Why use a recruiter when I’m getting plenty of resumes from my ads and job postings?
In times of economic downturn companies often decide that one way to “save” money is by eliminating fees to recruiters when looking for new employees.
Why shouldn’t they? After all, they post an ad online, or in the paper, and there’s a much larger stream of applicants than they’ve had in the past.
“Why pay a 20% to 30% fee when I seem to be able to get plenty of people on my own?” Good question.
The answer is two-fold…
After 4 recessions in my career, a similar pattern occurs each time. As the volume of resumes increases in response to ads, companies cut out the use of recruiters. After a while, realizing that their hiring process has slowed down and they are still not finding the best candidates, the value of recruiters becomes more evident and they return.
What is your true cost-to-hire?
and
Does that pile have the best candidate?
Most smaller companies have never examined what it truly costs them to hire a new employee. There are a great number of factors to consider, including…
Direct Costs:
How much do the ads cost?
(x= 20? 50? 100? 500?… It’s not unusual to receive over 1,000)
(Repeat the process if bad references)
Also consider the Indirect Costs:
At the end of your process… are you sure you got the best candidate?
You got active seekers who noticed your ad. Is there someone else that’s currently working somewhere and not actively looking, or someone that didn’t see your ad, a better fit?
So, even with all that, is a recruiter cheaper?
Maybe, or maybe not. Here are points to consider:
If this sounds like it makes sense to you…
Save yourself the time and frustration, and call a good recruiter now!
No comments:
Post a Comment