Is the trend in using recruiters reversing?
Hiring recruiters can be expensive. Is the ROI worth it? We are growing, but I am finding that they are not always reliable in finding us great talent. Any shares on your thoughts or own experiences would be great.
Unfortunatley its a common problem, 10 years back i was CIO for the build of Seek, now the worlds largest Job Site. The job sites have fostered a resume based approach which is flawed, it's about determining candidates competencies.
Lets face it even specialist recruiters don't fully understand professional competencies in detail which really is what you need. I say this having worked with professional recruiters for 15 years.
I was so unimpressed with the current market solutions and recruiter performance I built www.SeeraCloud.com to automate the profiling and shortlisting of candidates and their performance management based on competencies, behaviors and skills in the cloud.
Were disrupting the traditional approach :)
You can find me in LinkedIn if you would like to chat.
I like to have an employee referral incentive which is high enough that people want to do it for money. I would make it 10-25% of recuiter's fee. It has worked out well for me.
Contingent recruiters can be an option. Hiring recruiters is an expensive way, but since growing organisations' have a big attrition rates and the requirement of resource power due to which it becomes vital. Its always advisable to hire them. You have a better control on in house then external sources.
This has some draw backs too but this option can be looked into, most of the time this works.
Ironically it would take decent recruiters to hire good recruiters. You might get some tips from the headhunters who hire for marketing firms like Proctor & Gamble.
I think that the use of recruiters is becoming less common provided that they are expensive, not reliable and nowadays most of people change their experience on social netwok websites where it is easier to get professional opportunities
I think there are good and bad recruiters, just like there are good and bad doctors, chiropractors, and lawyers. A good recruiter with experience in the field for high end positions is worth every penny. Note good recruiters will guarantee their placement for over a year or more and can demonstrate a comprehensive vetting process that included assessments, background checks, and comprehensive analysis of the company and executives they are placing the individual into.
I have worked with several recruiters and if you are a company that can win or lose based on your next hire, do your research and find a good one. Sometimes you get what you pay for.
As a performance specialist I have helped many recruiters do a better job of understanding who will be a good match and provide insightful interview questions that expose their strengths and potential limits. Most of the company's I have worked with will continue to use my services for their lower end placements, as it is more cost effective then using a recruiter for everything, but they are getting better results than just attempting to sort through their potential candidates by themselves.
Many of the companies elected to have me train someone in their company on how to use the assessments themselves and no longer need my services, but just use the assessments themselves, to determine the level of passion, presence and processing ability.
There are many levels to placement so the real question is how much time will it take without a recruiter, how much is that time worth? How many lost opportunities are going by as you attempt to fill a position and how much do they cost. Better yet, how much did the last bad hire cost you?
You know, Ive seen recruiters make terrible mistakes. Most are hiring with data and no brains or heart.
I'm not trying to be romantic here but if you want to fill a key position, conduct the process yourself, forget about all the insights crap and find the potential in people with your guts. (If you are interviewing that persons, obviously fills the basic selection requirements)
With the number of recent downsizings, there is a lot of talent in the market and a lot of avenues through which to source talent (like posting openings with Professional Associations, contacting outsourcing service providers (like Knightsbridge, Right Mgmt, etc) & postings on sites like LinkedIn, etc). If you are, however, looking for a very specific skill-set that you know is extremely hard to source and/or a key executive, a recruiter/ headhunter may be worth the investment. As you are in growth mode, you may want to make an investment in building your brand and highlighting on your website why a talented individual would want to work for you - like the challenge, the excitment of being on the leading edge of the growth, etc.
Recruiting is expensive: full stop.
The number of unemployed is over 8 Million (despite Government figures) is the real figure, and if you look at the Job Boards, whether on-line or with agencies on the High Street, you will see that the average application rate is at best 20 per job advertise, at worst over 200. Look at sites such as REED and Government "Total Jobs" are often recycled, i.e. the same job re-published on a different date. So actually the number of jobs which exist are far lower than the Government (of whichever colour) will admit.
Since 1979, there have been more "methods" of calculation and what constitutes as unemployment for statistical ( for Government) purposes have changed, unsurprisingly reducing the unemployed figure shown to the general public. Regrettably, there are stll a number of fools out there who read the tabloid, and semi-tabloid press beleive those "official" figrures.
For a company with a recruitment requirement department have to go through that volume of applicants is going to be very costly in terms of man time within your company. In the mediate term, the amount of time absorbed by a senior member of staff of the recruitment to sift through and interview is going to be costly. However the cost of using an agency may be expesive, but in terms off-set against time involved with a more senior member of staff to interview, the cost of engaging an agency can be easily stripped out against the cost of management sifting through CVs.
Ultimately it will always be a line manager/director who will make the final interviews and make the decision to engage. Equally time management and cost will always come to the fore.
The bottom line is that whether recruiting through an Agency or direct to an Employer there is a heavy over-head. In the long run it is cheaper to use an agency since it is a case of that they only get paid on the engagement of the (new) employee not the number of potential employees, so cheap by comparison.