He laughed and said that all contact information including the Web site had been removed from the resume but he had looked me up on Linkedin, clicked on my resume and had checked me out before asking for the call.

Recruiter works hard to protect his source and the client does his homework on the Internet. I agree about who is in control. But both of us still need you.

As contingency recruiters, we have a lot of flashy ‘competition’ from usual suspects– online tools purporting replace recruiters, fee cutters, etc. The problem is, we have temporarily forgotten how to sell– how to demonstrate the great value we provide– and we’ve taken the bait that we somehow *need* to change, adapt, become something different, evolve, or die as a species.

We HAVE to change. You know, the more I hear this, the more I think it’s untrue. Or at least it’s chased me around the globe of logic so far that I’ve come back to where I was when I was first accosted with this imperative.

Crocodiles are still around after a million years. They are slow, and not good at jumping. Some recruiting trainers cum biologists should have written an article about how the crocodile needs to change.

We need to change is more code language for ‘buy my product, try my product’, like the ‘video professor’ on TV. I only have to read FORDYCE where I’m reminded episodically that there are consultants [that's 'first' party recruiters for your Frank R., if you're reading this] producing 1mm a year with barely more than a couple of researchers and a Rolodex. Do we need to change our footing and balance? Yes. Do we need to buy into every pre-bubble-crash online tool and fad? No. Do we need to blame failure on the system? NO! Do we need to speak smartly, trust but verify, cover bases over and over again? Absolutely.

But let’s get back to the revolution. We should take the recruiting cowboys and tie them up in the barn, it’s cheaper and less stressful. Everyone will be on staff.

Let’s improve on that: let’s just Walmartify the whole people supply chain officially. We’ll hire Dell’s SC guy to run it, for the country while we’re at it, let’s nationalize it. We’ll line up various employees not looking for work, make long lines of them on the trucking routes and train tracks, supply them with RFID chips, and feed the data into the system. When a client needs a new biological capital unit, or ‘employee’ as we used to call them, we’ll send the next replacement worker in from the supply chain! The paperwork will be prefilled. Brilliant.

What? She doesn’t want to go? She’s not ready? But she has a tag! [She's in the system]. Not cooperating? Confused? Doubting the move? Dog died? House won’t sell? I don’t get it. Unhappy with the service she received? Take a number. Press one for customer service to be transferred to the next staff person paid by the hour.

‘living for the big payoff, modify it so that the recruiter works on projects’

I can see myself now, going to the party headquarters to buy my work overalls. The sign will read ‘The people’s HR supply store’. I will be issued a standard hammer and sickle, work boots, and be paid by the hour…. I will not be burdened the the trials and tribulations of waiting for my big payoff…

-TT

Pam: I’m getting to to enjoy your responses; I’m starting to sense a distinct pattern of focus and self-determination. Somewhere along the line, you must have lost your blurry vision and can’t do attitude…

These guys are like pacifists; ‘if everyone just stopped fighting……’

If they all went retainer you and I would eat their lunch by offering contingency, as you suggested.
The reason contingency has been around so long and is the dominant model is because IT WORKS.

Now, it doesn’t work for everybody but neither does major league baseball, flying jets or brain surgery. Perhaps the answer is: if it won’t work for you, try a nice job with a pension, perhaps your local DMV or Post Office is hiring.

It sounds like the solution for you might be to make the switch from agency recruiting to the corporate side. The things you mention that you are seeing as a contingency recruiter are not what I am seeing at all, which makes me think you may be a bit jaded, or burned out, which is not an uncommon thing in our business. If you are looking to be paid more consistently, on a project or hourly basis, then contract recruiting may be a great option for you.

I disagree completely with the majority of your observations on the contingency world. I do recognize that there are many recruiters who do experience things the way that you describe, which is why there is so much turnover in this business. It is also why we are able to command the fees that we do. Our job is not easy. But, when we do it well, our experience is night and day different from what you describe.

I completely manage and control the process all the way through. It starts by truly listening to both the client on what they need and the candidates on what is most important to them in their next role. If that is done up front, the rest of the process goes much more smoothly.

I do know what you mean though by sitting back and observing and crossing your fingers and hoping a placement happens…I’ve seen recruiters do that in the agency I started out in. I’ve never understood that as it’s so easily avoided by simply asking good questions all the way through of both the candidate and the client.

When you do that, there are no surprises. You know where the job ranks in the candidate’s view of other positions, if it’s the top choice, back up, etc and you know what they are pre-closed at. Where I’ve seen deals fall apart is when these questions aren’t asked, or are not asked each day…every time you talk with a candidate you need to ask them what has changed since you last spoke, because so many things can change…other offers, raises, etc.

You also know what the company plans to offer, so that when the offer is given, it is smoothly accepted. That is what the company pays us for and the level of service that the candidate expects.

A good recruiter adds value, and deserves every penny of the fee that they earn. They also earn a different experience with the client, when they prove their value and become a trusted partner. This results in exclusive or preferred relationships, returned calls in a timely manner (often, access to the client’s mobile for immediate reach), and trust that the candidates sent will be well worth interviewing, so they are generally scheduled with the hiring manager.

I think a key factor though is if you like the job. I’ve been doing this for over 14 years, and I love it. I look forward to going to work in the morning, and think my job is fun! When it stops being fun, then I’ll know that it’s time to make a change.

