Some things you know to be true, but that doesn’t mean they’ve truly dawned on you. No man ever thinks his wife is going to leave him no matter how many times she threatens, until she runs off with the landscape gardener. 5 more minutes until bed isn’t actually 5 more minutes to any child. Until it is. A candidate might accept the job offer you secured them instead of accepting the massive counter offer. This is probably some evolutionary quirk. To know something (typically negative) to be true, but to convince ourselves otherwise. Perhaps the optimism of land being just over the horizon allowed us to propagate as a species. Or, for you creationists out there, “God loves a tryer“. I have a similar relationship of late with contingent, non-exclusive recruitment. To stay biblical, not quite a “road to Damascus” moment – more a “I always knew it was bull-sh*t, but now I KNOW it’s absolute f*cking bullshit“. Firstly, some very weird non-recruiters read this, so let me explain the lexicon of recruitment:
Retained recruitment: We’re paid to do the work, at least some regardless of outcome. Y’know, like the rest of the sane world. We are the only firm recruiting the role.
Contingent exclusive: We’re only paid if we find someone who accepts (and starts) the job. Like some sh*tty “no win, no fee” ambulance-chasing sheister Lawyer. We are again, the only firm recruiting the role.
Contingent non-exclusive: All the risk of the above, PLUS the added “benefit” of multiple firms bombarding the same candidates (or not bothering) in the hope of shonking some poor soul into a role.
Now, tell me folks… which of the above instinctively feels like the service that would deliver a better outcome for candidate, client, and recruiter? In fact, why not put them in order of quality? Like those viral clips where they try make you say “purple elephant” out loud, I bet your order is the same as I’ve written them. And what do you think is the most common approach in the western world? One thing is certain: retained is at the bottom, and there’s an argument to suggest “Contingent non-exclusive” is at the top. Stop the world, I want to get off.
I, like every recruiter, have spent my life working mostly contingent, telling everyone I only really work exclusive, whilst simultaneously often working non-exclusive. I am both self-deluded and a hypocrite. Recruitment attracts strange beasts like me however; bolshy so’n’sos who think they’re billy-big-b*llocks, but turn into sycophantic rodents when there’s a chance of some crumbs from BNZs table. If we’re not like that naturally, we’re encouraged to be this way in our formative years. The idea that a chance of a fee is better than no fee makes sense to a 24 year old manager at Hays. It doesn’t make sense in the long run however, and yet here we are.
My recent realisation of how ridiculously insane non-exclusive recruitment work is, is probably due to my work with our sister business JOYN. JOYN offers recruitment on an agreed-upon-upfront hourly rate. Given we are paid for the work (not outcome), this sits as retained recruitment with a different charging mechanism. Fundamentally however, we work, we get paid. I spend my days talking to new clients, and they’re often running a process themselves or are engaged with a recruitment firm. I always say the same thing. Let that process run its course, and if it doesn’t work, use us. We can only work exclusively and this is for your benefit, not ours. We’ll get paid whatever. Life/God is good/great.
Then I sometimes recruit internal recruitment roles via Rice & Co. And I’m reminded of the stark contrast. When you recruit internal recruiters, you’re at least competing against your client who is always looking. Often, you’re competing against a wildly inappropriate agency who has a relationship somewhere in the business. Still, you’re meant to knuckle down and race your client or competitor to find the best candidate. You’re actually meant to invest serious amounts of time in this. I know. F*cking mad. It’s even worse if you’re a supplier to government. Apparently briefing a panel of recruiters delivers better outcomes than briefing one. Like how getting three firms to paint your house simultaneously and only paying one always delivers a great result. This isn’t a one off for many recruiters. It’s their life. Trying to beat three other firms to the punch or losing their job and house. It is absolutely, maddeningly, ridiculously stupid. And there is only one thing to do about it. But before the solution, a caveat.
There are a tiny number of industries where exclusive recruitment isn’t always the best fit. And those industries are those that will always hire revenue generators regardless of vacancy. Law firms will probably always look at a good lawyer. If it’s a specific vacancy, give it to one agency. But do I blame a law firm being open to “floats”. Nah. Same with Recruitment Agencies. We rarely recruit to vacancies. If we have a good Accounting & Finance recruiter, don’t worry Lee, we’ll call you (he’ll moan otherwise). Chill out. Outside of industries that will always hire “billers”, non-exclusive recruitment is a mugs game. One that we’ve all played.
So what to do, what to do? Simple really. If you’re a hiring manager, never brief multiple agencies. You are a fool to do so. The combined effort of all agencies will be less than one working exclusively. You’ll confuse candidates. You’ll create arguments. You’ll get a worse service and ultimately, outcome. If you’re an agency recruiter, only work exclusively. No ifs or buts. It will hurt at the time, but imagine the extra bandwidth you’ll have to win and deliver exclusive and retained work? Or learn a language? Or practice tantra? Or collect those last few b*stard Ooshies (DM me if you have Sully, The Thing, or a Storm-f*cking-Trooper). And imagine the message you’ll send out to a business when you say “thanks, but no thanks. It’s not good for you, me, or the candidates“. Then you really are billy-big-b*llocks.
^SW
