INHOUSE RECRUITING TEAM - HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS -
2004
– EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PARTICIPANTS: The survey represents the opinions of 163 Human Resource professionals on the subject of inhouse recruiting teams.
-79% of the respondents were from Fortune 500 corporations
Titles: Vice
President of Human Resources, Director of Staffing, Recruiting
Manager, Human Capital Partner and Chief Talent Officer.
JPS Comment: The survey was conducted to test our impression that companies are serious about developing and/or enhancing inhouse recruiting teams as a first response to increased hiring needs.
CONCEPT APPEAL: The majority of the respondents find the concept has merit.
-57% are considering, developing or have an inhouse recruiting team
-37% feel current staffing department satisfactory
- 6% have tried without success
The majority of respondents (56%) believe that retained executive search experience is an ideal background and others (44%) are undecided or disagree.
Responsibilities assigned to the inhouse recruiting team are mixed.
-63% conduct internal recruiting and manage external searches
-23% are dedicated to internal recruiting only
-14% manage and track external search process only
JPS Comment: The inhouse recruiting team is ‘an idea whose time has come’. Roles and responsibilities vary. Executive search firms will remain an integral part of talent acquisition strategy.
-64% mention cost reduction
-55% claim better control of the overall recruiting process
-42% cite greater familiarity with corporate culture
-38% see faster hiring results
JPS Comment: Companies want to reduce costs and improve efficiencies in the search for talent. Decisions to use internal versus external resources should be part of an overall strategic plan to meet corporate hiring goals now and in the future.
-55% measure external search firm performance
-42% measure inhouse recruiting team performance
- 3% no answer
Measurement criteria vary:
-83%
cite percentage of searches completed
-76%
time to completion
-43%
count number of diversity candidates
-42%
number of qualified candidates presented
A majority
(56%) of respondents has some form of Onboarding program but almost
every one said that this is not the responsibility of recruiters.
JPS Comment: Although a key reason for a formal inhouse recruiting team is cost reduction, once established, the measurement of success shifts to quality and timely completion of assignments. Corporations should have a formal system for tracking internal and external recruiting activities.
COMPENSATION: Compensation depends on the level of the recruiter.
Head of Recruiting - range
-71% $151-200K
-19% above $200K
-10% had no comment
First Line Recruiter - range
-64% $126-150K
-26% $101-125K
-10% had no comment
Total compensation package
-46% offer salary plus bonus
-28% pay salary only
Other incentives
-32% offer sign-on bonus
-19% provide stock options
JPS Comment: To attract an external search consultant or associate often requires a company to compensate at the high end of their preferred range. The ideal candidate with external experience is someone who has been executing high level searches. Business development experience is not necessary if the individual has had significant client interface.
JPS Comment: Certain
assignments need to be outsourced due to confidentiality, objectivity,
market access or other special situations.
Inhouse recruiting teams and external search consultants need
to find the path to partnership so that assignments which are
conducted externally are well managed through a continuous flow of
information and feedback.
-39% estimate savings to be less than 25%
-28% cite 26 – 50% savings
-19% say more than 50%
-14% were undecided
Charging back to hiring managers: yes-31%; no 39%; no answer 30%
JPS Comment: If the inhouse recruiting team is organized as a separate P&L, tracking the savings to the company and/or ‘charging’ a fee to the hiring manager makes sense. The internal ‘fee’ usually represents a discount over the external search firm. Cost should not be the determining factor in selecting to use the inhouse versus the external approach. Quality and expeditious execution of the assignment is more important.
-73% compensation up to $150K
-21% compensation over $150K
- 6% no opinion
JPS Comment: E-recruiting presents solutions and challenges. So many resumes can be generated that full-time staff is needed to handle the volume. The human touch to screen and match candidates for the job requirements and the culture fit cannot be underestimated.
EXTERNAL SEARCH IMPROVEMENTS: An experienced inhouse recruiting team is accretive to the overall recruiting process.
-63% provide better control and efficiency when managing searches
-46% influence favorably the selection of external search firms
-38% have a better understanding of off limits
- 2% believe inhouse recruiting teams can work for other companies
JPS Comment: Experienced inhouse recruiters impact search firm selection and contribute to managing the search process favorably. Both parties should seek for a win/win proposition by placing the mission of filling the position first and foremost.
Qualitative
versus Quantitative
Search
consulting firms are judged on their ability to produce qualified
exceptional candidates by penetrating the marketplace of passive
executives. This requires understanding the job description,
organizational structure, cultural environment, as well as the short
and long term expectations of the new hire. A search firm is
utilized for difficult, often high visibility, or special needs
assignments. The
consultants have little room for error. They have to get it right the
first time because they present themselves as “experts”.
They work on a few assignments at one time and may complete only 12 to
15 per year.
Recruiters
inside the company have the opportunity to understand and ‘live
daily’ many of the nuances which external consultants must invest
the time to learn. They
may be generalists based on their broad recruiting responsibilities
within the company and their intimate interaction with executives.
They also present themselves as “experts” on specific
company issues. In a given year, they often work on three or four
times as many assignments as search consultants.
Process
versus Speed
Search
firms are expected to meet a reasonable timetable for presentation of
candidates. But there is a process which they follow after being
selected: contractual
agreement on fees and off limits, hiring manager(s) meetings,
development and acceptance of position description, refinement of
essential candidate deliverables, generation of targeted companies and
then candidate identification, interviewing, written presentation, and
negotiation to conclusion.
While
external consultants may feel pressure to compress the process
timeline, internal recruiters are “on the clock” as soon as the
requisition is created. Due
to their working relationship with the hiring management, they are
expected to start immediately.
Addendum
Selling
versus Service –
Partners and consultants in search firms are required to sell search
assignments, which is tied directly to their income. Senior
partners often have a team who execute aspects of an assignment with
at least one professional being accountable for the completion.
The
inhouse execution of an assignment can also be team based. The inhouse recruiter has the comfort of a salary
along with an expectation of high level immediate service.
Freedom versus Total
Availability
External
search consultants now have a weekly reporting requirement via
telephonic conferences and emails, depending on the client
preferences.
Project Management and Role
Definition
External
consultants who focus on delivering one product (quality candidates)
have well crafted and defined roles. They can treat an
assignment as a project which has a start and finish. They can
‘walk away’ with pride upon conclusion.
Internal
recruiters also must complete assignments on a timely basis but they
do not have the luxury of looking at projects individually.
They are multi-processing more positions at a time, while also
dealing with internal company issues.
They must manage searches, hiring managers’ expectations,
their supervisors’ needs, and attend corporate meetings.
In sum,
the role of the internal recruiter is more demanding on a daily basis
with a higher work load and immediate transparent deliverables.