Corporate or Third-Party? Don’t Forget About the Candidate

Whether to use internal corporate recruiters or a third-party recruiter is a decision a lot of companies are faced with making. The primary reason for this decision is always bound to be about cost, followed by quality and control. It’s also about what value-added service a good third-party recruiter can bring, over and above simply presenting candidates.

As third-party recruiters, we need to give companies many good reasons to use us and pay our fees for the service we provide. Before companies make any final decision about whether to go internal or external, there’s one big factor that often gets overlooked – and it is probably the most important factor to consider: the candidates. Who is the candidate better off dealing with and more likely to respond positively to? The hiring company or third-party recruiters? Does a third-party recruiter have a better chance of getting the best candidate to be interested in the opportunity and to accept the position, should it get offered?

For the purpose of clarity, I’m talking about passive candidates who are currently being successful elsewhere and not necessarily looking to change jobs. I am, of course, also only talking about good third-party recruiters who act professionally and do their jobs well. Here are some good reasons why the candidate is better off dealing with a third-party recruiter, and why companies could increase their chances of getting candidates by using a third-party recruiter.


The approach is 100% confidential. When the headhunter calls, no one else knows, especially the hiring company. With this level of confidentiality, the candidates will speak more openly and honestly and feel less pressured into not being themselves.

Not Compromised By the Call

Candidates can listen to the headhunter and say “no,” or “not right now,” to the opportunity without blowing any future opportunities with that company. The candidate is not exposed to having to make an immediate decision whether or not to show an interest. Candidates are free to speak their minds about the company, good or bad, without risk of commitment.

Unbiased Advice

Being independent, a headhunter can give true, unbiased advice on the hiring company’s position in the market. Most well-known companies in today’s market have both good and bad reputations, depending on who you speak to, and everyone has a different opinion. I’ve spoken to a lot of candidates whose initial reactions to working for a particular company would certainly put the company off from hiring them if they knew the candidates’ comments. As third-party recruiters, we are in a better position to soften that opinion and change their views because we are not the company in question.

Interview Preparation

Any candidate, however senior, should be prepared for an interview. It’s the headhunter’s job to make sure that candidates know everything there is to know about the person and the company they will be meeting, what the interviewer will be looking for, and how to best sell themselves in the interview. Many candidates, when approached, have not been on interviews for a while and appreciate the help. A headhunter’s guidance will improve their chances of getting through the interview maze. Without this guidance, a great candidate could interview badly and be rejected based upon a lack of interview skill, rather than a lack of ability to do the job.

Article Continues Below

Good Feedback

Interview feedback is essential to both the candidate and client. It’s the headhunter’s job to make sure that both parties truly know how the interview went. Too many bad interviewers provide one sort of feedback but mean another. You will know where you stand with a headhunter. If we did not give feedback, no one would. We hear too many horror stories of candidates attending interviews with no feedback from the companies they meet.

Stronger Position to Negotiate a Better Package

If the client wants to offer the candidate a position, the headhunter will offer the best advice on what the position is worth and what the client is likely to accept. If the first offer is too low, the headhunter can reject it without compromising the candidate with the client. The headhunter can also advise the candidate when the offer is a good one. In other words, the candidate can discuss the package openly with a headhunter and agree what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable without losing the opportunity. When the candidate deals directly with the company, his position to negotiate is weaker because there is less room to maneuver. If he rejects the first offer, he could lose the opportunity. If he sounds disappointed with the first offer, his feelings have been aired, and this could go against him if he ever did join the company.

Headhunters want to get the candidate the best possible package, since we are paid on a percentage of the salary. Employers want to get the candidates as cheaply as possible, trying to save the company money. If you were the candidate, who would you rather have representing you? Before anyone responds by saying, “That’s why I would not use a third-party recruiter,” please remember the point that I’m making is from the candidate’s perspective.

