September 16, 2013

Executive Search: Don’t pay lazy headhunters

Filed under: For Managers, Headhunters, How to work with headhunters, Job scams, Q&A, Readers' Forum, Recruiting

In the September 17, 2013 Ask The Headhunter Newsletter, a reader asks why headhunters charge you to join their database so they can “find” you and earn big fees by placing you. Where’s the search in that?

I run a small, high-tech company and I’ve been looking at various models for hiring top-level executive talent, and also in case I decide to look for a new executive job myself. What’s your quick take on the BlueSteps Executive Search service that I keep seeing advertised? I know you say the candidate should never be paying to find a job. BlueSteps charges executive job seekers $329 to join its database. Is it the same story here? I thought headhunters got paid big fees to go find people — not to charge me to join the database they search.

Nick’s Reply

You nailed it. The candidate should never pay a dime to find a job — especially when a corporation is paying a big-name “executive search firm” huge fees to find the right candidates. (Real headhunters go out and find good candidates; they don’t charge candidates to be found.)

payoffWhat is it, anyway, with this new “business model” online? Create a database, charge job seekers to add their information, then charge employers (or headhunters) to find the information. Everybody pays! And the entrepreneurs doing business this way come off like slimeballs. Great business model!

We’ve discussed TheLadders, CareerBuilder, LinkedIn, and other job boards that charge job seekers — and then charge employers. (You should never pay for access to jobs — or to headhunters.)

Now there’s a new player in this league. BlueSteps — an operation of the Association of Executive Search Consultants (AESC). It’s doing what LinkedIn does: tapping job seekers for fees. It’s a racket.

Then the executive search firms that belong to BlueSteps charge their clients — corporate employers — one-third of a new hire’s salary to fill executive positions. We’re talking $100,000+ fees.

What makes these search firms worth so much? It’s a good question, because according to BlueSteps’ website, (1) they fill jobs by surfing a resume database, and (2) they deliver job seekers who paid to join the database. That’s not worth $100,000.

Real executive headhunters don’t sit in front of a screen reading resumes that come across the BlueSteps — or any other — database. They actually go out into the world and hunt the people their clients need. They travel in their professional community. They go where top talent hangs out and mix it up. They talk to respected members of the executive community and form long-term relationships. They track down talent that is hidden or unknown to their clients and bring it home.

lazy_recruiterWhen headhunters find their candidates in a database that job seekers pay to join, something smells. This is not headhunting.

Consider: BlueSteps is an association of search firms that get paid in the vicinity of $200,000 to fill a $600,000 job (one-third of the new hire’s salary). So, why is the AESC charging people to put their resumes into a database that its members can then query to find candidates? It rightfully raises an alarm. Suddenly, executive search is not worth $200,000. Any employer’s own personnel jockeys can surf databases to find people at any salary level. The same executives that populate the BlueSteps database are in other databases, like LinkedIn.

The suckers here are not just executives who pay $329 to “join” the BlueSteps database. The really big suckers are corporations that pay exorbitant fees to lazy headhunters who while away their hours feeding at the database trough.

Check this testimonial on the BlueSteps website from a managing partner at a world-class executive search firm:

“BlueSteps is a very effective way of being visible to the retained search community, as its database is constantly mined by AESC member firms.”

Mined?? Why aren’t these lazy headhunters out actually finding top executive talent? Why are they relying on job seekers who paid to get into the database?

Another managing partner (Don’t you love that title?) at another executive search firm testifies:

“Through BlueSteps, we quickly located three of our top candidates located in a broad geographic cross-section including Los Angeles, New York City, St. Louis and London. The candidate signed on for a total compensation package of $500,000+.”

This headhunter collected a fee that was probably around $166,000 — for querying a database. This is not executive search. This is lazy. This is a racket.

BlueSteps says that “in the past 90 days 3,549 BlueSteps database searches [were conducted] by executive recruiters,” and that executive profiles in the BlueSteps database were viewed 12,732 times.

What those managing directors are saying is, We no longer conduct the searches we’re being paid to conduct. We search databases, just like you do — and we charge you $200,000 to fill your open job the way your own personnel jockeys do it.

So, now that we’ve dissected this silly proposition, let’s get to my advice.

