I was interested to see recently on a Linkedin discussion, strong criticism relating to the cost of using head hunters and recruitment agencies in the R&S process. The contention of the contributor was that if these activities were provided in-house, this would save the company up to 25% of total recruitment costs. It made me wonder. Hm - maybe he’s got a point.
However, on reflection, I think without specific cost examples, it’s not easy to make such a case. The key point here seems to be the assumption that by delivering in-house, the service becomes free. Who will do it; the existing HR people? Will they have the time? If not, we will have to recruit more and pay for their employment costs and house them somewhere. Conversely, perhaps the recruitment needs are not so great as to justify people dedicating their time exclusively to this task.
What about the database of potential candidates. Without a doubt, a dedicated agency will have a better one and access to a much broader candidate pool. This will particularly be the case in high level, international appointments. Then we may need screening interviews and possibly, assessment centres. If a company decides it wants to use such methods and not use external providers, they would need to develop the expertise in house which may require more training and higher wages.
The view of the contributor was that agencies were parasites living of the backs of candidates.
This seems a strange interpretation of the delivery of part of a process. This happens in all other activities from construction to accountancy and law so for me, it’s a very clear and unanimous verdict that outsourcing aspects of recruitment makes financial and practical sense in many cases.
What do you think?
While you're thinking about it, have a look at this at entertaining video about young career aspirations.