Room for Error

Throughout the whole process, the headhunter wants the candidate to be successful and thus will give a lot of advice on how to get the job. The candidate can and will ask many questions, however daft they might seem, without risking his reputation with the company. We work with candidates who will often pull out of the process along the way only to change their minds a bit later. The client will not even know, the candidate’s opportunity is not lost, and the client has not lost a good candidate. We all know that recruiting is the most important part of any company’s business, and yet many still overlook using third-party recruiters because they are more focused on cost than quality. The next time there is a decision to be made on the best way to find the right candidates, consider the candidate’s position and the conditions that would make him or her more likely to accept the job.

Tony Haley has been a headhunter since 1993 and has run his own business since 1996. As a director of Fenton Chase International, he has been responsible for helping some of the biggest names in the global telecommunications market to successfully expand their organizations throughout East and Western Europe.

Contact her at


18 Comments on “Corporate or Third-Party? Don’t Forget About the Candidate

  1. Your article assumes that all corporate recruiters are not doing their job.

    For the purpose of clarity, I’m talking about good corporate recruiters also working with passive candidates.

    There is only one difference in how a good corporate recruiter works with the candidate compared to a Third-Party Recruiter…. the cost.
    Let’s look at the list:
    Confidentiality. The approach is 100% confidential either way. A good corporate recruiter will let every candidate know this up front.
    Not compromised by the call. Candidates can also listen to the corporate recruiter and say ‘no’ or ‘not right now’ when the corporate recruiter presents a position with no pressure and leaves the door open for future talks.
    Unbiased Advise. A good corporate recruiter should not be presenting and promoting anything that is not true about the position or company. This will only create turn over.
    Interview preparation. It is also the job of every corporate recruiter to prep the candidates for an interview AND give feedback on how the interview went. Believe it or not, good corporate recruiters also prep the line manager on what to expect out of the candidate along with interview tips.
    Good feedback. Again, good corporate recruiters are doing this with every candidate.
    Stronger position to negotiate a better package. Every corporate recruiter wants their candidate to be happy. Candidates can negotiate with corporate recruiters also. A good recruiter will let the candidates know this early on in the process.

  2. Anthony,

    Please note that I am writing in defense of corporate recruiters, who seem to get knocked around.

    While I have worked as a third-party recruiter, I am currently a corporate recruiter. After reading your article, I walked away with a blow to my fragile ego. 😉

    I agree with your points on what a third-party recruiter can offer. As a corporate recruiter, I at times use TPRs in assisting with hard-to-fill positions. They have proven to be a valuable asset.

    However, I feel that you have diminished the role of a corporate recruiter while strengthening that of a third-party recruiter. I take great pride in my role as a corporate recruiter. I establish a strong rapport with all of my candidates, as well as the hiring managers. I have the authority to write justification letters to get higher salaries for my candidates. I advise my hiring managers on interviewing and hiring best practices, and coach my candidates on interviewing techniques.

    I provide candidates other avenues to pursue if I do not have a job that matches their qualifications. Because I am not wooed by commissions and/or placement fees, I have the best interest of both the hiring managers AND the candidates (not just the client who pays my bills), without any of my own personal gratification in the mix. I have unbiased knowledge of why the candidate should work here without a placement fee to skew the process.

    Your views and my views differ greatly. With all due respect, I have countered your bullet points noted in your article.

    When candidates approach me, it is 100% confidential. I have open and honest conversations with potential candidates, and they in turn put that trust into me. When I call them, no one knows but the candidate and me.

    Not Compromised by the Call:
    I find that candidates are flattered that the company that I work for is considering them. There is no pressure, and if they are not interested, so be it. They don?t necessarily have to speak badly about my company to let me know that they?re not interested. They can say ?no? to a corporate recruiter without blowing any future opportunities, as long as that ?no? is said respectfully and professionally.

    Unbiased Advice:
    You mentioned in your article ?Being independent, a headhunter can give true, unbiased advice on the hiring company’s position in the market?. I find it hard to believe that you or any other third-party recruiter will give bad reviews about a client that has engaged you or your firm in a search. That?s a great way to lose business and leverage in this industry. As a corporate recruiter, I can also ?soften the opinions? and address the concerns of a candidate. So, I think we have an even playing field on this one.

    Interview Preparation:
    Good corporate recruiters coach all of their candidates on good interviewing techniques, and can even provide descriptions of the personality of each hiring manager. They present candidates with a list of deliverables that is expected of the position at hand to best prepare them for the interview. Good corporate recruiters, just like their colleagues in the headhunting arena, can also provide resume advice and helpful hints when applying for positions online.