If you need to hire an executive, and you have a $200,000 budget to pay a headhunter, go to a small boutique search firm that actually has good contacts in your industry. Use a headhunter who flies below the radar, and who will go out and meet, talk with, and cultivate the best industry sources to get credible, trusted referrals to the best candidates. These are often solo practitioners who are highly respected in the industries they hunt in — headhunters who have relationships that yield excellent referrals. They don’t need LinkedIn, and they don’t need BlueSteps. They make their money the old-fashioned way: They earn it. (You can learn How to Work With Headhunters… and how to make [real] headhunters work for you.) They invest in people and in relationships — not in cheap recruiting tricks. And they get off their butts and actually recruit.

But if you want candidates from a database that people pay to join, then try BlueSteps.

Or, if you have $200,000 to spend and you’re smart, my guess is you could fill the job yourself. And that’s the lesson here. Filling top jobs properly, by finding the best people, is hard work, but it’s not rocket science. It’s just astonishing that AESC and BlueSteps and their members, who call themselves “executive search” firms, conduct “searches” by surfing databases, and by charging job seekers fees “to be found.”

That’s not worth $200,000. Or even $329. Don’t pay lazy headhunters.

If you’re an employer, how much do you pay headhunters, and what do you get in return? If you’re a job seeker, have you ever paid a headhunter?

: :

30 Comments on “Executive Search: Don’t pay lazy headhunters”
By Eric Cole
September 17, 2013 at 2:26 am

Hi Nick.

Great advice, as always. I love the line in your recent post, “Use a headhunter who flies below the radar, and who will go out and meet, talk with, and cultivate the best industry sources to get credible, trusted referrals to the best candidates.”

We learned early on a lesson about advertising our services: It attracts job seekers…which ain’t what we are looking for.

We’ve found it very profitable to just get on with the work. Flying below the radar is where it’s at.

Cheers,

Eric

By VP Sales
September 17, 2013 at 8:44 am

Always a pleasure to read your column, Nick

I consult to high tech industry and help build sales/marketing structures from VP level down. I do not use ‘database’ headhunters at all in my work.

I can always tell a real headhunter from the fake when they do call.

Real headhunter (when they find out I ‘compete’) – Im interested in working with you as new positions come up..can we do that?

Fake – You are a competitor – CLICK!

By Michaelgav
September 17, 2013 at 9:35 am

I’m curious about how someone found three candidates spread out over four cities. Do search firms dabble in body parts now? Should we start taking the term “headhunter” literally?

By Eddie
September 17, 2013 at 10:18 am

There is a risk of buying just a pile of resumes.
“I thought headhunters got paid big fees to go find people” I would more believe headhunters get paid big fees after their candidates were sucessfully placed with their client’s satisfaction guaranteed for 90 days.

By don
September 17, 2013 at 10:54 am

A data base full of people P T Barnum would like to meet..one born every minute. A place to check to see if you’re candidate isn’t executive material.

By BlueSteps Team
September 17, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Dear Nick,

We would like to clarify some information about the BlueSteps service and about Retained Executive Search for your readers.

First, it is absolutely correct that a candidate should never pay a search consultant for a job—no reputable search professional would ever accept fees from candidates. As you know, retained executive search professionals work for clients (the hiring organization), not candidates. The Association of Executive Search Consultants (AESC) represents exclusively retained search firms. These search consultants, with verified best-practices and adherence to a Candidate’s Bill-of-Rights, are retained to fill senior management positions for organizations. This includes utilizing their own existing networks of contacts, and providing a research-based process to clients that includes market analysis, detailed reference checking, significant support in salary and contract negotiations, ensuring that the recruitment process is exhaustive, systematic, fairly managed and open to inspection (especially relevant nowadays when diligence, auditability and good governance are a corporate priority). There is so much more to the search process than we can go into in full here, but to say the least, name generation and candidate identification by using a sourcing tool is just the beginning of a much more complex process.

Senior executives are going to encounter search consultants at some point in their careers and it is important that they understand the search process and have strategies in place to develop good relationships with search consultants and understand how to leverage their opportunities when a search consultant contacts them.

When an executive joins BlueSteps, they are not paying recruiters to find them a job. They are joining a career-long, career management service that offers a plethora of benefits tailored for executives, whether they are active or passive in the job market. Being in a database accessible by some 8,000 search professionals at the 350+ executive search firms worldwide that are members of the Association of Executive Search Consultants, is just one of those benefits. AESC member search firms conduct 70,000+ searches for executive positions each year, so anything a candidate can do to be more visible to the search community is only going to benefit them as one piece of their overall career management strategy. Yet, being passive in a database should only be a small part of an executive’s job search strategy, and that’s why BlueSteps offers a complete career service that focuses on every stage of an executive’s career.

