Recruiting Expert ➝ Quality • Speed • Interview Process Improvement • 2024 GEM Award-Winning Start-Up Recruiter [New York | Seattle | U.S.]
What kind of behavior does the 'no win, no fee' payment model of contingency recruiting incentivize? Quantity over quality? Rather than jeopardize the fee, does it make sense to withhold potentially negative information about candidates? Maybe. The contingency model shifts the risk from the hiring organization to the recruiting firm. This makes it more palatable, but often comes at a price. There is some loss of control, lose of long term accountability, and loss of added value beyond the placement (like improving the process). This isn't always the case! But I'd argue it's one thing that stinks up the recruiting industry. We at www.hitolabs.com avoid contingency. We want to paid for our work, we want to do the right things, spend time to treat candidates right, and improve the process. It's much harder to get business - and asks clients for more attention, and more trust. I think it's worth it. #ContingencyRecruiting #RecruitingModel
Human-Centered People Leader
10moGreat points Matt Cholerton - I think my biggest concern with contingency recruiting is that it makes the process transactional vs. a collaborative process, similar to sales roles that are 100% commission based. Tends to become a volume play like you mentioned so while it's easy to be wooed by the low-risk on the employer side (i.e. you don't pay unless you make a placement), it was also a tentative relationship where I was always wondering if we were getting less attention since our percentage was too low or the recruiter loses momentum or we lose momentum and have trouble getting it back. I've found the most impactful model is more retainer, fractional, hourly+contingent since these teams operate as partners and it tends to hold in-house teams accountable for having our stuff together since we're paying for the recruiting support regardless of placement.