Ask HN: Why do recruiters ask why are you looking for a new position
46 comments
There are a few categories of job hunters:
- itching for something new
- can't stick around because of personality clashes
- compensation
- not looking, but "looking"
Folks who're looking for something new will likely only stick around a couple years, because then "new" will be "old", and they'll want something "new" again
Personality clashes - whether their "fault" or not need to be seen early: doesn't make them [inherently] "good" or "bad" candidates, but since personality fit is >90% of every job ... you need to grok this fast
Money/perks/work-life balance/PTO/stock options/etc all matter to everyone - but how much they matter varies person to person
If they're content where they are, but are willing to talk to you, you know you have to work harder to get them - and it's probably not going to be by merely tossing a few $$KK at them
The way you (or any other candidate) answers, "why are you looking for a new position" indicates worlds about them as a candidate, and how well that particular recruiter is going to be able to place them into the company portfolio he/she works with
- itching for something new
- can't stick around because of personality clashes
- compensation
- not looking, but "looking"
Folks who're looking for something new will likely only stick around a couple years, because then "new" will be "old", and they'll want something "new" again
Personality clashes - whether their "fault" or not need to be seen early: doesn't make them [inherently] "good" or "bad" candidates, but since personality fit is >90% of every job ... you need to grok this fast
Money/perks/work-life balance/PTO/stock options/etc all matter to everyone - but how much they matter varies person to person
If they're content where they are, but are willing to talk to you, you know you have to work harder to get them - and it's probably not going to be by merely tossing a few $$KK at them
The way you (or any other candidate) answers, "why are you looking for a new position" indicates worlds about them as a candidate, and how well that particular recruiter is going to be able to place them into the company portfolio he/she works with
> can't stick around because of personality clashes
No way to know this, and Im sure any experienced candidate would ever say this
No way to know this, and Im sure any experienced candidate would ever say this
It's easy for the org to change around you (staff turnover, restructuring, management change) such that the team you leave is not the one you joined.
It's pretty easy to get "boiling frogged" into an intolerable situation and I don't think it reflects badly on employees who wait out changes for a while to see how they turn out.
It's pretty easy to get "boiling frogged" into an intolerable situation and I don't think it reflects badly on employees who wait out changes for a while to see how they turn out.
There are a lot of negatively slanted replies in this thread who sound oblivious to how hiring works or sound like people who have justifiably been passed over. Even the phrasing of "what answers are they looking for?" sounds a little like you're viewing this as someone you're going up against, or intrusive questioning, or just hoop to jump through just to earn a paycheck instead of a conversation that could have benefits for you.
Is salary alignment your only metric for accepting a job? Of course not. It goes the other direction too. Recruiters and hiring managers also don't just want someone who just matches the salary range, they want the best possible fit from the pool of candidates available to them. Even when it comes to money, some salary ranges are hard limits, others might be flexible for the right candidate. The recruiter probably knows which employer is which. Yes, obviously recruiters are not 100% vested in your career or becoming your buddy but they are financially motivated to be a decent match maker and you should hold the conversation in good faith (they don't get paid in full if you don't work out). Think of a job match as a radar chart, not just salary demand on a one dimension number line.
Not having something thoughtful to say in response to these types of questions probably just means you're going to get tossed over to seat-filler jobs and not places willing to pay a premium for perfect fits because you're not giving them anything to work with. Trust me when I say that experienced recruiters have met all sorts and you have nothing novel or surprising to say in these early stage questions, even the average ones will figure you out pretty quickly.
Is salary alignment your only metric for accepting a job? Of course not. It goes the other direction too. Recruiters and hiring managers also don't just want someone who just matches the salary range, they want the best possible fit from the pool of candidates available to them. Even when it comes to money, some salary ranges are hard limits, others might be flexible for the right candidate. The recruiter probably knows which employer is which. Yes, obviously recruiters are not 100% vested in your career or becoming your buddy but they are financially motivated to be a decent match maker and you should hold the conversation in good faith (they don't get paid in full if you don't work out). Think of a job match as a radar chart, not just salary demand on a one dimension number line.
Not having something thoughtful to say in response to these types of questions probably just means you're going to get tossed over to seat-filler jobs and not places willing to pay a premium for perfect fits because you're not giving them anything to work with. Trust me when I say that experienced recruiters have met all sorts and you have nothing novel or surprising to say in these early stage questions, even the average ones will figure you out pretty quickly.
recruiters have nothing interesting or novel to say either.
