This post was originally published on the RecruitLoop Blog, by Paul Slezak.
It's generated some interesting comments, so thought we'd share it here as well.
Help! A recruitment agency stole my wallet: The myth of guaranteed...
The average recruitment agency charges a hefty fee for its service, and will often try to justify it by offering their clients a guarantee. However, if you ever need to take up that guarantee, you could be left with a nasty surprise.
The guarantee
Recruitment agencies today charge clients anywhere from 15% to 30% of a new hire’s total salary package for the first year. For more senior appointments, this fee can equate to the price of a new car.
Many firms are happy to pay this if their newly appointed employee turns out to be everything they’d hoped for.
But if the new hire doesn’t work out, that’s a lot of money down the drain, so recruitment agencies nearly all now offer the reassurance of a guarantee.
A typical guarantee promises that if the new appointment either leaves or is terminated within a certain period of time (usually 3 to 6 months), then the recruitment agency will undertake to find the client a suitable replacement candidate free of charge.
The problems
While that all sounds well and good, the reality can in fact be quite different. For one thing, the client has paid all that money to fill a position and now they are left with a vacancy that needs to be filled even more urgently than before.
The recruiter may have already received their commission, so they may not necessarily feel the same sense of urgency and their attempts to find another suitable candidate can in fact take a lot longer and produce candidates of a much lower calibre. Hence, they’ve ‘stolen your wallet’, because you’ve already paid them the full fee.
There are also a number of conditions that are often attached to such a replacement guarantee. These might include:
Case study
A Victorian company recently experienced problems when trying to have their recruitment guarantee honoured by a Melbourne-based recruitment agency.
Shortly after being billed more than $7,000 in recruitment fees by the agency to hire a sales person, the company found that the new hire was unsuitable and requested a replacement candidate from the agency.
There was no reply from the agency for three months (coincidentally, the period of the guarantee), after which time the company requested a refund.
The agency refused to pay, claiming the company was late in paying their initial recruitment fee and therefore, the guarantee was void.*
The question that would have to be asked is, would you, as the client, have been in a hurry to pay the initial fee if the appointed person had proved to be unsuitable and the agency was not even returning your calls?
Conclusion
Obviously, there are good and bad operators in every industry and two sides to every story, but it begs the question of whether the recruitment industry needs more self-regulation. Perhaps there is a need to formalise the terms of such a guarantee and to draw up best-practice guidelines to be observed by all recruitment agencies.
In the meantime, there are a number of ways in which hiring companies can protect themselves when dealing with recruitment agencies offering such a replacement guarantee:
Comment by Paul Martinico on April 30, 2012 at 10:33 Michael (and Paul)
I read your blog last week and I don’t agree but that’s merely your opinion vs my opinion and I think it’s healthy to debate differences. What I dislike about your blog though is the blatant one sided view point and how you mention recruitment firms charge ‘hefty’ fees and also imply that all recruitment consultants are driven by their commission payment and once they get that, then don’t expect to hear from them.
I found your wording to be extremely negative towards recruitment agencies and it wasn’t until I looked at your LinkedIn profiles that it all added up re: you being a CoFounders of RecruitLoop. I agree with you that there are better ways than the older and traditional recruitment methods, however now knowing your current position, your blog is nothing more than self promotion. I can only imagine the response if a tabloid journalist wrote a negative article about a company/industry and then the public found out they had an interest in a competing solution/industry. It would be perceived as highly conflicting.
I don’t think your article should have been posted here as is it's not impartial. It's a sales pitch.
Comment by Michael Overell on April 30, 2012 at 18:50 Hi Paul (M) -- thanks for the comments. The entire purpose of this post was to stimulate debate.
Following that theme, I have to respectfully counter a few of your points:
Is the post sensationalist? Absolutely. Has it generated heated debate/discussion about a topic that most acknowledge can be a problem? You bet. Have other agency recruiters acknowledged this problem? Tellingly, yes (see comments in the original post).
Does it take a controversial, one-sided point of view? Obviously. Good blog posts are often controversial by design.
But a self-promotional sales pitch? Sorry. Nowhere does Paul (Slezak) suggest that RecruitLoop is the solution to this problem. If you read his summary, he provides 6 tips to employers/hiring managers. None of which remotely touch on our approach to recruitment. And all of which could provide tangible steps that help hiring managers work more effectively with agency recruiters.
Having said all that, glad to see it's stimulated some discussion. We'd be interested in real life examples of the recruitment guarantee working out in the clients favour...
Any hiring managers out there with positive experiences after calling on a recruitment guarantee?
Add a Comment
© 2013 Created by Jo Knox.

You need to be a member of HR Daily Community to add comments!
Join HR Daily Community