    Good Feedback:
    All candidates who have been interviewed should receive feedback. Good corporate recruiters know this is crucial to their company?s reputation. I have known many staffing firms who do not provide feedback ? this is due to the individual recruiter, not the industry as a whole.

    Stronger Position to Negotiate a Better Package:
    Corporate recruiters can also offer the best advice on what a position is worth. I have many meetings with hiring managers, compensation and HR to ensure that our salaries are competitive.

    Regarding negotiating a higher package, corporate recruiters have access to the approved salary ranges, internal equity, past hiring history and a host of benefits packages. We can immediately write a justification letter to negotiate a higher salary if need be as we hold the key to the information.

    You said something very interesting ? ?Headhunters want to get the candidate the best possible package, since we are paid on a percentage of the salary, while the employers want to get them as cheaply as possible to save money.? You said it yourself ? your fee seems to be the bottom line in getting the candidate the best offer without regard to your client?s internal equity or budget (talk about being biased)! ?Let?s make more money!? seems to be the motto here. As the corporate recruiter, my job is to negotiate the best salary possible without ?selling the farm?. And besides, if we want to save money, why would we pay a headhunter a 30% head fee? Your stance on negotiating a better package seems flawed.

    Room for Error:
    Corporate recruiters also want the candidate to get the job, and will address any and all concerns the candidate may have, no matter how daft they may seem.

    You can focus on cost and still get quality. I have worked with third-party recruiters who have had candidates back out, and I have run into the same issue myself. I don?t see any added value here.

    If I may, I would like to reply to Karen Mattonen?s response to this article: Karen, there are biases in everything. A TPR may be biased because their client is paying them a 30% fee, while my bias is that I still have a job to do. As a corporate recruiter I sleep just fine at night knowing that the company I work for is ethical and honest. If it weren?t, I would leave. I?ve done it before. I have a reputation to uphold.

    Regarding Stephen Fowler?s response: How can you say that a TPR has insider information that a corporate recruiter does not? The corporate recruiter works INSIDE the company! You mentioned that you have the insider knowledge that ‘there is a gym on the campus, or that they will be working in a small team that appeals, who knows but it is very unlikely the corporate recruiter will have that unique knowledge’ Um, with all due respect, I’m quite aware that we have a gym and the size of the team for which I am hiring, among other things.

    Good corporate recruiters meet with all of their hiring managers to discuss deliverables, work environment and challenges. You?re benefit as a TPR is the relationship you have with the candidate.

  3. Stephen,
    I respect your comments, and there are good points, but there is something that bothers me and maybe I don’t understand.

    I have asked several individuals the following question and the responses I get still have not allowed for me to determine if there is an unbiased factor to the inhouse recruiter – no matter how hard they try –

    When an inhouse recruiter is working for a company that they cannot stand, they don’t like the ethics or management style of the operation but they have several reqs to fill.. well what then? Or what if they know the company is having financial difficulties? or the company they work for is like another Enron? What then?

    How does the inhouse recruiter manage to keep an unbiased position? How do they manage to tell the truth? Especially when you have to meet your Metrics.. Your numbers!

    Is it not difficult to recruit a happily employed individual from a secure job, someone who is content with their life, but get them to come over with promises of more pay, great company….. Especially knowing that you the recruiter are yourself a shortimer, cannot wait to get out of there yourself? That this employee may be coming in to a company to also experience very difficult times.

    The responses I have received when posing this question to several have been that they must have loyalties to their employer – they are signing the ones signing a paycheck as long as the recruiter is working there.
    ‘Yep,’ I say ‘but your loyalties are going to be short lived, as you yourself are trying to leave, is that not true?’ they don’t usually answer after that.

    That is my one biggest grievances with the inhouse recruiter. As a TPR I choose who I work for, I will not accept positions with companies that I know that are not doing financially well, or where I see active turnover.
    If there are concerns I walk away.. There are too many companies and jobs out there, and I don’t need to compromise myself or anyone else.

