A few months ago I wrote a piece about the differences between recruiting via a contingency based model, or using a targeted (retained) approach instead.
The demand for talent in the intellectual property market remains particularly high; this is especially true at the near-qualification level in the profession. This is nothing new of course. However, with a disproportionate number of candidates on the market versus the number of vacancies actually available, are we, as recruiters, relying too much on fate to successfully fill roles?
Personally speaking, I can hold my hand up and admit that sometimes we take on more vacancies than we can actually fill. Whilst it's important to represent a broad range of clients, there's an argument to suggest that working with more exclusive roles can actually attract the 'passive' candidates who are not actively looking for a new job via traditional methods.
As a client, do you resort to hiring the perceived best available candidate; or are you more attracted to extending your reach to the hidden talent in the market?
So, do you 'scrap it out' with rival firms in the hope of securing someone quickly? Or do you take a targeted approach where control and time-frames are better managed?
If the ideal candidate is not available, the employer faces the prospect of wasting valuable resources interviewing candidates who don’t necessarily tick all the right boxes. Or worse still, uncommitted candidates who are merely testing the water.