I like to try to keep an open mind, in everything that I do. This goes for my personal life and my professional one. As a corporate recruiter, I’m strong to believe that having an in-house recruiter is the best way to go. From a company’s perspective, though, it may not be what you need/want.
Below, I outline some pros and cons to using an agency to fill your open positions.
Pros. Agencies …
- … are able to provide you with a wide array of candidates due to the network they’ve built out with their candidate pool
- … can be hired on a contingency basis, meaning they are not paid until their candidate gets hired.
- … often specialize. Sales, admin, tech, etc. If you have a certain need, there is an agency out there that can help you fill it.
- … offer a company the “try before you buy” model. No commitments made.
Cons. Agencies …
- … don’t understand your company or the culture you’re trying to build.
- … can be expensive! Let’s look at the two types of agency fee models. Let’s take the contingency model as an example. Contingency fees are usually 18-25% of a salary, paid on placement. Assuming a 20% fee, on a 80k salary, that is 16k per placement. If you have this agency fill ten roles, that’s $160k. I’m positive you can find an in-house recruiter for less, and who will do more.
- … are not just hiring for you. They are hiring for a LOT of clients. Never think that you are their priority.
- … don’t give you a commitment. Unlike in-house recruiters, agencies have no emotional ties to your company.
I leave you with this question: What are you looking to get out of your recruiter?