    I don’t know if I could sleep well at night knowing that my actions caused a solid happy candidate lose sleep themselves due a bad placement. My reputation means a lot to me, but so does the welfare of the individuals to whom I am being an ambassador and representing.

    This is not meant to be an attack, it is an honest question, something that I have been trying for sometime to wrap my little head around.

    I guess this goes back to my Ethical Views that we often take too lightly what we do for a living, and the effects we have both on Companies and the welfare of the individuals who come to us, who trust us (because they don’t know any better?) – and who believe what we say.

    I would appreciate an honest insight and answers to this.. please, let’s not get into a major TPR versus 3rd party war. This is not why I brought this question to the table

  4. I just want to back up Anthony here in regards to the third party recruiters, and this is by no means in detriment to Stephen.

    Over the last 20 years I know that a good recruitment consultant will always have an edge over the corporate recruiter, which is because they are independent. The third party consultant has this edge because they have more contact with the candidate and will often relax with the consultant than someone direct from the client. It is also worth noting that often this relationship may have been built over many years.

    The consultant will be able to use this insider knowledge to pinpoint the one thing that appeals to the candidate from the array of corporate benefits available.

    It may be just the fact there is a gym on the campus, or that they will be working in a small team that appeals, who knows but it is very unlikely the corporate recruiter will have that unique knowledge, which is down to circumstances rather than ability.

    Another point that should also be considered is when a Consultant doesn?t have a good relationship and understanding of the client?s needs, the in-house recruiter will have the edge but not the unique understanding of the candidate.

  5. For any firm, the hiring process is not as sensitive as the decision to hire & the final outcome.

    However, from a candidate’s perspective, the way the process is handled most often than not determines his decision to quit his current employer & join. This is where a neutral play by a consultant mitigates risks associated with perceptions being formed out of the inoptimality in the process (atleast what the candidate may assume)


  6. Steve my article is not about Corporate Recruiters so I don?t understand why anyone feels the need to defend anything or you feel that it in any way diminishes your role.

    This article is about the value added service a TPR can bring to a company by considering the candidates point of view and the relationship we have with them.

    Stephen Dolinich suggested that there is only one difference in how a good corporate recruiter works with the candidate compared to a Third-Party Recruiter…. the cost.

    This is a common misconception. The two roles are very different. One is an internal recruiting function to hire the best people for their own company and the other is a sales profession that happens to specialise in recruitment. A specialisation you use yourself to fill those hard-to-fill positions.

    One should not replace the other but both should be used where most appropriate. I am highlighting only some of the benefits I believe using a TPR can to bring a company.

    I don?t wish to be drawn into a commission and fees debate and who really has who?s best interests at heart because lets be honest, I hope we all take pride in our jobs but ultimately we all work for the money. I don?t work for clients who don?t pay the fees no more than you would work for an employer free of charge.

    Michael Homula recently spoke about bringing a TPR type pay plan to wooo his Corporate Recruiting team at Quicken Loans but I don?t know if it worked. Maybe Michael will update us on this and tell us whether is has been successful or not.

    I have addressed your comments as follows.

    ?When candidates approach me, it is 100% confidential?????

    I am referring to passive candidates rather than active. Consider the confidentiality from the passive candidate?s point of view. The minute they engage in conversation with you (the company) there is no confidentiality.

    Not Compromised by the Call:
    How do you know they are not compromised? Remember it?s from their point of view.

    Unbiased Advice:
    I would not work for a client who had a bad reputation. I explain to the candidate why I am helping this particular company at this time. I give them the pros and cons as I see it. If they are not interested I have not lost a candidate as I can talk to them about other companies. I don?t work for just one company and therefore my advice is more balanced.

    Interview Preparation:
    Who prepares the candidate for the interview with you? First thing they know about the interview is when they answer the phone to your call. If you were to meet them for an interview, who would prepare them for that?

    ?Good corporate recruiters, just like their colleagues in the headhunting arena, can also provide resume advice and helpful hints when applying for positions online.?

    I would not recommend candidates apply for positions online.

    Good Feedback:
    We agree that they should get good feedback but many don?t. We often struggle to get good feedback from the companies we work for and lack of feedback is one of the biggest complaints candidates have when applying for positions direct.