I'm in 100% agreement and generally dislike information asymmetry jobs, but it doesn't mean they can't help your prospects when you are talking with them. Your judgement of a recruiter as a person isn't generally relevant to job seeking, but it doesn't work like that the other direction.
If you're looking for a job and talking to recruiters it's foolish to then treat them coldly, if you hate it so much find other means, I've had plenty of success with personal network referrals and cold applying also. It's like working with a realtor but then trying to avoid telling them why you moved or what type of house you're looking for and only giving them your budget. It makes no sense to me.
If you're looking for a job and talking to recruiters it's foolish to then treat them coldly, if you hate it so much find other means, I've had plenty of success with personal network referrals and cold applying also. It's like working with a realtor but then trying to avoid telling them why you moved or what type of house you're looking for and only giving them your budget. It makes no sense to me.
the info you give them allows them to make more money off you or close faster.
It's not clear to me that you really understand the hiring process at all, which might explain your strange negativity.
How is a recruiter getting you more money (and increasing their commission) or landing you a job quicker bad? As a candidate you arent't paying them a dime and you are free to walk away at moment's notice.
How is a recruiter getting you more money (and increasing their commission) or landing you a job quicker bad? As a candidate you arent't paying them a dime and you are free to walk away at moment's notice.
i’ve dealt with plenty of strange negativity from recruiters, thanks
They're not there for the conversation. They're there to make a quick commission, which should be your goal too.
and how do i do that, make a quick commission?
They want to see if you are looking for professional growth, stable salary, or if you are a toxic moron who will start badmouthing their former colleagues which will indicate that you will do the same with your future ones. The last option is end of story, the first two will let them decide if you are a match for the position or you will leave in a few months and they will have to repeat the exercise.
If you are a toxic moron who will start badmouthing their former colleagues
Or are dealing with a genuinely painful day-to-day work situation and are struggling to keep a lid on it.
I get the point that venting about the problems of one's current or previous environments is bad form, and not anything anyone really wants to hear about it. But the touch of schadenfreude in your characterization of the (often very real and painful) situations these people are helping doesn't exactly help, either.
Or are dealing with a genuinely painful day-to-day work situation and are struggling to keep a lid on it.
I get the point that venting about the problems of one's current or previous environments is bad form, and not anything anyone really wants to hear about it. But the touch of schadenfreude in your characterization of the (often very real and painful) situations these people are helping doesn't exactly help, either.
How else should an uninvolved outsider view someone who can't keep drama out of an introduction call with a stranger besides as a toxic moron?
You can certainly voice displeasure with your current working arrangement tactfully (who's going to be able to verify what you have to say? nobody) but if you can't keep yourself emotionally under control which asked an open ended, indirect, and predictable question you're throwing out all sorts of warning signs that you should not be hired.
You can certainly voice displeasure with your current working arrangement tactfully (who's going to be able to verify what you have to say? nobody) but if you can't keep yourself emotionally under control which asked an open ended, indirect, and predictable question you're throwing out all sorts of warning signs that you should not be hired.
There are all sorts of situations in work life that are problematic.
'Badmouthing' one's former employer would more likely just indicate a general lack of tact, and it wouldn't necessarily even say that much about the current employment situation.
Not having a good fit in your current situation is just fine, you just have to communicate it thoughtfully to prospective employers, to not be cynical or petty about it, and not belabour the issue or let it dour the overall disposition of your candidacy.
'Badmouthing' one's former employer would more likely just indicate a general lack of tact, and it wouldn't necessarily even say that much about the current employment situation.
Not having a good fit in your current situation is just fine, you just have to communicate it thoughtfully to prospective employers, to not be cynical or petty about it, and not belabour the issue or let it dour the overall disposition of your candidacy.
> Or are dealing with a genuinely painful day-to-day work situation and are struggling to keep a lid on it.
A recruiter is not your therapist. Don't treat them like one.
A recruiter is not your therapist. Don't treat them like one.
Who cares about recruiters?
The point there's no need to feel smug about people who are dealing with seriously nasty stuff.
The point there's no need to feel smug about people who are dealing with seriously nasty stuff.
I do think there is room for discussing pain points - interviewing sucks and I don’t think most people would do it just for fun.
I won’t bad mouth peers but I will be honest if certain processes or practices really bother me. But I also raise those concerns as an employee too.
Would I say “yeah I work with idiots”? Absolutely not. But I have and will continue to be honest about pain points in a respectful manner. Especially when they are disagreements about things like priorities. I like to let enough of my personality come through during interviews that people know what they are getting. Even if I disagree with you I’ll approach it from an angle other than “you’re wrong”. I care about making things better for people a bit more than I care for money. And I believe we all have a responsibility to leave the world better than it is now.
