More than three quarters of UK employers feel ripped off by their recruitment agencies and complain that they are not getting value for money, according to a study.
A new poll of 250 HR professionals and business owners at 250 UK companies employing up to 750 staff, which was undertaken by researchers Vanson Bourne, indicated that about £2.5 billion was spent each year on external recruitment services.
But even though respondents spent precious time briefing agencies on their requirements, they were all too often sent CVs from inappropriate candidates. As a result, 58% felt that briefing recruitment agencies was a waste of time, while 36% were frustrated at what they saw as the ‘over-selling’ of potential prospects.
A further 31% were irritated by the fact that they received ‘unqualified’ CVs, while constantly having to chase feedback about both candidates and their CVs was another gripe.
Virginia Raemy, chief executive of online recruitment marketplace TargetPuzzle, which commissioned the study, said that there was currently a "love-hate relationship" between employers and recruiters, with the former often feeling that the latter simply did not listen to them. Recruiters also complained, however, that employers did not provide them with timely feedback.
"It’s clear that both recruiters and employers need to improve the way that they work together. They should have a symbiotic relationship rather than seemingly work against each other," Raemy said.
But the survey also indicated that 77% of those questioned were unhappy about the lack of consistency and transparency in the rates and rebates charged and offered by recruitment agencies. As a result, employers could end up paying as much as 25 to 30%in placement fees.
"It can be very difficult for businesses to know what their competitors are paying, meaning that they could be paying over the odds or be missing out on the best talent," said Raemy.
At a time when businesses are looking to cut their recruitment costs, however, the industry "needs to start being more realistic and transparent, while ensuring the quality and targeting of CVs they sent through improves," she added.
Despite this situation, a huge 92 per cent of respondents indicated that they planned to use an agency in the next six months because they believed that recruiters were more likely to be able to fill specialist positions and find better candidates than they were.
2 Responses
Whilst I agree with much of this frustration with recruitment ag
…I do feel that many companies don’t do much to help themselves improve the way they externally hire and at what cost. In fact I sometimes get the feeling when talking to some of my clients that they sub-consciously use agencies in order to have something else to blame. Breaking any behaviour pattern can be painful and invariably involves some honest self-appraisal.
Here are some ways that companies that are not large blue-chip organisations can improve the way they recruit:
1. If they have a fairly consistent need to recruit new staff, start paying salaries to attract the better calibre agency recruiters to work for them inhouse. Performance-relate the pay if necessary. These people will have some intimacy with how various agencies operate and will know how to manage them more effectively.
2. More importantly, a talented Inhouse Recruiter will also know how to direct-source more candidates that the company were previously paying fees for. They simply have to wake up to the fact that good recruiters need to earn more than 35-40K per year. The right Inhouse Recruiter will save a company literally hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.
3. If they really want to break out of the cycle of agency-dependency, they have to invest money in developing a genuine talent-sourcing strategy – one that includes powerful recruitment communication materials, an Employee Referral Scheme, Talent-Mapping and Talent-Pooling. They will also need an Applicant Tracking system. All of these can be built for the equivalent of about 3 or 4 placement fees and is not the exlusive domain of large businesses.
I generally get the impression that many companies are a little intimidated by recruitment. HR departments are generally very effective at managing the back-end of the recruitment process, but is almost always the front-end where they need the most help.
Mitch Sullivan
[email protected]
07725 185395
Frustrating to read!
This article and particularly the statistics within it are a stark reminder of the inconsistencies within the Recruitment Industry. The lack of proper regulation plays a huge part in the poor quality of service companies are receiving.
However with regards to the lack of transparency, negotiated fees and rebates should not be a reason to feel "ripped off". If a company sticks to a pre planned set of recruitment terms OR decides it will agree to pay different amounts dependant on the recruiter (specialist vs. generalist etc) then if they supply a candidate worthy of hiring and work to the terms agreed where does this feeling of being "ripped off" come from?
I would challenge HR teams and decision makers out there to actually sit down put together a set of recruitment service criteria and terms (no more than 3/5/8 cv’s at any one time, specific information that you require, performance review of recruiters performance after 5 roles) which the recruitment consultants must then stick to. The level of dissatisfaction felt by companies would be greatly reduced AND efficiency of the recruiters involved may increase as there is a clear understanding between all parties as to what is expected.
Communication is absolutely key in a process such as recruitment and it must be a two way conversation.
With such measures hopefully the Recruitment Industry will lose its bad name and be seen as the useful (sometimes essential) tool for any successful Company.
Grant Bodie
Mount Recruitment – IT Recruitment Specialists
[email protected]
http://www.mountrecruitment.co.uk