Tonight I attended an AHRI debate on whether recruitment is better managed by internal HR or external agencies. I thought the session would be interesting as I posted on the same topic last month. Ross Clennett was debating for recruitment being outsourced to agencies while David Mahady a Global Resourcing Manager was arguing for recruitment to be kept in house.
In the debate I have to say that Ross was more persuasive, although I wonder if he swapped sides he would have been able to convince us that internal recruitment is better as he was such a good speaker. What came out of the debate tonight was that there is no 'one size fits all approach', each company, scrap that - each role is different and may require a different strategy.
The points for internal recruitment are - no one will know the brand like an internal recruiter, they will have an understanding of the culture and the direction of the company that an external agency won't have (no matter how good the relationship is). Internal recruiters will often have expertise across other areas and when required are able to assist in other projects or be redeployed to other areas if recruitment slows. Internal recruiters can also use other mediums to attract candidates, just have a look at the way some companies are using twitter to connect with candidates. This is something that agencies aren't able to do as readily or as easily. Internal recruiters are also the face of the brand, there is a greater need for good customer service as the interactions that internal recruiters have are going to shape the way that candidates feel about the brand and talk about it to other people. However, Ross stated that people in HR don't even like Recruitment, but I'm not touching that one...
What do the agencies have to offer then? One of the biggest considerations is speed and responsiveness. I remember times when the receptionist would call in sick but HR was overloaded and didn't have the capacity to man the desk all day. With one call to an agency we'd have a temp arranged and often sitting taking calls within an hour. Agencies have a database, they have a pool of people they can call on, even if the only reason you're using an agency is for temp or casual staff they will be proving their worth. Agencies can also be a buffer for a company that is suffering from a bad brand reputation and get candidates to reconsider a company if the position fits. While agencies may have bad reputations or as one person said tonight they 'get bums on seats they also have to get a result in order to get paid. Customer service can suffer as a result, but agencies will get the job done. When it comes to Executive recruitment or hiring for extremely specialised roles agencies will often have greater knowledge, resources and the ability to find the right candidate.
But, the thing I really took out of tonight was that companies that use agencies are the ones that get to make the decision. If an agency doesn't work most people will just not use them again and move on to somewhere else instead of making the agency accountable. We were also told by a board member of the RCSA that was in attendance that if you believe an agency has breached the RCSA Code then you can make a complaint. Agencies and HR are going to need to learn to coexist, and there are negatives for both sides. What is important is that each company ensures that their recruitment strategy is helping to build their company and reputation using whatever method works best for them.
0 thoughts:
Post a Comment