The Rock Paper Scissors of Search and Recruitment
Rock paper scissors is a simple game. It’s probably not worth explaining but just in case you’ve been living under a “rock” let me tell you there are three hand gestures (rock — fist, paper — open hand, scissors — peace sign) where one beats the other (rock wins over scissors, paper over rock, scissors beats paper) in a zero-sum game. It’s nearly universal and even young children can pick up the game rather easily. What does this have to do with search and recruitment?
Well, this is very similar to the contingent, exclusive and retained strategies used in search and recruitment. From the hiring manager’s perspective, contingent is great as it offer speed as many agents try to get across many CVs across as quickly as possible. The down side is that the matching is often poor and the recruiter adds very little value as they probably don’t screen the candidates enough resulting in more work for the hiring manager (screening more CVs, and having to assess more carefully in the first interview). Furthermore, the candidates themselves get an inferior service as they’re often asked to apply with just a job description and no additional context or consultation to check if the role is right for them. They might also hear from different agencies with conflicting information resulting in confusion and duplicate applications. Although there’s no risk in paying for a search without landing a candidate, contingency recruitment can degrade the company’s employer brand.
Exclusive search is superior to contingent recruitment as the quality of service should be higher. No longer in a race for speed, the search firm will take their time in explaining the role to the candidate and make sure they’re evaluated against the requirements set by the company. Unlike contingency recruitment, where the agent might often give up if there isn’t an active candidate in their database they can introduce, under and exclusive agreement, the search firm might also reach out to passive candidates increasing the likelihood of finding the right candidate. As there’s no upfront fee, it seems like the best of both worlds. Well, that’s until the agent gives up after the exclusivity period without introducing anyone.
Have you failed with using contingent and exclusive search? It might be time to consider the all mighty retained search method. Retained search is superior to both contingent and exclusive search because there’s a level of commitment to working with the hiring manager(s) to overcome all the hurdles to find the right person for the search. And that means not giving up in the middle of it. Retailed search is frowned upon by companies due to the associated risks but it’s not without its advantages. For one, because you’re willing to pay upfront the consultant might be more willing to negotiate on the fee percentage. Not only that, but most retained firms offer market mapping and dig even deeper into the passive labor market than any other search method. As mentioned previously, the agent should also consult with the hiring manager(s) to overcome any issues. Perhaps, there’s internal misalignment with the stakeholders (interviewers), a budget issue (not paying at market), a employer brand issue (company is infamous for high turnover, unreason overtime, etc.). A good consultant will be able to spot these issues and offer solutions. Due to these reasons, it’s surprising this search method isn’t more prolific.
There you have it, contingent recruitment is superior in speed but the service level is often poor; exclusive search is superior to contingent in service level but the agent can give up after the exclusivity period; and retained search has the highest service level but requires upfront payment. With all this in mind, it’s surprising that more companies are playing paper (retained search) when everyone is playing rock (contingent recruitment).
