LinkedIn Question: Why don’t companies benchmark the quality of their third party recruiters?

I asked this question on LinkedIn:
How do you know that you’re using a Great Recruiter? Do you ever benchmark their candidate turnover, productivity or promotion rate?

Why do we benchmark every piece of the sales process, but don’t compare the value that your recruiter brings to the firm? I am amazed at large organizations (500 M and up - healthcare products) that just keep doing the same thing. If we can improve on all processes, why not question the quality of your third party recruiter? A good firm will be worthy with competing with your internal recruiter and other external recruiters. The numbers will bear out.

Here are some of the responses I got:
Jeff L. says:
Worthy question. When you’re in that size company of 500M and up you got to deal with so much of the red tape that goes on and the politics. Usually you’ve to deal with HR and you know how that goes. They’re not interested in seeing the value that you bring rather what value they can bring to their own organization.

Jim B. says:
I couldn’t agree more. Companies will pick apart evry sales and sales generating process they have to squeeze the maximum profit (and they should), but when they have an internal recruiter or firm they have used forever they refuse to compare on quality and value. Competition brings out the best in everyone and would minimize the duration of open positions and add quality candidates to their bench. All of which saves money to the bottom line. Most of us are contingency recruiters anyway so there is no pay unless they accept our candidates for the job. A complete win/win for the company. Doesn’t make sense but we see it every single day.

David D. says:
If you’re using an external recruiter the company is just as responsible for the quality of the hire as the recruiter is. Agencies provide searching and basic screening and nothing more, the company is still responsible for making the hiring decision. So if you make a bad hire, then the agency is only responsible is so far as they presented the candidate, but it was the company that hired the candidate.

Tim C.
The quicker we get the best candidate into a career opportunity the better. If that’s using an internal/external headhunter it shouldn’t matter. If an external headhunter has the best candidate but the company waits 3 months to take that person because they want to give the internal guys a chance and saves 8k in recruiters fees… Who’s losing out? How much has the business lost in not having someone in that role? I am sure its more than 8k…

Alex S.
In my view, the benchmark of a headhunter should be quantative as many of my colleagues comment below, and a great ATS will enable you to do this very effectively. However, how many of us also listen carefully to our candidates about their experience with agencies and outside recruiters and include this qualitative aspect in our benchmarking ? When the relationship works well and you have a true partnership between external and internal then the results in terms of candidate preparation, promotion of employer brand and candidate and employer satisfaction speak for themselves.

I had a client that benchmarked my candidates, other third party candidates, internal referrals and internal recruits. Mine were the best across the board: productivity, promotion rates, lowest turnover, etc. The client would not share the information - too confidential. But you get the point, right?

Article courtesy of  Peggy McKee - Owner / Senior Headhunter at the nationally
recognized lab and clinical laboratory revenue recruiting team of PHC Consulting.
© Copyright 2008 PHC Consulting | All rights reserved