Contingency is dying. Contingency is pants. Contingency stinks.
You’ll have heard this a lot; it’s in vogue.
“Retained”, “In-house”, “Exclusive”.
Scroll through LinkedIn and every approach is trumpeted by its proponents – but all have their critics.
And then there are the blurred lines…
Take agency X, which drops the r-bomb (retained) for its branding but, in practice, only takes payment upon successful completion. A one-agency contingency PSL smooth-talking the opposition away there…!
The reality: there are many crap recruiters out there and many crap clients too.
Be wary of getting caught up on these methodology buzzwords and what they mean.
Many blame ‘contingency’ or ‘in-house’ when, in reality, poor results are caused by a combination of poor planning, commitment and/or quality.
The system isn’t the solution; the substance is the solution.
A poor recruiter works a retained role and screws up; does that mean retained is bad?
Can an ‘exclusive’ recruitment partnership be bettered by a skilled in-house recruiter juggling 15 roles?
So what sways you? What prompts you to change the record?