Advice & Resources, BB News, Industry Insight
Phill Westcott, Senior Director at Broster Buchanan (London), shares his perspective on the pressures facing internal talent teams today, and why closer collaboration with agency partners could be the key to better, faster hiring.
It is no secret that the labour market is challenging right now. A combination of political and economic factors has had a ripple effect into the employment market. Having been in the “game” for over 20 years, it’s not new, we’ve seen it before and the cycles are always very similar.
However, it feels like the right time to discuss and share thoughts on how agency partners can work in unity with internal talent teams to support hiring managers’ requirements and support job seekers.
The feedback we are getting from job seekers is one of immense frustration. Of course, when you are looking for work or a new challenge and it’s slower than you’d like, you’d expect this. But it’s the inconsistent advice (mainly from agencies), lack of feedback and ghosting that seems to be the root cause of this frustration.
Now, it’s not a new objection for agencies nor is it a new strategy for our customers when everyone is watching the “pennies” to have more of a focus on direct hiring. However, there seems to have been an increase or shift toward “trying it direct first” or a “no agency policy”.
Fortunately, having been in the market for as long as I have, most of the engagements I work on are from genuine relationships with people I have known for many years, but the topic is a hot one that needs highlighting. Really this is in full support of the many exceptional talent teams out there. Personally, I feel like they are set up to fail far too often. Line managers get frustrated, want to press on, and then the process and control fails as a result.
I guess the first question is, why? Seemingly the answer is to save money on agency fees. Fair enough. Let’s face it, most businesses are looking at costs very closely at the moment. Recruiting costs via agencies is something that can be reduced if a company has the appropriate resources.
What we are seeing is that internal recruitment resource has been reduced due to the current market conditions (like so many other functions), and therefore, specialist internal recruiters are recruiting outside their comfort zone. So, you may find an IT recruiter for an organisation looking after a hiring need for a Finance Director.
While I understand recruitment as a skill is very transferable, surely it begs the question – is the potential cost saving of not using a specialist agency the right approach? Is it efficient? Is the outcome the same?
I am a finance recruiter by trade, and it took me at least a couple of years to be good at it. By good at it, I mean being able to quickly spot the right skills that the hiring manager is looking for (not just the bullet points on a CV that match a job spec!), to understand the job a candidate is doing/needs to do, as well as understanding changes in legislation and how different companies report and account for their business activity.
Many of you reading this are probably thinking “all a recruiter does is search their database or LinkedIn, find candidates with the right job title, dump a bunch of OK CVs into a client’s inbox and then terrorise the client to interview the candidates in order to make a sale/fee.” You’re right, there are lots of recruiters that probably do that. The answer here is… use a better one!
I digress……
Outside of the fact that a direct recruiter will be briefing candidates on a job they potentially don’t truly understand, where are they finding them? They don’t have a network or talent pool for this skill set, so presumably they are relying on LinkedIn or advertising. This is not a bad thing but seems a little one-dimensional.
Let’s talk timelines:
AT THIS POINT YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE 7–8 WEEKS INTO THE PROCESS, AND YOU STILL HAVEN’T INTERVIEWED ANYONE OR IDENTIFIED A POTENTIAL SUITOR FOR THE ROLE.
Even after an offer is accepted, we still need to consider a notice period (3 months generally). It just blows my mind that these timelines can meet a business need!? Presumably, in most cases at the moment, this is a replacement role for someone on a 3-month notice period. What if they decline or are counter offered? Do you start the process again or, at this point, is an agency a useful ally?
With 20 years’ experience – like most of my colleagues at Broster Buchanan – we don’t need to advertise to attract the right candidate, we already know who they are 80% of the time. We do advertise, but we need to do this to stay relevant in a world of self-promotion and brand exposure on LinkedIn – that’s just a reality.
A decent agency would have a shortlist submitted in 1–5 days. If they don’t, they are taking the same approach as your overworked, under-resourced direct recruiter and aimlessly advertising without an appropriate network or reputation (keep doing what you’re doing!). Would you accept this inefficiency on any other project? I’m not sure – but then again I would say that… I’m a recruiter, right?
The other aspect that is constantly overlooked, and one that I hear from candidates all the time, is that this (the direct model) can lead to a PR nightmare for a business.
The direct recruiter has 500+ (best case!) applications to go through – which they can’t, it’s impossible… and what might happen if they don’t get a response? Or most commonly, a generic “thanks but no thanks” auto-reject. We live in a culture where experiences are publicly shared, and unfortunately, these don’t tend to be balanced. We’ve all searched Glassdoor, Google Reviews or TripAdvisor for a review or some guidance. It’s either “holiday of a lifetime, thanks to our waiter, Steve” or “this was the worst holiday ever, AVOID this place at all costs”. It’s an impossible balance for a talent team to strike.
Does it matter? I would argue it should. Agencies are not exempt from this criticism either – many are far worse. Application 372 might be the perfect candidate, the unicorn you’ve been looking for… but the CV will never see the light of day in most cases.
This is an agency’s job and at least they take that risk off your hands. It’s an important point to consider, no?
This is not a direct recruiter witch hunt – it really isn’t, far from it. We work with some fantastic direct teams, truly excellent recruiters and specialists in their field. They are fair, honest and collaborative. They are praised internally for filling a job, we make a fee, and a solid, mutually beneficial bond is made. WIN/WIN. The problem is, too often they are being used in the wrong way. It’s not their choice – it’s the choice of the business and the lack of credit (potentially) they have given to what it takes to find and hire top talent.
The only answer here is to work in partnership.
Seeing as agencies are usually in competition with other recruiters – especially where the organisation is large enough to have direct/internal recruiters and there will likely be an “approved” list – then why can’t direct and agency work in unison? Surely this is the perfect solution? The chance of not spending money on agencies by utilising your own resource, but a fail-safe to ensure you still access the right talent quickly from an agency partner. A good recruiter is an extension of your business – and a valuable one.
Work in collaboration rather than in competition…
Direct teams and agencies working together where needed is foolproof, don’t you agree?
If you’re facing similar challenges or want to explore how a more collaborative approach to recruitment could support your business, feel free to get in touch. We’d love to share how we can help.
