Human Resources

Why should it matter to you whether that recruiter is retained, contained, or contingent? To many people, recruiters are all cut from the same bad cloth. When you sense that it’s another recruiter on the line with the same self-serving pitch, you likely tense up, rush them off the phone, or hang up before they can complete their sentence (hopefully you don’t do the latter too often. There is something humane about letting another human finish what they have to say, even if you’re completely disinterested). I digress… Retained, or not to be retained. That is the question! Let’s first dissect this misunderstood word. In simple terms, it means working exclusively with a service provider with a monetary deposit to ensure the commitment to & integrity of the relationship (I did not use Google for that). Let’s employ an everyday scenario… You’re looking to get your windows done and you hire a contractor to do the work. The contractor comes over to assess the job, provides a selection of window options, and offers a quote for the job along with a timeframe for completion. You agree to use that contractor, at which point, the contractor requests a deposit to solidify commitment from you, the customer. That deposit is then subtracted from the final cost of the job once completed. Simple enough and agreeable as a practical way of doing business. Let’s now take a look at the recruitment industry… When I broke into this field almost 15 years ago, I was trained in a purely contingent environment. The normal way of doing business under this model was to solicit business from a company to fill one of their vacancies, take the request, create a stealth job description, reach out to prospects, facilitate interviews and final offer, & close the deal. Rinse & repeat. Pretty standard to the industry, but in all of this is an open-ended, commitment-less relationship with zero accountability to the other party. What do you mean Troy? Do tell… Let’s go back to the window contractor example… You hire that contractor to do the job, but this time, there is no deposit made to the contractor. They agree solely based on a signed contract. They start the work, and everything is progressing well enough. All of a sudden, the contractor shows up late for the job. The day after, they’re a no show. Your calls go unreturned for the next 3 days and you’re left wondering if the job will get done. Friday afternoon, you receive a call from the contractor, and they agree to complete the job the following Monday. On Monday, they’re a no show and you’re left with an unfinished job, money in your pocket, but now you begin the process with another window contractor hoping for a better experience. This is what we commonly refer to now as ghosting. That contractor abandoned the job, likely for another customer who paid a deposit. So, why are hiring executives disagreeable to paying a retainer for exclusive recruitment services? It stems entirely from how recruiters have positioned themselves in the marketplace. For years, they’ve worked for free and hiring authorities have lived with the poor results associated with “free” If you’ve been getting a free service for years, why would you one day want to start paying for that service, even if the facts declare that free hasn’t resulted in positive outcomes for you? Recruitment is no different from any other service and we need to start seeing ourselves as organizational difference makers, change agents, & facilitators of growth. If we don’t value what we do, then how dare we get upset when others don’t. The issue is internal. Once we start respecting what we bring to organizations’ and peoples’ lives, then we will see real change and lasting relationships with decision makers. Google defines retained recruitment as a search process that focuses on quality and long-term value over speed, leading to a lower risk of bad hires and a more thorough search process (with more transparency). In essence, retained recruitment is better because it prioritizes finding the right person for the role, reduces the risk of bad hires, and fosters a strong partnership between the recruiter and the hiring company, leading to more successful hiring outcomes. Wouldn’t you consider this to be more desirable than what I described above? The onus lies entirely within the recruitment industry to redefine its image and start positioning itself as a service that allows executives to sleep better at night. The days of recruiters competing against themselves, chasing candidates in a reckless manner, candidate redundancy, and a poor brand image are the past. Welcome to the future of the candidate/recruiter/customer relationship, and only those willing to do something different will reap the benefits.