If companies or recruiters see those as red flags I’m ok not moving forward. Same reason I typically don’t hide that I have weird colored hair and tattoos.
I won’t bad mouth peers but I will be honest if certain processes or practices really bother me. But I also raise those concerns as an employee too.
Would I say “yeah I work with idiots”? Absolutely not. But I have and will continue to be honest about pain points in a respectful manner. Especially when they are disagreements about things like priorities. I like to let enough of my personality come through during interviews that people know what they are getting. Even if I disagree with you I’ll approach it from an angle other than “you’re wrong”. I care about making things better for people a bit more than I care for money. And I believe we all have a responsibility to leave the world better than it is now.
If companies or recruiters see those as red flags I’m ok not moving forward. Same reason I typically don’t hide that I have weird colored hair and tattoos.
They're looking for red flags. If they ask you and your response is along the lines of, "I Hate my manager, she's such a bi*&^", that's a red flag.
Probably to weed out people whose answer would be things like "I was fired."
Any recruiter who blatantly weeds out people who answer "I was fired" is a terrible recruiter. Lots of people are fired for various reasons, often due to toxic workplaces.
Does it merit follow-up questions about why? Sure.
Does it merit follow-up questions about why? Sure.
It helps establish their psychological ascendancy by forcing you to give up private information.
Also to be sure you won't do something really stupid, like getting a job without their help.
Also to be sure you won't do something really stupid, like getting a job without their help.
why is this downvoted?
Because it's nonsense gibberish that won't help you. You can completely lie to a recruiter about your motives if you want. Revealing personal information isn't required, but presenting yourself as hirable is.
It's not some psychological battle of wits with the recruiter you're up against, they don't have ulterior motives, they seldom have any allegiances and companies generally don't have allegiances to them either unless contracts are in place. As a career path they also seem to burn out quickly and there's a ton of them vying for the same jobs. They get commissions by placing candidates that stick around for 90/180/365 days. That's all they really care about and treating them as an adversary means you're bad commission fodder. Instead try to learn how to help each other and you can both profit off of the situation. Or just don't talk to recruiters, seems pretty straightforward.
It's not some psychological battle of wits with the recruiter you're up against, they don't have ulterior motives, they seldom have any allegiances and companies generally don't have allegiances to them either unless contracts are in place. As a career path they also seem to burn out quickly and there's a ton of them vying for the same jobs. They get commissions by placing candidates that stick around for 90/180/365 days. That's all they really care about and treating them as an adversary means you're bad commission fodder. Instead try to learn how to help each other and you can both profit off of the situation. Or just don't talk to recruiters, seems pretty straightforward.
Perhaps "forcing" is too strong. But if the candidate does go along, then that promotes obedience to the recruiter, under the heading of "candidate control".
maybe they should examine why they are burning out. maybe it’s because they are only interested in making a quick commission and don’t understand how to tell the company they are hiring for, to pay realistic compensation for the candidates they need to hire?
Recruiters have absolutely no say in what companies will ultimately pay, they negotiate within the budget a company sets out. Who ever gave you the impression that they have that power?
I've been on both sides of this table and when a recruiter passes a candidate over to me that's beyond my budget I tell them that and we move on. They aren't going to argue with the company beyond budget limits. If I ask why the candidate pool is trickling in or refusing offers they will tell me the pay range is why, but they're not the ones in charge.
I've been on both sides of this table and when a recruiter passes a candidate over to me that's beyond my budget I tell them that and we move on. They aren't going to argue with the company beyond budget limits. If I ask why the candidate pool is trickling in or refusing offers they will tell me the pay range is why, but they're not the ones in charge.
if the company comes up with a budget that is too small it should be a pass for the recruiter. saves everyone a lot of time.
Because it is the typical tripe trotted out on Reddit and HN where you are at constant war with your employer.
Nightmare teammate.
Nightmare teammate.
I've got my fans.
Not a recruiter, but recruiting.
_Why_ you're leaving your last position is a really good indicator of a lot of things
* Are you leaving for money? if so, will you leave us for more money?
* Are you leaving because you don't feel challenged? What is that challenge you're looking for? What do you want to learn with us?
* Are you leaving for workplace/culture reasons? How has that affected you and how did you try to work through it (ie how good are your conflict resolution/communication skills), how you speak about those challenges is also ... illuminating
* Do you not feel like you're listened to/participating? How have you tried to resolve that before looking to move on?