BlueSteps members receive career consultations and resume reviews from best-in-class career coaches and writers, tailored executive career content by industry vertical, function, and geographic location, webinars on a variety of executive career management topics including “Advanced LinkedIn Tactics” to “How to Obtain a Board Seat” or “Job Search Strategy for Executives 50+,” access to the International Search Firm Directory, a sample list of open searches being conducted by AESC member search firms, exclusive articles and reports on topics from executive compensation to digital transformation, among many other benefits.

Operated by the AESC, we are a not-for-profit organization and charge a one-time membership fee for BlueSteps to cover our maintenance and production costs. Although not every BlueSteps member will be contacted by a search consultant, we assure everyone gets value from our career management services, and those who are contacted by search professionals are presented with serious opportunities (this is retained search, not contingency).

Networking is by far the best way for executives to be considered for executive-level positions, and we have a number of resources available to assist executives in their online and offline networking strategies.

We hope that helps clarify our service for your readers. If you or your readers have additional questions about the BlueSteps service or about Retained Executive Search, we’d be happy to discuss.

Best,
The BlueSteps Team
info@bluesteps.com

By Nick Corcodilos
September 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Dear “BlueSteps Team”:

The approach you describe seems rife with conflicts of interest. Not many years ago, during economic downturns, many “search firms” had a hard time staying afloat. So they wandered into new territory: Charging job seekers for help finding jobs and “managing their careers.” Today that trend is a business model that shows up in places like TheLadders, CareerBuilder, and LinkedIn. It’s unfortunate, because it causes two serious problems:

1. Recruiters who use a database comprising people who paid to join it are – by definition and practice – limiting the searches they conduct. It’s far easier to “find” candidates in a database, and far easier to rationalize avoiding a thorough search. This hurts employers who pay big fees for thorough searches, because it’s not search. It’s a kind of farming. Pardon the analogy, but when man shifted from being primarily a hunter to being a gatherer and farmer producing his own food, the game changed. His diet became more limited. He got fat. He stayed in one place and tended to see less of the world. I believe this is the problem inherent in headhunting by charging people to live in your barn.

2. As you note, headhunters are hired and paid by employers (corporate clients). The minute headhunters start taking money from job seekers – for any reason, any purpose, including “career consultations and resume reviews” – then there is a conflict of interest. The business is changed.

I think it’s great that AESC provides useful content to job seekers. It’s good for a vendor to educate its market and the community it works in. But, in my opinion, the conflict is enormous. Herding executives into a club — even if you don’t charge for membership — turns the very nature of “hunting” and “searching” into something else entirely. My concerns are substantiated by many small, boutique search firms that are not hampered by this new business model. It’s a model that may smooth out the business risks of search firms, but it’s a model that turns search firms into consumer services businesses. And that’s not what headhunting is.

I think AESC provides useful services. But a database of self-selected members is not one of them. I think it perverts the very nature of the search business. The very existence of this database limits the quality of service that corporate clients pay handsomely for because it encourages limited searches. Such searches are not worth the fees charged because an employer’s own personnel department can do the same thing — the “members only” model is available on LinkedIn for a lot less money.

By Dave
September 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm

@Nick

Very well written article and response.

By Alan
September 18, 2013 at 12:09 am

@Nick

Your comment about jobs where the example fee to the “headhunter” is $200K made me wonder about how you’d describe your target reader audience (which may be very different from what BlueSteps sees as it’s target audience).

Do your job search method recommendations apply equally well to folks who aren’t high level executives – for example, technical professionals or mid-level managers who’d be very happy to have half of the example fee as their salary? Looking either higher or lower on the scale, is there an income/responsiblity level at which some of your recommendations might become more or less applicable?

By Eric Cole
September 18, 2013 at 12:39 am

Hi Nick.

Allow me, if you will, to respond on your behalf to Alan.

Please buy Nick’s book and read it. You will see that Nick is speaking directly to people who WANT to be recognized and found by good recruiters.

The advice and information that Nick provides about how to work with recruiters, approach your job search, avoid costly errors, and dozens of other valuable tips are – I firmly believe – independent of compensation level.