    Stronger Position to Negotiate a Better Package:
    ?Corporate recruiters can also offer the best advice on what a position is worth. I have many meetings with hiring managers, compensation and HR to ensure that our salaries are competitive.?

    Remember this is from the candidate?s point of view. Why do you think authors, sporting stars, actors and actresses etc. have agents? To get them the best deal and that?s what TPRs do for their candidates.

    If you were the candidate, who would you want representing you? The company direct who wants to make sure their salaries are competitive, in other words as cheap as possible, or someone that is going to get you the best deal because they know what you?re really worth in the market?

    They are more likely to accept the package if the TPR says it’s good because they know they have a common interest.

    ?You said it yourself ? your fee seems to be the bottom line in getting the candidate the best offer without regard to your client?s internal equity or budget (talk about being biased)! ?Let?s make more money!? seems to be the motto here.?

    I didn?t say without regard to the client?s internal equity or budget but we would rather the salary be at the top of the budget than the middle or bottom.

    From the candidate?s point of view ? of course we are biased. Don?t forget we are talking about an individual person?s quality of life here on one side of the negotiating table compared to a budget on the other side. From their point of view, we are negotiating for their quality of life whereas you?re negotiating within a budget.

    ‘As the corporate recruiter, my job is to negotiate the best salary possible without ?selling the farm?. And besides, if we want to save money, why would we pay a headhunter a 30% head fee?’

    That is my very first point. Companies don?t use TPRs because of the fees. They think they are saving money, except on those hard-to-fill assignments of course 🙂

    Room for Error:
    Please consider this from the candidates point of view.

    ‘Good corporate recruiters meet with all of their hiring managers to discuss deliverables, work environment and challenges. You?re benefit as a TPR is the relationship you have with the candidate.’

    This is what this article is about. The relationship we have with the Candidate and why a company should take this into consideration when deciding whether to go internal or external.

  7. The article came across to me as a misguided sales pitch that attempts to elevate TPRs at the expense of corporate recruiters. Since a large segment of a TPR’s potential target client base would be HR/Corporate recruiters, many of whom are also former TPRs, I question the effectiveness of this marketing strategy. Who are you trying to convince? You know what they say about trying to BS the BSers.

    There is as much or more evidence to support the position that candidates prefer to interact directly with a company instead of a third party (ever have a candidate send their resume directly to a company after you told them about an opportunity?). Companies continue to successfully fill the majority of their openings by virtue of direct relationships with candidates, without benefit of TPR assistance.

    The premise that TPRs provide a superior candidate experience is unsupported. Most of the reasons listed are not unique to TPRs, and to claim that TPRs provide unbiased advice when they are paid to present their client’s opportunity in the best light to prospective candidates is almost laughable. The introductory statement that the decision to engage a TPR or not is based primarily on cost, secondarily on quality and control is not representative of the reasons my company would consider engaging a TPR. The decision is made based on vacancy rate, difficulty of position, and urgency; a cost/benefit analysis is measured against these criteria. We haven’t seen any differences in candidate quality (many times TPRs submit candidates who have applied to us directly, people we have declined due to not meeting our qualifications) and please don’t make claims about control.

    Ultimately the quality of the candidate experience is directly related to the behaviors and performance of everyone involved in the recruitment and hiring process, and not the in-house or third-party status of the recruiter. Remove ‘third-party’ from your quote and you will have a more accurate statement: ‘I am, of course, also only talking about good recruiters who act professionally and do their jobs well.’

  8. It?s the old go around again…

    Why would one assume that the ‘great recruiter’ could not be either a TPR or a internal person. What?s so different about the role of a TPR and a corp recruiter? Sure the internal role typically has more ‘non recruiting’ activity attached to it, but every job / employer / structure is different so as there are good companies there are also bad, these are the differentiators not the internal / external aspect.

    I believe Anthony, your doing some kind of a sales excericse but who you are trying to ‘sell’ I’m not sure.

