Following a biblical flood, I’m currently having my bathroom renovated. I’m actually having three bathrooms renovated simultaneously, but this adds nothing to the analogy, and only more debt to me. Due to the scale of the renovation required, I need the work of an architect and consent from our beloved Auckland Council. Although I will be knocking down walls, filling in doors, creating new windows, and moving every bit of plumbing, the actual build is the quick bit. What takes the real time is waiting for the council to confirm that I can turn my bathroom into, well, a bathroom. Although all tradies involved love to moan about this level of bureaucracy, they also spend their time telling me about the cowboys who fitted the bathroom in the first place, and how bad it was when nothing was regulated. When it comes to regulation, it would seem that you’re dammed if you do, and dammed if you don’t.
This week, murmurings of regulation crossed my desk once again. Every five-to-seven years (coinciding with economic cycles it would seem), the subject of regulating our industry seems to raise its head. This time, I believe the genesis is a group of agency leaders who, although card carrying members of the RCSA, are having these thoughts and discussions outside of the industry body – at least at first.
These discussions seem focussed on a practical way to regulate and/or “raise the bar” in our industry. These changes, perhaps independent in their administration, would serve to run the cowboys out of town, professionalise our conduct, and bring us in line with other regulated professional services – like accountants, lawyers, doctors, and…ermmm real estate agents??
Of course there is nothing new in this. In many ways, the RCSAs very existence is based largely on this premise. Yes, they offer advocacy, training, and last night’s networking event. However, a big selling point of membership is that in some way, that little RCSA logo on your website or email signature would legitimise the work that we do. That by being a member of a professional membership organisation, we would be more reputable, and win more and better business because of it. OK, we’re not licensed recruitment professionals (although the RCSA have tried something like this), but we’re members of a professional body and we agree to behave ourselves. There’s your regulation Mr Client.
There is a problem with this of course.
Our sister business JOYN has signed terms of business with 832 businesses. In order to get that number of clients, I wouldn’t want to guess how many BD calls and client visits have been made. And in my experience, not once has the question of RCSA membership been raised. Not once. Not ever. Clients do not care about or professional affiliations. They care about the calibre of candidates that we can represent.
From a regulation perspective, the RCSA might be able to enforce stuff on its members, but in terms of the status that membership bestows on recruitment firms, it’s meaningless. That’s not to say the RCSA doesn’t have its place, it just isn’t recognised externally as any form of validation. There is talk of a “charter”. This may improve the quality of work amongst RCSA members, but if membership isn’t compulsory, and doesn’t deliver us more clients, what is the actual point?
So what does this mean, and what would effective regulation actually look like?
From where I’m sitting, there is only one form of regulation or charter that would mean anything. In order for this industry to truly transform, you would need a license to practice recruitment, possibly at consultant level, and most definitely at firm level. This would have to be independently assessed, managed, and paid for. Consultants would be sent back to school to study a syllabus which someone would have to create. Firms would be audited against things we don’t yet know. Recruitment firms would need (more) compliance teams. Training spend would sky-rocket. Non-billing staff numbers would increase. We’d pay a subsidy to a government entity who would in-turn force us to spend more, and move slower. New firms wouldn’t bother. The globals would have the advantage. Many firms currently wouldn’t have the cash to bother even if they wanted to. Yes, it would cut out a whole heap of cowboys, but it also might push out quality independents, or those who feel that a day a week at Unitec learning about human trafficking isn’t hugely important to their perm sales & marketing desk.
My personal view? The only form of regulation that would make a meaningful difference would be making a “recruitment licence” an essential qualification to practice the craft. Anything less than this will never create meaningful change in our industry. And this is a very bad idea. Small firms would struggle or go bust; more advantages would be handed to off-shore global firms; and we’d all move much, much slower. And if I wanted that, I’d have been an accountant. Lawyers, accountants, and doctors do stuff that is much more serious than us (sorry guys, they do). Real estate agents can’t be taken too seriously, but the average deal value in Auckland is $1m (not $12k), so licence those b*stards. As much as it pains the Marxist in me, please just leave us be and let reputation alone decide who the winners are.
I do appreciate the sentiment of those trying to “do better”. Recruitment has however made me a cynic. An “opt-in” charter won’t stop rogue traders, it just might make some of us feel better for dropping out of uni.
On we march to our inevitable doom.
^SW