At the risk of getting a bit “ZEN” on you (but I do live in Japan, so it’s a valid excuse) I’ll put forward an interesting observation I’ve made as a recruiter: The more that you focus on being the BEST you can possibly be – irrespective of consideration of your current compensation – the more quickly you will be recognized as invaluable, and your compensation will rise. And the likelihood that you will be contacted by good recruiters will increase.

Of course, this assumes that your current company recognizes your contribution and assesses it in line with your own understanding of your “worth” to the company.

(Good companies do this. Bad companies help us by pushing their unrewarded talent into our welcoming arms.)

By Karsten
September 18, 2013 at 4:24 am

We have all encountered LinkedIn surfers, recruiters that have seen our profile and then want to spam it around. Some are even more lazy:

Recently I was called by a recruiter who said he had me recommended for a development geologist position (error 1) with a consultancey (error 2) in the UK (error 3). I told him plainly that if he had even bothered to just spend three minutes on my LInkedIn profile he would have seen that I left a consultancy three months ago, my expertise is exploration and I have no intention of moving abroad now.

I told him straight out that if he did not bother to even spend five minutes googling the candidate, he should not Call. He said that he was in a hurry, and had not had the time. Yeah, right, better to waste time by calling irrelevant candidates?

By Nic
September 18, 2013 at 7:45 am

I would like to address the response Nick received, from my perspective as a C-level executive. I have a number of problems with what I am reading on this thread. I will overlook the majority of it and outline rule one in my book regarding business etiquette.

When one is addressing someone directly, signing off with his (or her) full name (as Nick Corcodilos has done,) that individual is standing behind (i.e. owning) his or her communications. I immediately look for the same in a reply when that reply is directed back towards the individual.

I do not accept nor appreciate being addressed by first name ever by a firm or individual when the individual writing me is not either introduced or previously known to me. The ultimate turn off is when I am addressed by first name by a stranger and then the same ends their letter with a canned signature line.

By Nick Corcodilos
September 18, 2013 at 9:30 am

@Alan: I write Ask The Headhunter for people at all levels. It’s not designed or intended just for executives, though I sometimes focus an article on the C-level. Most of the ATH audience is mid-level professional, including many engineers (the field I started in), IT folks, marketing, finance, sales… and we also have lots of middle to higher level managers. C-level executives are a pretty small population, but many are in the audience, too.

The basic methods discussed on Ask The Headhunter are about doing profitable work. It doesn’t matter whether you’re an exec or a programmer. The same story gets you hired: You’re here to make a business more successful by showing how you’ll do profitable work.

By Bonnie Rauwerdink
September 18, 2013 at 9:48 am

Nick, Do headhunters even bother with entry level people or individuals that will make less than 50,000?
LinkedIn makes it sound that everyone is being courted by headhunters. How can that be profitable for them and why would those employers pay?

By Nick Corcodilos
September 18, 2013 at 10:27 am

@Bonnie: The term “headhunter” is used so loosely nowadays that someone in a company’s own HR department might be referred to as a headhunter. This article discusses who’s NOT a headhunter: http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/crocs51notheadhunters.htm

Real headhunters work at almost all levels. If you earn $40,000 and a headhunter places you with a client, the hh can earn a fee of $10,000. So you can see it’s a worthwhile enterprise even at that salary level. These are usually contingency headhunters — they get paid only when they fill the position, and the fee will be somewhere between 15%-25% of the new hire’s salary. And, yes, some employers will use headhunters for jobs below $50,000 salary.

Retained headhunters are paid partly up front, when they start a search, and the balance when the hire is made. Unlike contingency headhunters, these guys get paid even if the job is never filled — or if the company hires the president’s daughter through a personal connection. Retained hh’s are usually used only for top-level jobs, and fees can run up to 33% of salary. Unfortunately, there are a lot of guys in this business who think an expensive suit, a fancy firm name, an air of mystery, and lots of executive-ese terminology makes them special. Yet, as the BlueSteps story above reveals, all they do is surf databases. These guys go out of business every day. The good ones usually fly beneath the radar — they operate quietly and with integrity. They’re worth every dime that they charge.

There are good headhunters working at almost all levels. Where things get sticky and sloppy is when an employer lets lots of contingency headhunters work on one position. They start running into one another like drunken sailors. As a job seeker, it’s smart to ask whether a contingency headhunter has an exclusive assignment — that is, he’s the only one working to fill that job. Your chances are much better then, if you’re a good fit.

But make no mistake: Good contingency headhunters are every bit as good as the best retained hh’s. The type of business model they choose depends on lots of factors. I’ve done both, and I prefer working contingency because it gives me more degrees of freedom in my work.

The trouble with all this is, the cost of entry to the headhunting biz is about zero. Anyone can play. Consequently, you’re going to meet lots of inexperienced, sloppy, sleazy, inept “headhunters” who — like the one Karsten tells about above — are “in a hurry.”

By Dave
September 18, 2013 at 11:16 am

“Where things get sticky and sloppy is when an employer lets lots of contingency headhunters work on one position.”

I’ve seen/experienced where the HH/Recruiter is competing with the internal HR/manager for the position as well.

And many times, they have never placed anyone in the company before. They just saw the job ad and said “hey, I’m a Recruiter/HH. Can I help you find someone?” Of course, since they are on contingency, they say sure. They don’t have to pay unless someone presented knocks their socks off.

And of course a few things happen…
Usually since they don’t have a good relationship with the end client. I.e. they always seem to hire someone else sourced a different way. And many times they just pass you off to the companies HR person (Not only do you have to wow the HH/Recruiter but the HR gatekeeper). Also, they give no insight into the specific work the company does, nor the specific benefits the company offers or any insight into the types of interview questions you’ll be asked.

“The trouble with all this is, the cost of entry to the headhunting biz is about zero.”

Anyone with a telephone, computer and internet connection…. ;-)

By Nick Corcodilos
September 18, 2013 at 11:26 am

@Dave: That’s the story. But smart companies will not accept referrals from contingency hh’s with whom they don’t have a contract. Lazy companies will look at anything coming over the transom, and it’s a stupid policy. There are headhunters who skim job postings and then send in every resume they have. It’s nuts.

The problem for you is, such hh’s are sending in your resume as bait to get the company’s attention. And we all know how much bait fish are worth.

In Silicon Valley, in the “old days,” we used to say the cost of entry was a dime and a pencil. You’d work out of a phone booth and take notes on the wall. :) There were actually some pretty good headhunters who worked that way. But far more who were just running resumes. Like today.

By Peter Miller
September 18, 2013 at 11:47 am

Two questions:

1)Do retained search firms pay for access to the list of potential ‘candidates’?

2)Do Blue Step members (the folks who coughed up $239)pay additional fees for various services – you know, “… the career consultations and resume reviews from best-in-class career coaches and writers,…etc”
If the answers are ‘yes’ how is Blue Step different from The Ladders et al?
The phrase that comes to mind is ” walks like a duck, talks like a duck…”

By Gwen
September 18, 2013 at 3:29 pm

Loved the article this week and especially Nick’s reply back to the “Blue Steps Team”. One thing stood out that was so eloquently and artfully thought out which is what many of these “database headhunters” (lack of a better term) miss that Nick pointed out which is a great takeaway:

“…when man shifted from being primarily a hunter to being a gatherer and farmer producing his own food, the game changed. His diet became more limited. He got fat. He stayed in one place and tended to see less of the world. I believe this is the problem inherent in headhunting by charging people to live in your barn.”

This sums it up. It’s deep. Your talent pool is limited when you practice database headhunting.

Nick’s articulation is almost on the same thought processes of what Steve jobs knew. An exact skill set doesn’t necessarily mean the best candidate. That’s why an art designer, who had the vision/soultion and not a techie designed the “apple look” you see in their computer design to this day. He didn’t limit his talent pool. He did the work to search and talk. Exactly what a real headhunter does.

And not to sound crass and like a meanie, but I am not amused by Bluesteps seemingly articulated jargon of justifying those costs. I don’t think that amount of money can ever be justified just to place a candidate in an executive job or any other job for that matter. Do they know what economy we are living in? Gheez.

By Nick Corcodilos
September 18, 2013 at 3:40 pm

@Gwen: You pointed something out that’s very important in a search: serendipity.

Often, you don’t really know what you’re looking for. The “search” is the point. The object is not. And during the search, you have experiences, meet people, think, learn, tune your perspective. That all sounds lazy, but it’s a lot of work. It takes time. It requires judgment and the ability to put pieces of a vague puzzle together. When you find what or who you want, it often has little to do with what you thought you were looking for. Those you meet along the way help you see what you (or your client) need. You can’t do it from behind a display, or by watching resumes scroll by. A database can’t do it. A database can’t search.

