[to all my friends working with RPO firms, relax, this isn't directed at you...see comment at end]

re:RPO ‘I am a bit stumped as to why this is the case, but perhaps it is because we perceive recruiting as strategic and because we feel it should be kept in house.’

Or could it be that recruiting leaders don’t want to see their jobs disappear?

Sure RPO can be COST-effective but are the relationships between company and population as strong as when recruiting is in-house (yes, I’ve made a few assumptions here)?

How many of our readers are satisfied with Dell’s outsourcing of customer service to Asia, etc.? Has anyone ever hung up on a Dell customer service agent (politely, of course) because of the turgid pace of assistance or for other reasons?

Perhaps some recruiting leaders recognize that RPO can diminish one’s employment brand?

[...for all the angst accorded outsourcing of any kind, you realize it's done for reasons other than purely monetary? Like the particular function not being especially proficient at the role being outsourced?]

Kevin, see you in DC.