The decision to use an external specialist Executive Search provider or existing in-house recruiting resources has been a dilemma for organisations over the last few years. It seems that with the continuing trend for companies to build in-house recruiting functions, making the extension to conducting in-house senior executive search is almost inevitable. 

While your recruiting costs may have reduced considerably, there may be unintended costs that you haven’t considered. Here’s some feedback from discussions I had earlier this year with a very senior and well respected HR leader who happened to be looking for a role at the time.  We met a couple of times during her own job search and her insights, ie. from a candidate’s perspective, were interesting.  I’ve summarised her observations and comments here …

• The individuals making up in-house recruiting teams are typically hired from mid-tier contingency recruitment agencies where sales skills are highly valued. A proficiency in sales is much less appropriate or effective when undertaking search.
• Being asked elementary questions by recruiters when they’re conducting their initial phone screen of candidates demonstrates their lack of understanding of both the role and function, as well as general business acumen.
• Search is often not properly understood in-house. She spoke with recruiters who believed everything was possible through good “Googling”.
• When a company is requiring 100 new engineers on a major project, trawling through LinkedIn and other social media sites is a suitable strategy for this type of volume recruiting. Some in-house recruiters state that they rely solely on LinkedIn for search too. (Any search executive or senior executive would turn in their grave to hear this!)
• Senior executives frequently being interviewed by junior staff many tiers down the organisation hierarchy. Again – an ill thought out strategy and one designed to not endear the organisation to candidates.
• Candidate communication and care throughout the process if often minimal and very poor, if it exists at all.
• How can it be that sophisticated software can’t be programmed to send an acknowledgement and/or ‘thanks but no thanks’ email?  It is really inexcusable after the effort and time put in to apply for roles.
• Even in a tight job market, there is no reason not to treat people as people rather than commodities.

These are comments from an executive in her mid-40s with a successful career within multi-nationals. Within her HR leadership roles she has set up complex recruiting programmes, talent mapping, retention, etc for her organisations. She knows what she is talking about.

How can an organisation hope to develop its employer branding when both the application and recruiting experience is so very negative for many potential candidates? What does this do for a company’s long-term reputation?  Given that in-house recruiting is here to stay and therefore candidates have no choice but to interact with in-house recruiters, how much better would it be if an organisation made the process not only efficient but also appropriate to the level of vacancy and a positive experience for all candidates? The few organisations who are already doing this well, significantly stand out from the pack. It’s food for thought.

And if you’re not currently doing search well or don’t have quality in-house capability, discuss your requirements with a specialist search consultant.

Fees – often a major stumbling block – have come down considerably since their peak. Receiving an objective opinion and the consultant’s expertise can be invaluable.

Talk to Katie Adler to seek her advice. Katie is an experienced search provider and offers a range of executive search services based on a results-and-performance pricing structure.