    Someone mentioned that internal recruiters are driven by metrics, but is that not also the same aspect of an external role (albeit perhaps different metrics). Karen asked what internal / corporate folks do when the company and the opportunity the have are pretty abysmal and the answer is the same for SOME whether they be internal or external, you forge on and drive to hire them, if that?s because you are motivated by the almighty dollar as an external or the opportunity to do your job as an internal what?s the difference. Ideally you want to do it because it IS really a better opportunity for the candidate but as we so many times see and hear, that?s not always the case.

    Its easy to identify every recruiter out there as a highly moral, well educated (ie intelligent), sensitive to the candidate and the company type, but we know that there are many many who are solely motivated by their desire to keep their job / their desire to make money or both regardless of the impact on the candidate / hiring company. Its also important to understand what we mean by recruiter, a person that finds talent and then develops and recruits / gets them recruited?by their client/ company (that?s the very very short version).

    IN short, yes Anthony you are exactly trying to promote the TPR over the corporate recruiter (but hey, thats nothing new right?:), but my question to you is…. prove it… one mans opinion is just that, and I’m fairly sure for every person who can justify their side of this discussion, there is one more on the other who can provide different examples.

    Again, its not down to the internal / external side of things but the professionalism, values, ability, morals and knowledge of the individuals themselves…

    All of the pieces of the roles we fill come down to this, finding the best person to fill the role to have the highest impact.

    Or is the fact that we constantly hear about TPRs (and yes, I was once one myself, and could be tomorrow again I believe)having such a bad rep all nonsense? Its not, but we are also aware that its (hopefully) the minority that give a bad name to the majority.

  9. Eamonn, why do you assume that because I am promoting the benefits of using a TPR, it is at the cost of Corporate Recruiters? We are not a set of scales with TPR on one side and Corporate Recruiters on the other, and when one gets better, the other gets worse. We are on seperate scales.

    I am selling the benefits of using a TPR. That’s all.

  10. To answer your question to Eamonn, I think it’s because you say stuff like this:

    ‘Who is the candidate better off dealing with and more likely to respond positively to? The hiring company or third-party recruiters?’

    ‘Here are some good reasons why the candidate is better off dealing with a third-party recruiter’

    Seriously. What about he fact that a corporate recruiter can consider a candidate for *all* positions at their company versus TPRs who only represent the searches they are working on. How about some balance to the arguement?

    I’m not interested in arguing us versus them (and I actually don’t think that is Tony’s true intent as I know and like him). I am over it. There are quality recruiters among both TPRs and Corporate. Neither reigns supreme over the other. Each has it’s place under the appropriate circumstances (though I strongly disagree with Tony on the appropriate ‘reasons’ for corporate recruiting functions to engage TPRs). Each individual recruiter decides his/her own career path and which works best for his/her skills and interests.

    They are similar in some ways, different in others. But talking about who the candidate is ‘better off’ dealing with does put them (TPRs/corporqate recruiters) on opposing sides of the same scale. The smart candidates should be dealing with both and we should start trying to figure out how to work together (we are the world…hands in the air, side to side…sorry) versus selling why one is more worthy of the candidate’s attention than another.

  11. Anthony,

    Hows the football going, Ill be watching England tomorrow at 9am here..

    BTW, back to the discussion :). You know, maybe I am paranoid, but just maybe I get a little exasperated when I continously see people (my peers even)putting down my profession, yes: this is what I do in life, its my dream job. Who could not love a job that lets you talk to people all day, offer them a way to make a better life for them and their family, jump up the career rung, make more money AND provide a business value..etc: AND while doing it in a tight, competetive market and all the while struggling to prove that yes we DO provide real business value as an internal resource and we are NOT just another non revenue generating corporate group (the last should be taken in the half joking but serious manner in which I meant it..:))

    Maybe I need therapy lol.

    AS you can see Im not the only one that assumes your promoting one over the other. Had you given clear pros and cons (on both) I would have been content..

    But your clearly giving a biased view, and as you said the aim of the article was to sell.. that I also understand.

    You are making assumptions based on your limited experience talking to some sales folks, and my point was: we all have different experiences. So when you talk about confidentiality, ability to get them through the process / interviews, unabashed knowledge of wether this is really going to be a great opportunity..

