I have been working with several recruiting firms to try an find a new IT job. Today after a meeting with a new firm the recruiter told me roughly the following, "If you find a posting online let us know. If you apply online your in a big pool of people where as if WE present you the companies know we have vetted your resume and skills so there is a better chance at an interview." This is purely in reference to future positions that I may find and nothing that I currently know of.

Through working with several recruiting firms, I also know that depending on the contract the company has with the recruiter, if I apply (or have another recruiter put me in for a position) there is a certain amount of time a different recruiter can not submit me for a position at the same company.

Is this true or just trying to save them a commission for me when I found a position on my own if the recruiter all ready has a relationship with the company?

EDIT: After Carson63000 answer I Edited to add an existing relationship. However I do appreciate his answer as it stands.

  • 1
    My experience of agencies are that while you might get more interviews, this doesn't translate to more job offers - I ended up being placed for interviews where my skills obviously didn't line up.
    – HorusKol
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 1:21
  • @HorusKol It is true that more interviews don't translate to more offers, more interviews does translate to more companies you COULD get an offer from. Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 18:19
  • And part of the "big pool of people" contacting the company are actually other recruiters.
    – user8365
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 19:44
  • @capnhector - and increasing the number of teams in the premiership increases the number of teams that could win, but not the number of teams that will win. You are not going to get an offer from a company where a recruiter didn't match you properly.
    – HorusKol
    Commented Oct 1, 2014 at 22:34

3 Answers 3


I'm not going to pretend to know how every company in the world would react, but I can tell you that based on my personal experiences being involved with hiring people - no. That is not true. And I suspect the recruiter is just trying to score a commission without doing any work.

Generally, companies will make their decision whether they want to engage a recruiter (or multiple recruiters), or whether they want to advertise jobs themselves.

The advantage of the former is that, yes, they will get vetted candidates who should be a good fit for the job requirements. The advantage of the latter is that while it may be more work weeding out obviously unqualified candidates, it saves money by avoiding a recruiter's commission.

But the thing about going through recruiters is that employers want to deal with recruiters that they know and trust through previous successful interactions. Generally, hiring managers will only deal with a small number of recruiters. And frankly, they find getting contacted by other recruiters out of the blue extremely annoying.

And if they have already decided to advertise a position publicly - and thus clearly are willing to do the filtering themselves - I cannot imagine that having a recruiter push CVs at them (with an implicit demand of commission) would be welcomed. Certainly, I would not have any expectation whatsoever that the CVs coming from the recruiter would be higher quality candidates than those who contacted me directly. If anything, I'd expect them to be lower quality.

So my advice: politely thank the recruiter, but if you find an interesting job advertised directly, apply for it directly. Don't get anyone else involved, it's more likely to hurt than to help.

  • 2
    As someone who deals with hiring, direct and via recruiter, if I hire a recruiter to get me candidates, I expect to go through the recruiter. If I post a job, I'm not planning to work with a recruiter, so won't. That said, GOOD recruiters are a huge asset as companies like mine work through them. If I have an opening with a recruiter and you contact me directly I'll probably pass you back to the recruiter to vet you. Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 17:52

The recruiter is simply chasing a new commission. If the company is openly advertising the position then putting in your application via the recruiter offers no improvement, in fact it can reduce your chances.

  • Once the recruiter knows about the position they are going to offer up several candidates, which is extra competition for the position.
  • If the company doesn't work with the recruiter already they will likely ignore them.

The second point is very important. We have open positions at my company but we only work with a select group of recruiters who we trust. Emails from recruiters not on the list get binned without even being read.

If you can directly apply to a company this is always your best chance.

  • Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that recruiters are not more advantageous than doing it yourself? Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 15:56
  • The question is directly related to recruiters who have that relation ship with the company, not randomly reaching out. Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 18:19
  • @capnhector I don't think it is. OP specifically said that a recruiter told him "if you find a posting online, let us know .. we will present you". No reason whatsoever to assume that the recruiter has relationships with any random company he sees a posting from. Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 3:56

This might not directly answer the question, but I have a story that might answer some other, underlying questions, so I'll post it. If you find it irrelevant, just downvote, and I'll take the hint.

I got my current job through a recruiter.

I had no idea about the company I'm currently working for.

I sent my papers to one of these online recruiters, and got a call saying they had two companies who are looking for people fitting my profile, so I first had an interview with said recruiter.

This interview was great. The recruiter just told me the basic gist of both positions (i.e. programming languages they mainly use), and asked me relevant questions. She then decides whether or not I fit the bill, and forwards my papers if she thinks I'm it.

3-4 days later, I got a call from the same lady saying that company A wanted to interview me, so obviously she'd forwarded my stuff.

First interview with company A was sort of meh (I thought), because it sounded to me like it wasn't an entry level position. But we talked for a good while, and I don't get nervous in situations like this, so I was answering questions in a way that left no regrets later on. I kinda enjoyed it, in spite of the sensation that I wasn't experienced enough.

2 days later, I get another call (from the recruiter) saying they wanted me to come by again and take a technical assessment. Basically a set of problems to be solved using programming. Again, I felt like I was in the deep end because I couldn't do all the problems. Turned out they weren't looking for someone to do all of them. They were just reading the code I DID write, to assess me in that way.

Anyway, I didn't know that, so I left feeling a bit nay-ish. But lo and behold, another call (from the recruiter), a third interview, and this time, they just told me they wanted me. They just wanted to talk salary (because I'd politely not brought it up earlier).

The gist of the story is that the recruiter works as a sort of "filter" for bad candidates, and a streamliner for good candidates. The company can often choose to not deal with bad candidates face-to-face, and in that way avoid the confrontation of telling people no. It's not so much a show of weakness, as it is a convenience.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .