These recruitment thoughts are about candidate commitment v commission and/or risk v reward. And not from an agency’s point of view but mainly from the candidate and client perspective.
A candidate takes no risk or financial commitment when working with an agency. The agency’s fee will always be paid for by the end client. This is the industry standard and has been for many years.
Yet this has always struck me as being a little one sided. Even more so, when you consider that the agency works for both parties and hopefully both would benefit well in the end.
Anyway, I am not advocating changing this model but more how this reflects the respective commitment. Simply put, as there is no investment from the candidate (other than time), can this lead to a lack of motivation/desire or care about applying for a role?
Sometimes, candidates pull out of interviews at the last minute, happily accept a counter offer or don’t show any real commitment to the role they are going for. Any agency should do their best to ensure this doesn’t happen but sometimes it is simply unavoidable.
Such situations leave the client and agency in an awkward position and yet the candidate generally moves on without a second thought.
Of course, many candidates believe in doing the right thing, situations change and this is not a major issue as such. However, with record high employment and Brexit on the horizon, the market will swing even more in the candidate’s favour.
Good for them and well deserved. But this should not dissolve any candidate from being transparent and being respectful even if the cards are mainly in their hands.
Would candidates be more committed if they paid for the service?
Or how else should we ensure a more open and transparent relationship during the recruitment process?