What if a recruiting firm made a decision to not play today’s client-agency game?
Instead they:
- Create new value propositions (e.g. Heidrick & Struggles)
- Build communities around felt needs (e.g. Intuit)
- Relied only on personal introductions
Such a recruiting firm would be free from:
- Participating in a system that has commoditized talent
- Focusing on weekly or monthly transactions
- Being viewed as competition
What would such an agency look like?
Would this be easy to create? No. Making your own rules and redefining success never is.
Photo by nickwheeleroz
October 29th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Thanks for your great welcome on Twitter. Change in the workplace is often driven by cultural change. Companies may be in the driver's seat right now based on the economy and a surplus of candidates, but the smart organizations always value people regardless. You're so right about making rules and redefining success being tough!
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
If I had a dollar for every person that told me they were opening a "different kind" of recruitment agency …
To change the status-quo you need to change the reward mechanism, such that it inspires this kind of behavior from the recruitment agency. Or why not buy your research from one shop, your selection from another and your background check service from a third, instead of from a recruitment agency? Perhaps create a model where different aspects of research, selection, coordination, screening and vetting were both in and out sourced?
If the a traditional agency tried the approach above with a traditional client, it could probably only work work if profit were not a driving factor. The agency must keep it's eye on closing transactions, and their customers aren't rewarding the kind of behavior described. If they were, then these recruitment agencies would be doing it. Really, they are quite clever people, at least one of them would have tried. Corporations get the recruitment agencies that they deserve. In the same way that people get the estate agents (US- "realtors") that they deserve.
While it is very easy to bash recruitment agencies, bravery, vision and trying new approaches is as much an issue for the client as it is for the agency. Social and business networks, technology and other factors are reducing the barriers to trying new approaches. Changing the mind set that clings to traditional recruitment methods (and outcomes) is the hard part. That will take more than just the recruitment agencies redefining the rules of the game on their own. I think a few organizations are heading down that path, and I'm glad to be working for one.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hi Marsha – Yes, if change were easy, someone would have made the app by now I suppose. The challenge in accomplishing something is correlated to the value in this case.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
David –
You’re spot on. If the compensation isn't tied into the change, it's pointless.
Example of change: I do know one firm has been moving to a retain/flat fee per monthly service model. They have some set expectations around the number of furnished, qualified candidates per position, but the company (a start up) likes the arrangement.
Corporations do get the vendors they tolerate (deserve). I found myself the other month defending a higher than average placement rate because my company isn't lowering the bar for necessary talent and it's (still) just as hard to find it – even in a slower market.
It's great to hear you're with a firm that is approaching the issues as an opportunity. If you're up for a conference call , I'd love to talk about it at a high level. Too many agencies are circling the wagons.