Forums
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
Recruiting & Staffing
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
Exchange ideas about sourcing, screening, interviewing, finding passive candidates, measuring your results, and more.
Do any you guys think that recruitment agnecies are in decline. I have recently started a training company highlighting this and I'd like any feedback or advice. www.avanti-sl.co.uk
Thanks
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56Discussion:DiscussionId20934
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/4/2002 3:34 AM EST
|
Posts: 32
First: 2/4/2002 Last: 2/24/2003 |
Do any you guys think that recruitment agnecies are in decline. I have recently started a training company highlighting this and I'd like any feedback or advice. www.avanti-sl.co.uk
Thanks |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/4/2002 5:21 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 378
First: 1/8/2002 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Not at all. I feel especially qualified to answer this question because I am an American citizen and degreed HR professional working in the United Kingdom. Although I will repatriate in the next few months, I have spent half my adult life working in your country.
I can state from experience that temp agencies play a much bigger role in the UK than in the US. Moreover, temporary offers and short-term contract jobs are much more prevalent in the UK. These agencies aren't dead by any means. In fact, I have noticed they usually experience an inverse relationship with respect to the economy's prosperity. |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/4/2002 5:24 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 399
First: 4/26/2001 Last: 2/8/2002 |
Not dead, but certainly in decline. The use of the internet for job searches has had an incredible impact on the whole recruiting industry. Even the smallest companies can now cost effectively recruit top talent with only a small investment. If the hiring firm has recruiters who know the positions, can do resume database searches and can sell their company, then the selling points of an agency charging 30% fees are greatly diminished.
However, there should be two areas in which the recruiting agency can not only survive but thrive. First is the specialized boutique firm that has a significant list of contacts in a particular field and knows its field as well as anyone. The second area is the "partner" firm for a company's recruiting effort, a firm which can provide recruiting services when needed at reasonable rates and with rapid hire cycles. My two cents/pence, for what they're worth. |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/5/2002 12:22 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 32
First: 2/4/2002 Last: 2/24/2003 |
I agree with the inverse economc trend factor. As everyone tightens their belts they tend to go more for contractors that they can release at short notice. I 've been in Rceruitment for nearly ten years and still can't understand why a most of the Companies across Europe (excuse my ignorance for the US Market) use agencies when they have highly competent people and resources in their own organisations. Sure maybe they'd need some training or fine tuning, but surely the benefits of an autonomous resourcing function is better and cheaper than going to agenies. Maybe I'm wrong???
|
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/6/2002 1:48 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 276
First: 1/29/2002 Last: 4/30/2003 |
I found this an interesting topic and thought I could share with you my most recent experience as a job seeker.
I lost mt most previous position through a job elimination in mid-October, ostensibly due to the financial aftermatch of Sept.11 to the airline support services industry. I was in Dallas, and registered with numerous agencies, including the "biggies" in my areas of expertise. I also searched via the Internet and networked within my professional organization and colleagues from previous employers. After 4 weeks of ZERO bites in the Dallas area, I expanded my Internet search nationwide, which was not a big issue, since I am single with no kids. Within 4 weeks, I had 6 phone interviews with out-of-Texas companies, 4 of which resulted in in-person interviews, and 4 of the 6 were positions posted by Robert Half, International on the Internet. 1 was from another recruitment agency and only 1 was direct from the employer. BTW, 3 of the 4 in-person interviews resulted in job offers and I am now in St. Louis, MO. Don't feel bad for me...the other two offers were in Gaithersburg, MD (big COLA would have been needed) and NYC (even bigger COLA would have been needed). Plus the 2 in-person interviews for jobs posted by RHI that resulted in offers included relocation assistance (1 better than the other), even though the posting stated that no relocation was available. So, that's one job-seeker's experience. Maybe a recruiter is better for the seeker than for the employer! |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/6/2002 5:10 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 1
First: 2/6/2002 Last: 2/6/2002 |
Sounds really good, but how cost effective is it?
I like the idea, I run a department that at the moment outsources all staffing requirements to agencies, and would be interested to know how your concept could save us money. |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/6/2002 5:33 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 399
First: 4/26/2001 Last: 2/8/2002 |
Sarah:
You'd have to do a cost analysis of a hire made directly by yourself/internal recruiter and the hire made by the outside recruiter. Here in the US, the asking price for a placement by an agency is 33% of total annual compensation. For a US$60,000 per year person, this is US$20,000. If you make 10 hires per year this way, then you've paid out $200,000. A boatload of money to be sure. You can find a reasonably good internal recruiter for $60,000 (let's say the total cost of this person including benefits and facilities is $90,000). A monster.com posting/database subscription might cost up to $20,000. The rest of your recruiting costs would be the same (travel, interview expenses, etc) as other candidate sources. Net result: You have an internal person who knows your company very well and, given time to learn, can make the recruiting process very efficient. You've also saved $90,000 in making your 10 hires. Keep in mind that most agencies these days do little more than post on the internet themselves! (See pattystl's account above). Why not do it yourself and eliminate the rather expensive middleman?? |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/7/2002 1:01 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 378
First: 1/8/2002 Last: 9/14/2011 |
As usual, nork2 is right on the money. The cost comparison would reveal what you are saving. Are you looking at direct hires after agency referral or would the agency provide staffing on a long-term contract basis where the employees still work for the agency (which is more common in the UK)? The aditional consideration would be the offset in the agency fees (which differ from the U.S.) and the cost of benefits you would provide to direct hires. |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/7/2002 5:09 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 32
First: 2/4/2002 Last: 2/24/2003 |
Well I'll be honest with you guys and say that this is music to my ears. I've been trying to get this training concept off the ground and felt I either had a real viable concept that companies could benefit from, or the worst idea ever imagined. Nork2 has basically emphasised my thinking for a while now. And to Sarah I would say that, you need to have a full audit of how well your present structuring works vis-avis your budget. You can either do that independently or for yourself. Once you have a figure use that as your bench-mark, and work out the cost of an internal recruiter as Nork2 says.
Thanks guys you've made my day www.avanti-sl.co.uk any feedback from a professional point of view on the site would be apprecited and respected. |
|
|
Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
posted at 2/12/2002 9:24 AM EST
|
|
Posts: 2
First: 2/12/2002 Last: 4/30/2002 |
The use of an internal recruitment person can have its benefits and then it can also have its drawbacks. In a large organisation it would be difficult to have one internal resource that would understand and be able to recruit all aspects of the business - eg in the IT area, finance, senior management etc. Usually one person does not have the experience and expertise to hire across the business and that is where agencies can be useful is obtaining the best candidate for a role. Businesses need to stick to there core business and not recruitment. There is alot to say about recruiting an IT person and asking the right question and obtaining the right answers.
Something that businesses need to take into account when they do not want a quick turnaround in employees by employing the wrong person because they were not screened properly. |
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Are Recruitment Agencies dead????
