A LinkedIn post by Chris Dunsdon, Director at Parkwood Care, has sparked a heated discussion within the recruitment sector about the value and cost-effectiveness of recruitment agencies. Dunsdon, whose non-profit provides residential care for children, advised job seekers to avoid agencies if possible, citing the financial burden they place on employers. Recruiters were fast to respond to his message.
Here is Dunsdon’s post which raised a few eyebrows among candidates and gave members of the recruitment sector something to talk about:
A message to anyone looking to move roles in residential care…If you can, and I know your time is precious, try to avoid recruitment agencies. The escalating costs to businesses of using this type of consultant have a huge impact on the decision to employ you at the final stages of the interview.
Chris Dunsdon, Director at Parkwood Care
He continued, “If there is a negligible difference between yourself and another candidate, the company is much more likely to go with the individual not costing the employer £5-10k in fees. Do yourself a favour and upload your CV to the various boards and we will find you there. We know your time is valuable and a recruitment consultant can seem like the easiest solution but, at the end of the interview, you’ll find yourself at a disadvantage.”
To balance his point of view, he added, “To the few agencies that charge reasonably and fairly. I salute you. Best of luck to anyone looking for a new role.”
As a small business, Parkwood Care does not employ internal recruitment teams.
Dunsdon explained:
In our case, I do the recruitment for our business. My point is that any candidate being represented by a recruitment agency is going to have to cope with the inevitable fact that the cost to the business will be a large factor in the decision.
It also makes growing a small business really tough in todays climate and with recent governmental changes, more and more revenue is leaving businesses that could be used in other ways. In our case, to help support and develop the young people we care for.
We sit, post interview, and weight up candidates attributes regularly. Very high on the list, unfortunately, is the cost to us and how it will affect the care we can offer our young people.
Stong reactions
Dunsdon’s post triggered strong reactions from recruiters, including some backlash. One replied to the post, “If a company turns down the best candidate due to a fee, it’s not a company that’s willing to invest in the best. That’s a great indication that the leadership does not value talent.”
In reply, Dunsdon said, “It’s elitist and creates a culture where ‘investing in the best’ actually hinders the work we can do with our young people. We should have access to excellent candidates without needing to resort to extortionate fees. I’m willing to pay a fair price for a fair service but fees are not congruent with this.”
If you know as a business that you are highly likely to find a candidate yourselves on job boards then why waste an agency’s time.
Recruiter
Agencies v. job boards: which costs you more in the end?
Another recruiter, said, “If you know as a business that you are highly likely to find a candidate yourselves on job boards then why waste an agency’s time… I completely understand the cost-saving aspect but think about the costs agencies go through to find you suitable candidates and we ultimately work for free until that person walks through the door on their first day.”
The recruiter continued, “If you don’t want to use agencies then that’s completely fine! But don’t waste their time either. If you know you’re more susceptible to choosing a different candidate at the final stage just because they come with a fee then why instruct an agency to work on the role in the first place and cost them valuable time and resources?
“To any candidate reading this, please use agencies, we have an insight into the market that businesses DO NOT have and we often have access to roles that are not on job boards and are confidential. Also if you found out you were unsuccessful at an interview because the company wanted to save on costs how would that make you feel?”
Always be on top of your game by getting the latest news and views impacting contractors every week
Sign up for our newsletter today:
The cost of vacancies not being filled
The debate broadened to include the experiences of contractors and hiring companies. One commenter shared an anecdote of an SME manufacturer that abandoned agencies to save money, only to see their recruitment costs soar as they struggled to fill roles with job boards alone. This ultimately resulted in project delays, reliance on expensive temporary staff, and a significant loss of potential revenue.
“They wanted to use Indeed, he said. Continuing, he said, “Five to six years later, a new manager took over, and I was invited by HR to see if I could help with recruitment. I discovered that the cost of recruitment went from £50k to over £120k – because they used Indeed, and then had to backtrack and use agencies for temps and contractors (pre-IR35) – because projects were not getting done on time. The worst bit, was a sales role open for two years, and they really struggled to fill it, losing out on the best part of £2m of business (not guaranteed but the sales target would have been that).
“That is probably the worst I have heard.”
The recruiter added that agencies and recruitment consultants should only be filling the jobs a company can’t. “And not really working roles you can find people on. That to me, is like playing roulette.”
This LinkedIn exchange highlights the complex dynamic between cost considerations and the perceived value of recruitment agencies in today’s market. While agencies offer expertise, market knowledge, and access to a broader talent pool, their fees can be a major obstacle, especially for budget-conscious organisations and non-profits.
Can all parties be happy?
Here are some areas that could be improved upon to better align the objectives of hiring companies and the financial realities of running a recruitment agency:
Cost transparency: Open and honest communication about fees is crucial. Agencies should clearly articulate their value proposition and pricing structure. Case studies of successful placements are crucial.
Value beyond placement: Agencies can demonstrate their expertise beyond simply filling roles. This could include market insights, candidate screening, and consultation on recruitment strategies.
Alternative models: Explore flexible fee structures, performance-based pricing, or retained search models to align incentives and ensure cost-effectiveness.
Direct sourcing: Hiring companies should invest in direct sourcing strategies and build talent pipelines to reduce reliance on agencies for readily available skills. This saves all parties time and money.
Ultimately, finding the right balance between cost and quality in recruitment requires a collaborative approach. By understanding each other’s needs and challenges, contractors, agencies, and hiring companies can work together to achieve successful and sustainable recruitment outcomes.
