From my experience, senior leaders often have an unclear understanding of the advantages and pitfalls of choosing what type of recruitment partner to use for an important role.
Often, I’ve been brought in when a business had initially decided to go down the perceived cheaper route of engaging with a contingency recruiter. You’ve already lost time, slipped behind on your monetary targets and potentially lost face in front of the market, through not managing how multiple agencies are selling and recruiting the role.
There are times when retaining an executive headhunter is absolutely the right thing to do. Conversely, sometimes ‘pay on placement only’ contingency works better.
It sounds counterintuitive for me to put this article out, given I’m a long serving retained headhunter within building products & construction.
Many years ago, I worked within contingency recruitment and so feel well placed to provide a balanced view.
I hope the below adds clarity prior to you going live with a vacancy:
When you’re not fully committed to filling the role
I’ve occasionally been put in this situation when speaking with a prospective client.
As a board or senior leadership team you sense there’s a need, or someone’s left. You’re not entirely convinced that the business needs the person but want to see what talent is out there.
A good, ethical, retained headhunter always wants to see an assignment through to completion, which takes time.
If you’re toying with investing in a person, you’re far better off doing one of two things:
Go to a trusted contingency agency to do a quick sweep of the market
Get a headhunter to do a mapping exercise first. I do this and it’s a great way of demonstrating to you what talent is out there and what the likely barriers are if you were to push the button on a full search
Speed is of the essence
A thorough, often exhaustive headhunt takes four to six weeks to get to your interview stage. Any retained executive search firm that tells you otherwise isn’t providing you with full value. Don’t use them.
If there’s an immediate requirement to get this person onboarded within two months (assuming for a one-month notice period) you’re forced to go down the contingency route.
I recruited an Operations Director for a large fabricator in window & doors last year, with their existing director retiring in four months. Allowing for three months’ notice period, this gave me little time. I shared four very capable candidates and they were happy. I didn’t have the time to do a thorough process and so we were a little lucky to conclude the search with a strong shortlist.
If a position is important to the direction of your business, ensure that you start the process of engaging with the right recruitment partner at least six months prior to planning them to start.
Unwillingness for you to be involved throughout the process
This is a big problem. For many reasons, to include loose initial brief, shallow talent pool, need to recalibrate salary expectations, ongoing consulting and discussions are required throughout the process of headhunting.
Occasionally, a client will throw the problem over the fence. As I’m a retained headhunter, there’s a danger that a client assumes I’m a magic bullet. Sometimes I am. Sometimes it involves consulting and refining the specification around outcomes from approach work.
If you’re unwilling to commit to an initial face to face meeting (~two hours) and, although not prescriptive, weekly 15-minute update calls, then you might not get the desired result.
Having led the recruitment of their CCO, I was asked to recruit a Financial Controller for an interior products manufacturer. Reviewing what they wanted, I told them that it was clearly a Finance Director role, paying some 35% under market rate. They wouldn’t budge. They continually missed our update meetings. Guess what, they had two offers rejected and never recruited the position.
You’re simply plugging a gap
Not all positions require a retained headhunt. Although all positions are important to a business, not all need to ‘move the dial’ in terms of your longer-term strategy.
If you’re willing to wade through a high volume of irrelevant CVs, then contingency would suffice.
Conversely, there’s a misconception that all retained headhunts are at leadership level. I’ve worked with several building product and construction clients on lower-level roles. Importantly, all these assignments have been for positions that help drive forward a plan. A prime example are sales managers for new product ventures. Clients have been unclear of what strong looks like, or even who the competitors are. They’ve needed a clear, objective view on this prior to shortlisting for the position.
If the above makes sense and you’re left knowing that the retained model is the best approach, the initial upfront cost, both monetary and exclusivity, pales into insignificance.
If you want clarity on whether your vacancy warrants a retained search or a contingency sweep, I’ll give you an honest recommendation, with no obligation – 07570 740490