Clients pay headhunters for search. Not for a candidate. That’s lost on most employers and headhunters nowadays. The candidate falls out of the process; you don’t know who it is when you start.

Thanks for your kind words, but you and others have added a lot to this Q&A.

By Dave
September 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm

“Clients pay headhunters for search. Not for a candidate. That’s lost on most employers and headhunters nowadays. The candidate falls out of the process; you don’t know who it is when you start.”

Many managers/Recruiters/headhunters don’t have the technical ability, drive or cajones to pull off an effective search.

This reminds me of a forum post I read several years ago. A headhunter did not understand people’s frustrations with strict adherence to job specs and database searches. The example used was for a Share Point programmer needed for a Share Point upgrade. The headhunter claimed that if his client wanted experience in a specific version, you would be thrown out of consideration – even if they were a well respected person. There was no obvious technical reasons why someone without that specific experience shouldn’t be considered other than “my client wants that and he/she pays the bills.” Any person worth hiring would learn the quirks of the new system in a reasonable amount of time. In other words, you could hire someone tomorrow and they could be up to speed in the time it would take to get someone with that specific experience. It also begs the question – why is the client so insistent? What happens if they want to upgrade again or move away from that platform? Does it mean they are firing that person?

Another interesting read comes from David Heinemeier Hansson, who created Ruby on Rails, a popular framework for web applications. Some recruiter tried to recruit him as a Ruby on Rails work without doing the right research:
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2598-why-are-technical-recruiters-so-clueless

By Nick Corcodilos
September 18, 2013 at 5:52 pm

@Dave: That’s better than the apocryphal story about the programmer who was rejected for a job that required 5 years experience with a programming language… that hadn’t been in existence for even 3 years. The ineptness, the stupidity, the lame laziness of “Kelly” is precious.

By Citizen X
September 18, 2013 at 6:56 pm

@Nick

Serendipity was always an important part of my process, and calls to mind something you wrote back in 2010 about the days when someone with a brain was reading between the lines when he or she studied a resume.

Back then, you could hire someone on the basis of new insights someone might bring to your operation. I once hired a guy because of the quirky comments he made as he toured my facility. He became one of my best people ever.

It would be nice if people “searching for talent” could cast a wide neural net instead of skimming resumes for narrowly defined keywords and laundry lists.

They might find somebody useful.

By Eddie
September 18, 2013 at 8:03 pm

I am still at a loss over all this smog.
I want to think the client pays the headhunter a fee for the candidate who the client hires.
The headhunters who do not get their candidates hired even though they may have interviewed don’t get paid anything?
Is this assumption correct?

By Karsten
September 19, 2013 at 8:05 am

Dave, you would be surprised how often I am contaced by recruiters for geologist positions, where it turns out that I know the company or the technical topic far better than the recruiter. Or, may be the recruiter just pays lip service to the company propaganda or my wishes, and then get surprised when facts are different.

As I wrote above, a recruiter tried to get me for a development geologist position – if he had spent three minutes on LikedIn, he would have seen that I am in exploration, which is quite different.

Another time, a recruiter wanted me for a position with a company that suited very well according to his description. Of course, it was urgent; “Telephone interviews next week”. I already had singled out my current company, but the funny story is that the two companies cooperate (which he did not really know), and I have found that the other company is way off his description and my wishes.

By Gwen
September 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm

@Nick Thanks it’s a pleasure!

By VP Sales
February 19, 2014 at 6:54 am

I read carefully your article as well as its comments and…I eventually decided to pay the fee to BlueSteps. My view is that a “real” headhunter will obviously build a network of talented executives with direct contact and hard work but I also think he should do searches on BlueSteps and LinkedIn. Why would you miss a candidate that had a very good track in his current company but didn’t spend the required time to know all the good headhunters… Why would this headhunter miss a good option for his customer? You are obviously one of the best headhunter but how can you be sure you will not find a good candidate that decided to register on these sites?

By Ken
February 28, 2014 at 9:47 am

Not vouching for bluesteps or any of them, but one thing the fee does is keep the “non-serious” out. It’s a qualifying filter.

By Nick Corcodilos
February 28, 2014 at 2:09 pm

@Ken: I’ve yet to see the pay wall for one of these sites that’s really a qualifying filter. That’s how TheLadders started out. People are suckers for any organization that charges for membership.

By Pradeep
March 28, 2014 at 3:52 am

Nick – Thanks for the article, and follow up comments. Decided not to pay for Blue$teps.

Post a comment