3 types of recruitment consultants industry direction

[aking]

I noticed a previous post outlining 3 type of consultants in the recruitment industry - The Proactive, The Disillusioned and The Predator.

I have recently experienced all 3 types at different times however, the predator seems to be more prevalant, and job adverts for recruitment consultants definately push the "sales" career profile.

Has anyone else found this experience? Do you believe the industry is heading this way?
Is this really what the HR profession needs?

[Moz]

Aking, you ask “Is this really what the HR profession needs?”

Well probably not, but are recruitment agencies part of the HR profession?

There are of course the Good the Bad and Disillusioned among recruitment consultants just as there are in any service based profession, but I think it would help if more people who use recruitment consultants, both employers and job seekers, had a better understanding of the drivers for recruitment consultants and how the industry operates.

The mainstream recruitment industry is quite unique, because it is possibly one of the only professions where you are often pitted against your rivals to deliver a service but only get paid if you win (if you are the one that makes the placement). This means you can spend, hours, days or even weeks working on a requirement for a ‘client’ (employer) and get nothing at all for your efforts.

Of course we’re talking about the recruitment agencies who operate predominantly on a contingent basis, that is they only get paid if they make a placement. Try operating like that with your lawyer or your accountant and see how far you get!

There are also ‘search firms’ who only work on an exclusive, retained basis, who have the luxury of knowing they will get paid for what they do. They tend to behave quite differently to contingent recruiters.

The typical recruiter working on a contingency basis gets a modest base salary plus commission or a bonus, or maybe a combination of the two, which is dependant upon the revenue they produce (placement fees for permanent placements or net margin for contractors). This means their annual income is directly affected by the actions and decisions of their clients and the candidates they deal with. Typically, the more placements you make, the more you get paid. There is the potential to earn a lot of money but that’s fair given that there are no guarantees.

Unfortunately it’s a bit of a ‘numbers game’, meaning that as a contingency recruiter you have to work on a larger number of jobs than you actually expect to fill, because you know that some of them will be filled by other recruiters or direct applications or the employer, or the employer just changes their mind and decides not to hire anyone. This can happen regardless of the fact that you have advertised the position, interviewed candidates, done reference checks and referred them to the employer.

It’s not surprising therefore that some recruiters become pretty hard nosed, maybe they do become predators, but to a large extent it’s their ‘clients’ who make them that way.

As for the job seeker, they’re often just caught in the middle.

So employers, next time you give the same job out to half a dozen different recruiters just think about what behaviour you are encouraging.

[aking]

Moz - recruitment is definately associated with HR - the peak HR body has special interest groups dedicated to it - and therefore it is a reflection on the profession.

Understandably it is a competitive market when OTE $ are thrown up for a recruiter, and job seekers do get caught in the middle - does this need to be accepted practice or as a profession should we not try and modify the behaviours, and weed out those who are in it for the fast $ and look at ways to balance the needs of employers, job seekers and those who truly want to work in recruiting?

[Moz]

Recruitment is of course part of HR, but is "recruitment consulting" as commercial service part of HR ?

While the peak HR body (presumably AHRI) has a SIG for recruitment, is that not more for internal recruiters?

Bear in mind that the recruitment "industry" has it's own associations, such as RCSA and ITCRA (for IT recruiters).

There is a fundamental difference between the two ('recruitment consulting' and HR). An internal recruiter's role is to hire the best people for their company. The recruitment industry's primary goal is to make money, that's why they go to work every day. Many consultants enjoy what they do, but it is a means to an end.

There are definitely good and bad recruiters out there, as you have already indicated in your original post, and I am sure there is much room for improvement, however, I cannot see how you can weed out the people who are in it for the fast buck (or mega bucks!). Employers encourage this by effectively saying, "I agree to pay a substantial fee if, and only if, you find me the right person". It's a bit like bounty hunting!

At the end of the day, the employers have the ability to modify the behaviour of commercial recruitment consultants, by changing the way they use them.

[Lawrence]

A recruiter, whether in-house or external, should be able to consult to the business to identify why to recruit and buy talent and if so what type of talent? Fundamentally this is a piece of what in-house HR oversees depending on the organisation; is HR an admin team or strategic partner?

The work of recruitment agencies is to help with tactical rather than strategic problem solving to filling positions.

I believe you are arguing the same point in that agencies try to fill vacancies/roles and it’s a discussion whether you should work with them at various levels and roles.

Would this discussion be better to look at HR's role consulting to the business on resourcing issues such as:
(1) tactical business resourcing needs to fill vacancies that are active immediately; engaging recruitment agencies, advertising, asking for employee referrals versus
(2) strategic business resourcing; identifying EVP, competency and job evaluation, training and development, succession planning for mid to senior level roles, identifying cost effective ways of growing own talent e.g. graduate recruitment.... etc

The mid-senior level candidates is where the agencies tend to shine since there updated databases are what you pay for.

Contingency v retained is another issue depending on whether you feel that any agency will be able to represent your needs in a candidate short market.

If the recruiters are not moving forward with this in mind then I am sure there will be a high demand of luck rabbit foot charms needed in the near future.

[Moz]

Lawrence,

In part, I was arguing that commercial Recruitment Consultants (those who work for a recruitment 'agency') are not really part of the HR profession.

I was also seeking to explain what drives some of the less desirable behaviour of some commercial recruitment consultants.