There's lots of reasons, but for me it's mostly about how you answer, not what you answer.
_Why_ you're leaving your last position is a really good indicator of a lot of things
* Are you leaving for money? if so, will you leave us for more money?
* Are you leaving because you don't feel challenged? What is that challenge you're looking for? What do you want to learn with us?
* Are you leaving for workplace/culture reasons? How has that affected you and how did you try to work through it (ie how good are your conflict resolution/communication skills), how you speak about those challenges is also ... illuminating
* Do you not feel like you're listened to/participating? How have you tried to resolve that before looking to move on?
There's lots of reasons, but for me it's mostly about how you answer, not what you answer.
This 100%
A lot of them use it as an ice-breaker, to start the conversation off and get you comfortable with talking about yourself so they can understand you and your profile better. They also use it to check for red flags as mentioned by other comments.
The correct answer to this question, assuming you're employed, is "I'm pretty happy at <company>, it's a good environment and I really like the team. I'm not really looking for a new challenge right now, but if the right opportunity presented itself, I'd be open to it."
The correct answer to this question, assuming you're employed, is "I'm pretty happy at <company>, it's a good environment and I really like the team. I'm not really looking for a new challenge right now, but if the right opportunity presented itself, I'd be open to it."
The 'correct answer' is to be honest and tactful.
And although 'I'm not looking for a new challenge' is fine if it's honest, it's a lot less engaging than 'I'd be very excited to join your team for such and such reasons' i.e. a specific, legitimate active interest in something the team is doing is a bit more ideal than the neutral/passive 'not really looking'.
And although 'I'm not looking for a new challenge' is fine if it's honest, it's a lot less engaging than 'I'd be very excited to join your team for such and such reasons' i.e. a specific, legitimate active interest in something the team is doing is a bit more ideal than the neutral/passive 'not really looking'.
Counterpoint to that is when a recruiter initiates contact they are often very coy until they have you on the phone, frequently not even sending a JD until after that first conversation (where this line of questioning usually arises). I get wanting to provide an engaging response but hard to do so until the recruiter has provided sufficient information.
If you say you are looking for a role where you manage people you are not a fit for my team because we need ICs.
If you say you’re looking for meaning in your life, I can ask you what that is to you and then share what we are (HFT) and you may decide that we can provide meaning or not.
If you’re looking to work on an exciting new stack or technology, I will be able to tell you about where we sit there (not exciting).
If you want to look for a remote role, we’re not for you.
So on and so forth. There are a million reasons why someone might be looking for a job. When I’m hiring for my team I want to make sure you’ll be happy here and be useful. It’s demoralizing to the team to have people join and then leave shortly after.
If you say you’re looking for meaning in your life, I can ask you what that is to you and then share what we are (HFT) and you may decide that we can provide meaning or not.
If you’re looking to work on an exciting new stack or technology, I will be able to tell you about where we sit there (not exciting).
If you want to look for a remote role, we’re not for you.
So on and so forth. There are a million reasons why someone might be looking for a job. When I’m hiring for my team I want to make sure you’ll be happy here and be useful. It’s demoralizing to the team to have people join and then leave shortly after.
The obvious answer is a 5-10% salary increment. That's a red flag because it takes a very long time for someone to become useful, even a senior. You don't want to invest in someone who just leaves 8 months later for a slightly higher salary.
If we were offering a 30% increment or something that's stupid to turn down, that's not so bad.
The other thing is gauging culture fit. Are you looking for growth? Well, this is a write hacky stuff based off designs so you're not going to be happy here.
Are you moving closer to home? Why pick us when we're the same distance?
Do you think your previous job has no financial security? We should probably let you know that we only have 11 months runway.
If we were offering a 30% increment or something that's stupid to turn down, that's not so bad.
The other thing is gauging culture fit. Are you looking for growth? Well, this is a write hacky stuff based off designs so you're not going to be happy here.
Are you moving closer to home? Why pick us when we're the same distance?
Do you think your previous job has no financial security? We should probably let you know that we only have 11 months runway.
One thing that your answer to that question may indicate is whether you are thinking long term or thinking short term. Neither is absolutely good or absolutely bad. If they are looking for someone who will stay 5+ years and climb the ladder and so on and you answer "money" or "bored", then you probably won't be a good fit. If they are looking for cannon fodder, then there is no point mentioning "a need to grow" or anything similar.
Some may just be ticking a box, and as others have said, almost any answer is fine unless its some overly negative reason that raises red flags.
A good recruiter would also ask to help you find the right job. If you're leaving your current job, presumably there is something you're looking for that isn't happening, and its important to know what that is so your new job is actually better than the previous one.
