25% sounds a touch high to me, certainly for normal engineering role in tech (though I could well imagine it being more for niche or very senior roles)
12.5-20% was the typical range when I last dealt with them in the mid-late 2010s (usually varying with the seniority of the role). Perhaps things have changed to reflect the additional value they provide in bypassing the torrent of spam that's currently plaguing the recruitment process - but 25% still feels higher than I'd expect.
I agree that you can use this as an argument when negotiating a signing bonus if you're a direct candidate. Won't always work because the hiring manager usually isn't the person who's deciding whether or not to use a recruiter/headhunter (and their fee probably comes from a separate budget), but it's worth a try. I did exactly that when last changing jobs, and managed to get an additional 10%.
If applying to a job is a sign that you are not part of the "best candidates" then there is no hope, is there? ;)
That said, in this case it was via a recruiter so probably the recruiter reached out to potential candidates, so people who weren't necessarily actively looking.
There are people who aren’t actively looking. There are people who once they have a need to look, have many contacts who would jump at the chance to make an offer… or who have standing offers already if they want to leave. This makes it less likely they will be applying to posted listings.
I’ve had several former co-workers reach out over the years to see if I was looking to jump ship. My old boss also had a standing offer for me at his new place (though I heard he was recently let go, so that one’s a dead end now).
You can probably negotiate the fee, that seems high.
On the candidate side, job hunting is completely broken. Are you sure this person’s resume would have been seen by a real person if they applied through the job portal?
> As the person doing the hiring that kind of incentives me to strive for a lower salary, at least for that first year
That's a very bad way to look at it. If you think recruiters are too expensive don't use them, but I suspect it makes no difference to you as hiring manager as that was previously approved and budgeted, and low-balling a candidate is not the best way to start a relationship or to attract the best.
25% sounds a touch high to me, certainly for normal engineering role in tech (though I could well imagine it being more for niche or very senior roles)
12.5-20% was the typical range when I last dealt with them in the mid-late 2010s (usually varying with the seniority of the role). Perhaps things have changed to reflect the additional value they provide in bypassing the torrent of spam that's currently plaguing the recruitment process - but 25% still feels higher than I'd expect.
I agree that you can use this as an argument when negotiating a signing bonus if you're a direct candidate. Won't always work because the hiring manager usually isn't the person who's deciding whether or not to use a recruiter/headhunter (and their fee probably comes from a separate budget), but it's worth a try. I did exactly that when last changing jobs, and managed to get an additional 10%.
My assumption is the best candidates aren’t actually out there looking, so it’s unlikely they will randomly apply to a posted opening.
If applying to a job is a sign that you are not part of the "best candidates" then there is no hope, is there? ;)
That said, in this case it was via a recruiter so probably the recruiter reached out to potential candidates, so people who weren't necessarily actively looking.
There are people who aren’t actively looking. There are people who once they have a need to look, have many contacts who would jump at the chance to make an offer… or who have standing offers already if they want to leave. This makes it less likely they will be applying to posted listings.
I’ve had several former co-workers reach out over the years to see if I was looking to jump ship. My old boss also had a standing offer for me at his new place (though I heard he was recently let go, so that one’s a dead end now).
Yes that can happen but from the hiring side does this necessarily made them the "best candidate" or simply the best-known and safest?
20% is the standard I see
You can probably negotiate the fee, that seems high.
On the candidate side, job hunting is completely broken. Are you sure this person’s resume would have been seen by a real person if they applied through the job portal?
> As the person doing the hiring that kind of incentives me to strive for a lower salary, at least for that first year
That's a very bad way to look at it. If you think recruiters are too expensive don't use them, but I suspect it makes no difference to you as hiring manager as that was previously approved and budgeted, and low-balling a candidate is not the best way to start a relationship or to attract the best.
I assume you kept reading, and didn't stop at that quote to come tell OP how terrible they are?
> I'm not going to do that since we aren't in diar straits, the offer will be appropriate for the role and industry comps
Please don't do that... Your reply does not address my point nor does it bring anything of value and only misrepresents what I wrote in a rude way.
Then explain what you wrote in a way that doesn't dismiss the very next sentence of the OP.