a joke. Suss that out before anything else. How many people has he placed with this firm? What's his rep? If he's the goods, he may can help, both now and in future. If he's not, well....

What about the company and this job? How is it that both he and you know about it? Is this an assignment for him or is he just a self appointed match maker? (Not that there's anythign wrong with that.) Could color the situation.

Again, best of luck
posted by IndigoJones at 7:44 AM on May 28, 2007