I laugh off every resume that claims to have saved/earned the company $Xmillion based on some BS accounting that I couldn't verify even if it wasn't obviously fake.
Tell me how you can save/make me money, and I'll listen. Tell me that "You reduced IT spend my $5million" dollars and I won't have any reason to believe you.
Same for people who take sole personal credit for building something that obviously is the work of dozens.
That is an interesting perspective, and again raises the question of contingency recruiting as a model. The company is paying for the service, so I guess you could equate the company as the seller paying a commission on the price. But the buyer (candidate in your model) and agent (recruiter) are the ones trying to drive price up (higher salary), which isn't how buyers act. I don't think that mentality is really prevalent in the industry, and the analogy seems to offend technologists. If there is a better analogy, I haven't found it yet.
Letting a recruited negotiate for you is horrible. They have no interest in getting you a great salary. They say things like "just so I know the ballpark, how much do you need to pay your bills?" and then they will tell the hiring manager exactly what your minimum is, just to close a deal.
Recruiters are good for one thing: to make introductions. Good recruiters are good for that, and deserve the SALES commission for their SALES job. Recruiters aren't your lawyer.
Get two job offers, auction yourself off. That's how you negotiate.
I would disagree on this. This is the second comment about having no interest in salary, and that seems to be a fairly serious misconception about most recruiting.
I'm not sure where you are located, but in the US most recruiting is done on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is paid only if a hire is made. That fee is almost always based on a percentage of the employee's starting salary (could include bonus as well). Fees have a wide range, but during my career I have seen them everywhere between 15 and 33%.
The counter argument is that contingency recruiters want to close the deal, otherwise they don't get paid at all. Is the easiest way to close a deal, and to make sure the deal stays closed (see "counteroffer"), to get the candidate his/her minimum acceptable level? No. You are doing both parties a disservice if you do that.
You are doing the candidate a disservice by only trying to achieve the minimum. You are doing the client a disservice because although they may get the hire, the deal is not as secure as it would be at a higher number (again, see counteroffer), and if your goal as a recruiter s to help clients both attract and retain (key is retain) talent, they are better off paying a bit more to make the hire happy on start and less likely to be poached by someone else.
If I know a candidate's minimum, achieved via some proxy ('Dave, I'll accept at 120 and start May 15', it is fulfilling to call that candidate and say 'Remember when you said I could accept at 120? Well I got you 128. Congrats!' Happens all the time, and feels good every time for the candidate. On the other end, I'm coaching clients about retention and not just getting someone on board.
The biggest benefit to a recruiter (or any intermediary) in negotiations is a buffer. I've seen candidates do some incredibly dumb things in negotiation, such as asking for 150% of what they really are worth and expect to get, just to 'start off negotiations' - as if this were a good tactic. What happens if the recruiter isn't there as a buffer? The candidate makes the proposal, and the company says no thanks and let's just pretend we never met.
Other side is a client will call and say 'your candidate was making 80 at the last job? I'll go as high as 90, but offer 60 just do see the reaction.' My response would be 'the reaction is going to be an annoyed candidate who now feels lots of time has been wasted. Lets not screw around, get serious about this.'
Without a buffer, neither of these deals happen, yet both parties were willing to accept the terms of he other. If you think this is rare, you haven't been involved in enough deals with enough people yet.
That has nothing to do with what JohnnyCache was saying. JohnnyCache was saying that cops put on a punk "costume" but forget to muss up their clean shoes, unlike actual punks who are out all night eating and drinking and running around and generally making a mess.
You can complicate this discussion by bringing in different contexts and wrinkles of primate biology. The main point still stands. If you reduce the size of the group, then you get to the point where it's one alpha in the peacekeeper role. Also, the point still stands with betas anyhow.
I read it as a brilliant and elegant hack, a sort of real-world magic. As Vi Hart said (referring to how she builds her comfortable-looking fast-cut accelerated videos of handwriting) it's "tricking your brain into seeing what was actually there."
Tell me how you can save/make me money, and I'll listen. Tell me that "You reduced IT spend my $5million" dollars and I won't have any reason to believe you.
Same for people who take sole personal credit for building something that obviously is the work of dozens.