What do hiring managers really want from recruitment consultancies?
What do hiring managers really want from recruitment consultancies?
So, what do hiring managers really want from recruitment consultancies? Professionalism? Sector expertise? Market intelligence? Value for money? The answer is, of course, all of these.
However, sadly, it is not what many Hiring Managers believe they receive from our industry. A contentious statement I know, but one that is made based purely on the results of recent research conducted with close to 400 individuals who have used consultancies throughout the UK to recruit.
People's perceptions are based on either personal experience or what they hear from others – after all, isn't that how we make nearly all of our own "buying" decisions? So understanding the reservations that potential Hiring Managers may have about using a Recruiter has got to be vital to repositioning ourselves as true experts in our chosen sector. As one respondent said, "Once you have had a bad experience or two, you become sceptical and class the whole recruitment industry as a rip-off."
Procurement departments have played an increasing role in our business in recent years with the creation of preferred supplier agreements designed to reduce the number of suppliers and deliver financial benefits through economies of scale.
Indeed the majority of organisations undertaking such processes will usually be successful in reducing direct recruitment costs, but that isn't the whole story. There seems to be an increasing gap between Procurement Department objectives and what Hiring Managers actually want and need.
Frustration at losing expert niche recruiters from the list of approved suppliers seems to be driving many Hiring Managers to purchase "illegally" outside of formal agreements or in some cases to conduct their own recruitment in-house.
The recruitment industry has always had "generic" recruiters who apply a standardised "one size fits all" approach to multiple sectors. However, the recession appears to have caused many niche sector specialists to diversify into new markets where they have little knowledge and experience in order to generate vacancies, and this dilution of specialism has been a significant source of complaint from our survey respondents.
Naturally, agency fees were a key reservation given by 38% of participating Hiring Managers, however when questioned, the vast majority of participants were actually happy to pay if they felt that they were receiving true value for money.
Interestingly, this does not appear to mean slashing prices – it means charging a fair fee and using industry knowledge and sector expertise to deliver a shortlist of candidates who truly meet their requirements. As one participant stated – "the groundwork to achieve this is time consuming and tedious – but it is the mark of a great Recruiter – one who really earns their fee". In the opinion of many, the true cost of getting it wrong or failing to fulfil the vacancy is so high that when some of the intangibles such as the loss of potential business, relationships, continuity and company knowledge/experience are taken into account, the recruitment fee suddenly pales into insignificance.
A hefty 46% of all Hiring Managers stated that their key reservation related purely to lack of sector specialism and knowledge and the subsequent poor quality of candidates being submitted.
As one participant commented "At the high end of a technical business, it's difficult for even experts to keep up, so generalist recruitment providers stand virtually no chance of getting it right".
On closer inspection, the frustration due to lack of specialist knowledge appears to become more prevalent with seniority of the role and in sectors where technical or niche skills are paramount. Inability to "speak the language" seems to create an almost impenetrable barrier and destroys credibility from the perspective of both the Hiring Manager and the candidate almost instantly. Recruiters who are unable to demonstrate the depth of their sector knowledge appear to have significantly lower conversion and success rates in the eyes of the Hiring Manager.
Taken one step further, there is also a strong perception that there are many suppliers who are overcoming the "sector knowledge" issue by simply picking key words out of the job specification, trawling the job boards, submitting any CV that remotely appears to match the Hiring Manager's criteria and then leaving them to do the shortlisting! Nearly all of the survey participants were incensed by this, particularly when they were asked for up to 30% fees for such a service.
Some suppliers are genuinely committed to understanding the true needs of the vacancy, taking time to visit the client; spend time with their team; establish not only the skills and experience required, but also the attitudes and traits that will enable successful integration of the candidate in the long-term. In short, doing a good job by establishing "exactly what the Hiring Manager is looking for, and why" - something that can only be achieved by "knowing what the Hiring Manager knows and stepping into their shoes." Could this be the difference between a Recruitment Agency and a Consultancy?
So, back to my original question – what do Hiring Managers actually want from a recruiter?
In short they want a dedicated Consultant who is an expert in their sector. Someone who has the ability to help them to define the role not just take down vacancy instructions. Someone who speaks their language and will be able to establish true candidate experience and capability through the nuances of terminology used during the selection process – not just through matching key words. They want to know that robust screening and face to face interviewing has taken place which explores and takes account of both the Hiring Manager's needs and the candidate's aspirations. As one participant put it "When I hire a recruiter, I don't want 30 candidates. I want 3 who can all do the job leaving me just to make the final decision."
So let's listen to our clients and celebrate our specialisms rather than trying to be all things to all people.