Contracting Pitfalls and Scams to Avoid

Spaghetti

The spaghetti model is like cooking spaghetti noodles: throw it against the wall and see if it sticks, or, in other words, bombard the end client with a large number of poor candidates until out of desperation one is selected and the best made of it. While not a scam in itself, and on its own more of a poor business practice, the spaghetti model can be both a consequence or an integral part of more nefarious practices, as noted in the sections below.

Indefinite Capture

A reputable placement company will set a reasonable limit as to the amount of time from presentation of a candidate until both the candidate and the client can re-engage directly if they wish should an engagement offer fail. Abusive agreements will have terms such as "until one year after this agreement is cancelled." A more reasonable agreement would contain terms such as "until one year after the candidate was presented". Note that the "after the agreement is cancelled" indefinite capture pitfall means that the client and contractor have to wait much longer, perhaps indefinitely, as long as the placement company has even one contractor at the end client. This turns the client into a hostage of the placement company, particularly if that one existing contractor is a reliable performer, opening the door to other abusive practices (such as the spaghetti model).

Quality Block

A disreputable placement company, particularly if armed with the indefinite capture terms noted above, may present high-quality candidates, and then sabotage the engagement, thus blocking quality candidates from re-engaging later. This approach is akin to the traditional "bait-and-switch" sales technique so that lower-quality and higher-margin (for the placement company) candidates can be presented. This practice is also related to the spaghetti model, except the first candidate or candidates look like they should stick, but don't.

Coaching

The quality block is usually the first step in a chain of spaghetti candidates, in which one or more quality candidates interview, and then each is debriefed by the placement company to uncover the actual interests and requirements. Armed with this information, the placement company then coaches lower-quality and higher-margin candidates to appear to be as skilled and knowledgable as the initial quality candidates after sabotaging the quality candidate(s). The debriefing/coaching cycle can continue as long as necessary, even with a chain of low-quality candidates, until a piece of spaghetti sticks. This nefarious practice is a win for the placement company, but both the indefinitely-captured hostage end client and the sabotaged, and now indefinitely blocked, quality candidates lose.

Rate Sabotage

Many techniques can be used to sabatoge quality candidates as part of the sabatoge/coaching cycle in pursuit of higher-margin placements, but rate sabatoge is one common approach. In this pitfall, after the client is impressed by an interview (and subsequent debriefing), the placement company will then approach the client and say that the quality candidate is demanding more money than a previously agreed rate. Simultaneously, the placement company will approach the candidate and say that the end client wants to pay less than a previously agreed rate. If this deception works, then the placement company now gets a higher-margin placement. Otherwise, if one or both parties balk, then the quality candidate has been sabotaged and the coaching process can proceed.

Ghosting

A simpler and potentially less risky way to sabatoge high-quality candidates is to ghost, or not follow-up with a quality candidate after an interview (and subsequent debriefing). Or, the placement company can tell both parties that the other simply didn't answer back, labeling the other as the ghost. A high-quality candidate will often be off onto a legitimate assignment before anyone discovers the deception.

Man-In-The-Middle

The man-in-the-middle pitfall is similar to the well-known IT security attack, in that a disreputable placement agency may never have the quality candidate interview with the end client at all, but simply have them interview with its own employees who have gathered the interview requirements from previously interviewed spaghetti candidates, or even low-quality contractors who were placed but then thrown back. This approach is sometimes used to fill in gaps from previous debriefings as part of the spaghetti sequence.

Discount Gobbling

Sometimes a high-quality contractor will offer a below-market rate to add a new technology to their resume, be placed in a favorable locale, or for other intangible reasons. A disreputable agency will often gobble the discount and not pass it along to the end client. This situation breeds discontent as neither the end client nor the quality contractor are happy with the outcome when their respective perceptions collide.

Incentive Gobbling

The complement of the discount gobbling pitfall, sometimes an end client will offer an above-market rate to attract high-quality contractors for special case situations. A disreputable agency will often gobble the incentive and not pass it along to the contractor. This situation also breeds discontent as neither the end client nor the quality contractor are happy with the outcome when their respective perceptions collide.

Raise Gobbling

Similar to incentive gobbling, sometimes all parties agree that a rate increase is in order to help retain a quality contractor as market conditions change and the contractor's skills have become more focused on the client's needs. A disreputable agency may gobble the raise and pass on only a small portion to the contractor, increasing their overall margin while leaving the client without the full benefit of the raise which they have funded.