Contingency is DEAD
Sarah Rose - People Over Resumes
Talent Acquisition | Human Resources
Well it should be!
Stop trying to sell me on why you use a contingent model. Turn the tables and listen to what you're saying and asking. You are effectively telling me that your agency doesn't value this hire enough to invest in it. You don't trust who you're partnering with to do the job on their own, and speed is more important than accuracy. There are so many things wrong with this model I don't even know where to start.
As a recruiter, someone who provides a service far beyond picking candidates out of a database, I have to ask myself:
- Do I want to work with someone who looks and views what I offer as the CHEAPEST in the industry versus an actual quality service?
- Am I going to lower my standards because someone is playing a short term numbers game and won't commit financially?
- Am I going to give 100% of my time and overhead for an unknown period of time when there is absolutely no investment on the other end?
Investment is a two-way street. Once something bigger and better comes around, guess where everyone will go? I could go on and on, but the bottom line is I value my time just as much as anyone else does. These companies asking for a contingency would likely never, NEVER accept the terms and conditions they ask others to work under. It's ineffective, offers no long term incentive and it's best in a used car lot. Every agency wants the competitive advantage, but they leave it up to chance. They want an Astin Martin, but only put in the effort and money to get a used Honda with 200K miles.
People make or break your business, it's as simple as that. If you aren't going to invest in your number one asset, what the hell will you invest in? 85% of candidates are open to looking and unhappy with some aspects of their job. Why so high? There's a good chance they weren't properly vetted, they're siloed, they were hired to fill a seat versus being hired to make an impact, or the expectations aren't clear from the beginning.
When you don't fully invest and make hiring a competition versus your highest priority, there is going to be a long term issue. Stop thinking short term and think about the people you are investing in. Figure it out!
Staffing Specialist at GoodWork Staffing a divison of Goodwill Industries
6yWell said.
I write SEO optimized content about crypto, blockchain, and decentralized technologies 🤓
7y🙃
Certified Process Improvement Specialist | Maximizing Efficiency & Productivity | Data-driven Solutions | Continuous Improvement Advocate | Collaborative Problem Solver | Driving Operational Excellence
7yExactly Hiring the Right Candidate does not mean you have hired the BEST candidate. Right and Best are not exactly the same things. There are so many insufficiently reasoned assumptions that drive this type of thinking it continues to amaze me how insulated and self - perpetuating the thinking is around how best to use talent analytics, data and models. At the end of the day if competent people with the ability to exercise thoughtful judgement are not mediating these systems, models and data everything becomes a transaction, a checkbox a microwave (over focus on expediency) instead of value and substance. Sad!. I continue to ask the question Are companies hiring Better people than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago? There is no doubt that their ability to 'Hire People Better' has increased because of TA/Compentency models Big Data sets ..however that does not automatically confer that the ability to Hire People Better means that your hiring Better People! I have not seen any substantive compelling evidence that all these advancements in Talent Analytics and Sourcing is actually leading to higher quality hires or Higher performance hires as measured in the role. These conclusions are nothing more than confident speculation
Bravo, Sarah!