Pam

Congratulations for taking the courage to express your opinions, even if some are unpopular. I don’t think you sound burnt out, rather you are questioning is the way you currently do business the best way to do it? Nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, the model has changed since the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and even in the past few years. The advent of Recruiting Process Outsourcing, Vendor Managed processes, Talent Acquisition Process and retained searches have all evolved from the original recruiting model. I believe you have to keep in mind that acquiring and retaining talent for a company is a business function that is as important or more important then anything else they will do. The question CEO’s ask themselves is should we do it or should we outsource it to an expert? Some answer this by bringing experts inhouse, and the comment made from another person about being burnt out, you should become a corporate recruiter obviously doesn’t understand the world of corporate recruiting today. The pressures are as great or greater on the inside of the fence as the expectations to deliver doesn’t diminish. Those business leaders that choose not to bring recruiting internally rely on and budget for using external resources to attract the right talent. You might want to make the pitch to an employer or two that you want to work exclusively with them for a set fee reviewed on an annualized basis, let’s call it free agency recruiting. If you ask enough company leaders about this concept you might just get a few to take you up on it. I wish you well and thanks for the article.

Few in our industry could argue that recruiting for jobs at the lower end of the compensation spectrum takes less time or effort. Many industries acknowledge that smaller clients are more costly to service than large.

Taking the process in-house does not solve the problem for our clients … as third-party providers we are here to offer job-seekers and candidates choice and objectivity. An in-house recruiter will never have that advantage.

I would relish continuing this conversation with you and others of like minds. Landa Williams, President, LandaJob Advertising & Marketing Talent

I asked myself a lot of the same questions 10 years ago and ended up moving from contingency to retained search.

However I think that clients as a whole are starting to question the billing model for third party recruitment on a more frequent basis.

Example: Why does it cost twice as much for a 200k search as a 100k search? Is there twice as much work involved?

Cheers,

I recently spoke to a VP that has partnered with a recruting firm to do just what you describe. He pays them weekly for their services. I find it to be a very interesting concept, and am considering offering such a model to my clients in addition to the contingency model.

While the recruiter can try and influence both sides of the equation, I would never say that we have control. The recruiter has virtually no control over the client. We have no control over how long a client will take to interview our candidate. We have no control over how long the client will take to give us any feedback on the candidate. We have no control are the stability/funding of the position or whether the position is going to be put on hold a few weeks into the process. We have no control over the client changing the requirements of the position half way through the search. We have no control over the client on what an offer might end up being. We have no control over how the client is going to treat the candidate during the interview or how well the client can sell the position to the candidate. You can go on and on.

The recruiter also has no more control over the candidate. We only know what the candidate tells us. We can ask all of the right questions, we can prep the candidate to the best of our ability. We can do background check and all of the due dilagence that we can. But, if the candidate tells us that they are not talking to or interviewing with any other companies, we believe them. We believe the candidate when they tell us what they are making and what it would take for them to accept another position. We have no control over how the candidate acts during the interview (or weather they even show up to the interview). We have on control over the candidate accepting an offer or deciding at the last minute to accept a counter offer and stay with their current company. Once again, you can go on and on.

For several years I worked as a contract recruiter. I think that this was the best of both worlds. The business was paying a set rate for my services. If I continued to produce results, I got to continue the contract. If I was unable to provide the flow of qualified candidates that they were looking for, they had the very easy option of letting me go and canceling the contract. It was much cheaper for the client to pay my hourly rate than to pay a large placement fee for each hire that I facilitated. One of the higher dollar searches that I worked on was for a Director of Compensation for North America for a major consulting company (think big 5). They had already paid a retained search firm for the search but were not happy with the results (and were in the process of suing them to get their money back). I came in and with the help of a name sourcer, was able to give them qualified candidates in only a few weeks. They ended up hiring the top TWO candidates without spending any more money. The entire search cost them just under $30,000 for two hires that both were paid salaries over $200,000. Talk about a win-win. They saved a tremendous amount of money and I made a lot of money at the same time!

Until enough contingency firms have the guts to change the fee structure, nothing is going to change. Change will certainly not come from the clients. The clients will continue to only want to pay for the hires and not the actual work that is being done.

Imagine a fee structure that consists of a small fee for each qualified resume that is submitted. An additional small fee for each interview that takes place and an additional small fee for each hire. The client would actually have some skin in the game. If they did not give you an appropriate job description up front, it would cost them money. If they interviewed candidates and kept changing what they were looking for, it would cost them money. If they keep interviewing and never made a hiring decision, it would cost them money. All of a sudden, it is in their best interest be partner with the agency and make the hire happen as quickly as possible. What a concept!

David

I see some of your ideas as interesting but am not fully aware of how they would actually work. I think that there are many recruiters who like the idea of making a hit and getting a big fee for that hit. To be able to do something that others can?t do and get paid for that service is on some levels, a thrill.

I get the feeling that many of your ideas/methods would have the client assuming a greater degree of risk; of having more skin in the game. Few clients are willing to do this for a host of reasons. (Mostly short term.)

If I were competing with this model, I would tell the client that they have nothing to lose working straight contingency because if they don?t get what they want, they don?t pay anything. Furthermore if they don?t see the new employee?s value as dwarfing the fee in 6 months, they should not hire that candidate in the first place.

This bottom line ?opportunity? perceived by the client is of course a fool?s paradise but for the aggressive take no prisoners recruiter who sees company’s, as either clients or sources, the model can work quite well.

I think that one of the problems is that you are expecting corporate America to think. You have been in the biz for 35 years? How much great thinking have you seen and what is the result of that thinking s it relates to the agency/client relationship? Sad huh?