The Challenges of Recruitment: Agency vs. In-House

I recently came across an article, preaching a common trope that in-house recruiters cannot handle the pressures of agency recruiting.

Although a huge generalisation; it did get me thinking about the perceptions of recruiters, both internal and external.

In the hope of shedding more light on the situation, I asked people on both side of the process what their attitudes towards recruiters are, and this is what I discovered:

First and foremost, there are some pretty negative stereotypes surrounding recruiters of any type! For one, agency recruiters have been branded as “bullish” and only caring about “their end of deal”, whilst in-house recruiters are known as “failed agency recruiters” who have a “much easier job” to do.

The argument that external recruiters will have a tendency to push the best deal for themselves, rather than for the candidate, was a popular and an easy one to make. It would be natural to conclude that an agency recruiter wants the candidate to sign to the client that will pay them the best fee structure, instead of the client who might be best for the candidates long term career goals.

Whilst it can’t be denied that the competitiveness of agency recruiting and their reliance on commission rather than salary strongly weights their interest, this is not the case for the majority of recruiters or at least not respected ones. Successful agency recruiters recognise that recruiting is a marathon, not a sprint, and therefore tend to avoid burning bridges along the way.

But as a candidate, if we wanted to be sure to avoid a partisan process, could we therefore assume that as internal recruiter’s compensation packages aren’t usually tied to commission / bonuses, then they are unlikely to try and pressure us to take a role? Maybe. However, there are usually still KPI’s the internal recruiter needs to hit and having a “client” who works on the same floor -demanding to know why they haven’t seen any decent candidates yet- is the type of pressure that could lead internal recruiters to make forced hiring decisions.

But again, an internal recruiter also will usually adopt the the long term approach to hiring. As an internal recruiter, the person you help hire will become your colleague; meaning you will be directly exposed to the consequences of an unsuccessful hire. Therefore the impetus would naturally be on in-house recruiters to make the “right” hire, not a short term fix.

An interesting comment from a candidate I spoke with, referenced that in taking their current role, working with an internal recruiters gave them an unbeatable insight into what their future employer was looking for, and what type culture embodied the team they were joining; which helped to positively sway their decision.

Whilst an external recruiter might not be able to give an exact insight into a client’s culture, a good recruiter can offer excellent insight, should they have made a number of successful hires within that firm.

However, putting aside the obvious tension between in-house and agency recruiters, and the negative stereotypes assigned to all unprofessional recruiters; the natural conclusion is that all good recruiters aim to make a successful hire, otherwise their own career is limited.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter: do you agree? What have your experiences with recruiters been like? as this is likely a debate which will never end…