A good recruiter would also ask to help you find the right job. If you're leaving your current job, presumably there is something you're looking for that isn't happening, and its important to know what that is so your new job is actually better than the previous one.
It's a really good open ended question, and, it's a directly related to the motivations for joining the company.
The good ones don't.
Maybe it’s a way to start the conversation and find out a bit about what you're currently doing and what you want from your next role. But I still hate answering it myself.
Maybe it’s a way to start the conversation and find out a bit about what you're currently doing and what you want from your next role. But I still hate answering it myself.
[deleted]
because they want to find a way to hire you for peanuts
I'm figuring out if we're both right for each other. For example, if they voice some problems with their current/previous employment conditions or workplace and we have the same problems, asking this question helps me tell them right there and then that we also do have these problems and shortcomings and what we specifically are doing to address them, or not, and why. I also want to know what they're looking forward to, what they like, what they want to do to tell them if they will find it with us, or not, or not right now but it's on the roadmap, or not at all, and why.
It enables me to give them a better picture of what the work and environment are, to be completely transparent about our shortcomings so they don't feel tricked because something was important to them but I didn't consider it that important or have even thought of it. It also enables me to learn: maybe we're doing something that irks people, maybe we're doing something good; they're not working at the company yet and they can go on about things that drove them nuts or hindered their work or well-being. It is a scenario where I will be responsible for these people, their growth, their livelihoods, their well-being, and I don't want to fuck it up because I didn't get or give enough information.
As of today, someone we're hiring and I had an interview. They'll be relocating to another country and I wanted to make sure that the payment situation is figured-out before they go abroad, so they don't get stranded without means just because we overlooked some detail (someone from the company talked with the bank, and our accounting firm while the person was interviewing with us, and we had a call with the accounting firm to know what the options were. We want things to go smoothly, and want our people to have the best work environment we can provide). They asked if we're willing to pay for coworking space, we had never done it, I asked how much, then agreed to it.
We're a tiny, learning organization, and one of the things we did in 2019 was push for remote work because our colleagues were spending up to 6 hours per day in commute, which is just insane. One of the main reasons we built our platform is precisely to enable people to work on ML products from anywhere, and we experimented systematically because "some day, we'll be forced to do that and we'll have to hire someone working in another country so we might as well learn the lessons when the stakes are low, right now".
I push them to ask all kinds of questions about everything: compensation, equity, product, strategy, what everyone's role is, risk, revenue, customers, clients, stack, how we conduct meetings, how we build product, what the work will be, what parts of the things they didn't like in their previous employer are present in our company, anything goes.
I want them to have as faithful a picture as possible giving them all the information so they make better decisions.
It enables me to give them a better picture of what the work and environment are, to be completely transparent about our shortcomings so they don't feel tricked because something was important to them but I didn't consider it that important or have even thought of it. It also enables me to learn: maybe we're doing something that irks people, maybe we're doing something good; they're not working at the company yet and they can go on about things that drove them nuts or hindered their work or well-being. It is a scenario where I will be responsible for these people, their growth, their livelihoods, their well-being, and I don't want to fuck it up because I didn't get or give enough information.
As of today, someone we're hiring and I had an interview. They'll be relocating to another country and I wanted to make sure that the payment situation is figured-out before they go abroad, so they don't get stranded without means just because we overlooked some detail (someone from the company talked with the bank, and our accounting firm while the person was interviewing with us, and we had a call with the accounting firm to know what the options were. We want things to go smoothly, and want our people to have the best work environment we can provide). They asked if we're willing to pay for coworking space, we had never done it, I asked how much, then agreed to it.
We're a tiny, learning organization, and one of the things we did in 2019 was push for remote work because our colleagues were spending up to 6 hours per day in commute, which is just insane. One of the main reasons we built our platform is precisely to enable people to work on ML products from anywhere, and we experimented systematically because "some day, we'll be forced to do that and we'll have to hire someone working in another country so we might as well learn the lessons when the stakes are low, right now".
I push them to ask all kinds of questions about everything: compensation, equity, product, strategy, what everyone's role is, risk, revenue, customers, clients, stack, how we conduct meetings, how we build product, what the work will be, what parts of the things they didn't like in their previous employer are present in our company, anything goes.
I want them to have as faithful a picture as possible giving them all the information so they make better decisions.
in case you stupidly say you hate your coworkers or something similarly bad
Entrapment.
What answers ( other than salary) are they looking for to determine if you are right or wrong for their position?