    Well…. SNAP.

    Have a fun, soccer filled, weekend.


  12. Heather, if I present a candidate for a particular position at one of my clients and they end up getting hired for an entirely different position, I still get my fee.

    In fact if we find a good candidate that could be good for one or ?several? of our clients, we will present them whether there is an opening or not. This has often led to a placement because a lot of companies will always find an opening for good candidates or there might be a future opening planned.

    Eamonn, the aim of the article is to sell the benefits of a TPR rather than just sell. It is only biased in as much as I believe in what I say as I?m sure you do. (believe in what you say) If I wasn?t biased in what I say I believe in, I would surely be a liar. This is all very different to giving unbiased advice in my capacity as a headhunter of course.

    I have not made any assumptions and have not spoken to any other sales folks whoever you?re thinking of (I don?t get your point here). My ?limited? experience is based on 13 years as a headhunter and more years than I care to count as a sales professional.

    As for the football, well I think England are the best team and will win the world cup. I just hope I don?t get all the other supporters posting on ERE telling me that what I?m really saying is that their teams are no good 🙂

  13. for any role they are willing to pay a fee for. I beleive that smart companies are selctive in what they put out to search. So I definitely don’t think it’s all jobs at the company. Different in the UK maybe?

    I’m not earning my paycheck if I need to use TPRs to fill any/all open positions. I think that’s called outsourcing ; )

  14. Maybe it is a European thing but if a company employ a person presented by us for any position, they have to pay a fee. By interviewing our candidate, they are agreeing to our terms.

    The only way to avoid paying a fee is to not interview our candidates and that is always their choice, but if that means missing out on the best candidate for a position, it might not be the best decision for the company.

  15. You still selling Tony? You are a salesman at heart, no doubt.

    Most companies I know here don’t accept resumes from search firms for positions other than the ones they put out to search because they don’t have an endless budget for fees. Plus, there are positions that are ‘core’, meaning they fill them over and over again and they build a pipeline of candidates for those positions. I would think it’s unwise for companies to accept search firm resumes for those positions if they already have an existing pipeline.

  16. Heather,
    Today, I am making a placement, the candidate was submitted to my client about 7 months ago. They reopened the candidate, and informed me. The candidate had been submitted for an entirely different position

    Many times I have submitted a candidate, even thought they fit the original position, the manager then said hey, this person really is awesome for xyz position, can you find out Karen if they may be interested?

    They may have other candidates in the Pipeline Heather, but maybe not as strong as the one I submitted. It is about hiring the best, the strongest candidate, not really about how much is the cost.

    If the candidate is there, very good, fits the bill, then why look further to prolong the agony of the cost of the empty desk?

    Our jobs both in house or external is to find the candidates, good candidates for the positions. Speed does sometimes save money in the upfront costs, but that may not always in the backend.. if the candidate does not do well, takes longer to get up to speed, leaves, or just isn’t doing a good job can have very expensive repercussions.

    Thus, it is about the value that we each can bring to the table – good – no – great candidates, that will be awesome from the word Go!

    To flow with Anthony’s discussion, there is something that has not yet been discussed the TPR’s Fee is 100 percent Tax Deductible.. The inhouse Recruiter salary, FICA, Taxes, benefits, etc.. on the other hand is an Expense – one which the employer must pay dearly for.

  17. An interesting article appeared today by Cynthia Troianello who, in the second paragraph states the following:

    ‘Don’t quantify your request. You ask the candidate his salary requirement before you give an offer. You get him to set the price. How many times have you been pleasantly surprised that your candidate is willing to work for much less than the highest you were willing to pay?’

    This surely reinforces my point about who the candidate is better off working with when it comes to negotiating the best deal for them.

    As I stated in the article, Employers want to get candidates as cheaply as possible if they can get away with it.

  18. Anthony,

    To companies who are focused on negotiating directly this will be a focus regardless of source of candidate.

    I, personaly, do not negotiate salaries with a TPR who sends me a candidate and I’m not sure that I know of any recruiters that do. Part of the profile initial sent by a TPR may include current and desired compensation but this is something thats typically discovered on the intila conversations any way regardless of source of candidate.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *