Half the rate you pay never reaches the person doing the work. The other half buys a candidate whose résumé reads better than their code. This site exists because that arrangement costs more than it should, and rarely gets questioned.
For most hiring managers, a Salesforce interview is forty-five minutes of finding out, slowly, that the person across the table cannot do the job. The candidate was pre-screened by someone who had no way of knowing. The hiring manager becomes the first real line of defence. By the time the call ends, the morning is gone and the role is no closer to filled.
Now imagine the other version. The first question lands. The second lands. Twenty minutes in, you stop asking gatekeeping questions and start asking the real ones — the ones you have been waiting to ask someone competent. You are not catching the candidate out. You are meeting them. By the end of the hour, the only question left is how soon they can start.
That is what this practice exists to deliver. Your time, returned to you. The interview, turned from an audit into an introduction.
A staffing agency takes fifty cents of every dollar a company spends and calls it a service. What the company receives in return is a candidate the agency could find, not the one it needed. Most buyers have no reliable way to tell the difference until the work is already underway. The bill arrives later, in the form of bad code, broken integrations, and a Salesforce org that takes three years to untangle.
I have watched this happen for more than ten years. I have been the one called in to clean it up. I have sat across from architects who could not explain their own designs and developers who learned Apex the night before the interview. The system rewards the middleman and punishes the buyer. It is not broken. It is working exactly as the people profiting from it intend.
Talent should be paid what it is worth.
Buyers should know what they are paying for.
The space between the two should be small, and honest.
Good Salesforce work compounds. So does the other kind.
Two services. Both built on the same idea: the person evaluating Salesforce talent should themselves have done the work for a long time, and should have nothing to gain from telling you the wrong answer.
You send a candidate. I conduct a structured, hour-long technical interview against a rubric I have built across a decade of Salesforce engineering. You receive a written assessment, a scored breakdown across platform fundamentals, architecture, integration, and judgment, and a clear recommendation. No padding. No politics. No fee owed if the candidate is later hired.
A monthly retainer for companies who would rather have a technical brain on call than a stack of résumés in their inbox. Salary benchmarking. Architecture review of work already delivered. Sanity checks on contractors who feel wrong but you cannot say why. A standing line of defence against being sold a story.
A practice that calls staffing agencies dishonest cannot itself hide its arithmetic. So here it is.
A short note is enough. Who you are, what role you are filling, how soon. I read everything that arrives here. If we are not a fit, I will say so plainly and point you somewhere useful.
Or write directly: start@rec-root.ing