Employers- Why not recruit directly?

M

Magoo

Registered User
Messages
135
A few recent posts here have alluded to a certain dissatisfaction with recruitmrnt agencies.

To those of you who recruit staff, may I ask why you don't recuit directly? Is it an issue of cost, expertise, time, fear??? Or a combination of some of these elements?

It strikes me that by relying on recuitment agencies, you could end up with a pig in a poke (although I appreciate that not all agencies are the same). After all, they send you the people they have on their books which is bound to exclude a potentially large catchment group.
 
One of the most obvious reasons would be so that the interviewer does not discuss the wages (the agency does this).
Quite often an interviewer could ask what their expectant wage would be. If the interviewer was on say 40k, and the interviewee asked for 50k then the interviewer would not be a happy camper.
 
having recruited staff on numerous occassions the big advantage of a well briefed recruitment agency is the savings in time. I have had over 100 applications for various "junior" posts in the past and having to sift through all those and respond takes time.

C
 
That seems a bit silly to me to be honest. Normally an interviewer should know or at least have some idea of what the salary range to be offered will be. I'll admit that would only be in my experience - maybe it's not the norm but my feeling is that it would have a bearing on the level of expertise expected from the interviewee and so is very relevant information for the interviewer to know.

With regard to recruitment agencies I can only speak from the job-seeker side of the fence and say that although I've scanned the newspapers when looking for jobs I've only once or twice applied directly to companies and all of the jobs I've had (four so far) have been found through recruitment agencies.
 
Having worked in various HR departments, many are not that well organised when it comes to recruitment and follow up. CV's get misplaced, good candidates can slip through the cracks etc....Recruitment agencies are financially motivated to get you the best candidate and make a placement.

From a recruiters point of view, it is VERY time consuming to recruit yourself. You have to decide on an advertising campgain, deal with whatever media you choose, deal with all the calls etc. Plus you have no way of knowing what the person who looks good enough on paper is going to be like in person.....more time wasted interviewing candidates that don't fit personality wise. You could phone screen but again thats more time needed.

The cost of advertising is also a factor.

Having said that if using an agency it needs to be one that you trust. One that knows your organization and can give you say 5 CV's, you pick three to interview and hire one.....a good agency should be able to provide this in most cases because their services aren't cheap either !
 
From the other side of the fence as a job seeker, I have always found that recruiting agents do little more than word match on CVs and send those people into interviews. I have never had any "interview" with a recruitment company as to my suitability for a job. As far as I can see they get alot of money for doing very little.

If a company was to do their own, all they need is an email address for their department recruitement, post on the many job boards out there, maybe one or two of the national papers (this is very easy) and do word matching on the CVs they get in to see if the candiates are suitable, then make a short list etc..... Seriously, thats all the agencies do. It would take someone half a day to organise all that, even HR or a junior could do it.
 
homeowner said:
As far as I can see they get alot of money for doing very little.
Click to expand...
I interview candidates on a regular basis from agencies and I would have to agree with this view. A lot of agencies seem to do little more than sort the CV's they receive into very general categories and then send these CV's off to all companies looking for someone in this category, even though some candidates may be totally unsuitable. I've recently had a few cases were candidates didn't even see the job spec before the interview and had no idea what the role was about!! What really bugs me is that the agency expect an astromomical fee for this "service" they provide.

Our HR department do advertise the roles on other mediums, but it does seem that most decent candidates are registered with agencies and will wait to hear from them on what roles are available rather than searching classifieds.
 
One of my biggest bugbears from a candidate's point of view is the way most agencies doctor your CV, usually by adding their own comments at the top. They're hardly going to write a bad summary because they want their commission, so why bother repeating what's already contained within the CV?

As far as I'm concerned, when I send out my CV it acts as my ambassador, as it's the only thing that represents me to potential employers, and for that reason I spend time making sure that the content and format are exactly the way I want them. Then some muppet goes and adds in their logo and speil and screws up the presentation of my CV! :mad:

I always tell agencies that I will only let them submit my CV exactly as I have presented it, and that if they insist on including their say then they can attach a covering note. Even still, I've had to ring up one or two and give them a roasting after attending for interview and seeing their guff emblazoned over the interview panel's copies of my CV.

Generally, I find it easier to register with agencies, find out about the roles I'm interested in from them, and then apply independently. Most positions are advertised through more than one agency, so by ringing around you can generally glean the info you need from a couple of different perspectives.
 
well if you as the candidate want to use their service for free, then what do you expect? when shifting through dozens of cvs sometimes a quick summary on the top is handy from the interviewers POV
 
We both want the same outcome - I want the job, they want the commission - so I expect them to be upfront with me.

They get very well paid for their services by employers, so while I don't pay them upfront, I do earn money for them. It makes sense, therefore that we both work together to create a good first impression. If they fob me off and are prepared to ignore what I think is a very reasonable request, what does that say about their professionalism (or lack thereof)?

Depending on the role and potential employer in question, I generally include my own summary. I don't want my well-thought-out précis preceded by someone else's generic summary that usually repeats word for word the text of the original advertisement/job description, and shows little imagination or focus. In two separate instances these unsolicited summaries have included punctuation and spelling errors in one, and grammatical mistakes in the other. By association, that doesn't really give a good first impression of me, does it?
 
Just noticed this latest exchange and I think it highlights my original thoughts.

If the imperative of an agency is to shoehorn someone into a job, it serves the interests of neither the employer or employee.

I know it's quick and convenient to use an agency but given the implications of a mismatch is a case of not beng able to tell the difference between cot and value?
 
As a clerical officer, you're likely to be given routine tasks of limited responsibility (possibly including photocopying, filing etc)

As an executive officer, you'll occupy a junior management grade with some level of reponsibility for decision making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top