Two years and three recruiting agencies later I am comfortable sharing my opinion that recruiting agencies are the best option for fast growth, but a good startup shouldn't settle for just speed in hiring, not in such a high demand, high turnover industry. Agencies tend to be concerned with their own profit and advancement primarily, and the growth of their clients comes second. For example, the agency practice of keeping an unhappy candidate in their placement until after 90 days so they can keep the commission and have another open requisition. Now I understand why someone who cares about recruitment and building strong teams would want to work in-house or independently.
After reading an article arguing why Recruitment is a necessary evil, I decided to flush out why in-house or contract recruiters are a better alternative to agencies for Technical companies.
- Agency recruiters are accountable to their agencies before your company.
High turnover is very common in recruiting agencies. I've never left the same team I joined. And I admittedly haven't stayed with any agency for very long. When an agency recruiter isn't doing well, the next move is to let them go. This puts pressure on the recruiter to please their supervisor, the agency. This can lead to what I like to call, pipeline stuffing. Recruiters take calls from, and reach out to, not so hot candidates in order to appear effective in their numbers (KPIs). Recruiters who are accountable directly to the client will only spend time on hirable candidates, because hires are the most counted.
- In-house and contract recruiters are direct representatives of your company.
There is no denying that the most sought after candidates don't want to hear from recruiters, and this is especially true of agency recruiters. Candidates are distrusting and will question the motive of the recruiter because they know agencies are more concerned with filling the role than building out a strong team. In-house and contract recruiters, who are direct representatives of the company, tend to be treated with a level of deference. Candidates believe that they would not have been contacted unless they were an actual fit for the role, and are therefore more responsive.
- Agency recruiters split their focus and availability, which means you have to compete.
As much as you might want to think of agencies as part of the recruitment team, there is an inherent divide. They are their own entity with their own responsibilities, and I can't tell you how many times my duty to my agency conflicted with my duty to the client. People are often surprised to hear that at any time I would handle over 20 roles (not surprising) for 5 - 6 different clients (HUH?!). How in the world could I possibly have been doing any one of those clients justice when my focus was split between that many companies? When you choose a contractor you have the choice of whether they work remotely or on-site. And I personally encourage on-site contractors. They become part of the team, are focused solely on your needs, and you have them available at an arm’s reach.
Everything considered, in an ideal world, every technical recruiter would take the leap, and go in-house or work independently. Most agree, recruiters are a huge asset when properly utilized. But in an agency, technical recruiters have to deal with split focus, split fees, and an overload of responsibilities (multiple clients, business development, account management, candidate management) that make it extremely difficult to work at full capacity. Next time you are trying to decide how best to grow your team, consider what type of process you would prefer, and remember that a recruiting agency isn't the only option. Recruiting Like a Boss.
No comments:
Post a Comment