Clients - do you want the cheapest recruitment process possible or a long-term relationship?

I love a good podcast but until recently it was mainly ‘The 5Live Football Daily’ and the-like. More recently I’ve started to listen to some more work related stuff. I’ve listened to a few recently which have gotten me thinking about the relationship between us recruiters & our clients.

A term I hear time and time again is that of ‘transactional recruitment’…

Us recruiters are (apparently) only bothered about our next fee. Once the candidate is ‘in’ we run off with our fee, never to be seen again. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are recruiters like that. Crikey, I’ve even worked alongside a few. Most of those who are, come and go within a few years, making a few quid along the way. 

Those of us who are ‘here to stay’ want (and need) to have a good reputation. We want to do repeat business with clients and candidates who value us and our industry. 

Recruiters are far from perfect.

But so are clients.

Many (not all, of course) are focused on the cheapest recruitment fee but expect the best service. Some want to pay the lowest percentage for the quickest recruitment process to find the perfect candidate and build no relationship with the recruiter, or even their potential future employee. At times there can be an adversarial relationship - which if we’re all honest doesn’t help client, recruiter, OR candidate. 

Often my best experiences have been with clients who’ve given me their time, sometimes taken over multiple vacancies, to teach me about the business; it’s good AND bad points, their colleagues, the culture, and as a result of this, a feel for what type of person would best suit the business, not just the best fit from a few lines on a CV. 

When a client has given me their time and effort I’ll give 110% to fill the requirement. They’ve entrusted me to help solve their headache and I owe them the best service in return for their time & effort. 

When a client gives me a job title & a rough salary whilst outlining they won’t as much as open my CV shortlist email without agreeing upfront to their set percentage fee, no matter how difficult the vacancy – I cannot give 100%.  

My clients might not like to read that, hell my boss probably won’t! But I’m just being honest –

I don’t want to recruit for 100% of my industry sector. I want to deal with those who want to work with me and those who’s opportunities I’m proud & confident to offer to my candidates. 

I think that the proof is in the pudding and that this relationship-lead approach helps to find the best candidate for the role. 

Without this approach:

• the hiring manager can find themselves needing to run the whole process again in 6-12 months - when the new hire leaves or isn’t the superstar they met at the interview,
• the recruiter can end up working on the same role again to replace a lost placement,
• the candidate can find themselves in the job market, all over again. 

 Saying all that…

I appreciate that many clients simply don’t have the time to offer a recruiter, nor do they have the financial resource and as such need the most cost-effective solution. Not every hiring manager has the same resource or the same outlook. So that’s why I ask the question;

As a hiring manager do you;

• want the cheapest & quickest solution, here and now. Get the headache gone and another job off your to-do list?

OR

• a relationship-built recruitment process, with a single or select-few recruiters in the hope that it might yield a different (better?) outcome?

Looking forward to hearing what people think but more interestingly the reasons as to which side of the table they prefer to sit on. I'll let you know my findings! 😊