My wife told me not to state this number as it might not generate business for me but the contrary. But she also says on many other occasions that I always do what I want anyway so here we go:
In the last weeks, two candidates told me that they heard that chances to find a new job through a headhunter are only 15%. I am in this business since 2001 but when I heard this number, I was surprised.
Let’s do the maths: there are two possiblities to meet a recruiter:
- We meet you for a specific job: In this case, I would invite no more than 8 candidates to meet me and present a short-list of 3-4. One of these will usually be hired. Once we have decided together to continue on this job, your chances are thus 25-33%
- We invite you for a generic interview (and hopefully say this as of the first contact): I always meet interesting candidates in finance. Even if I do not have a job for them today, this can change tomorrow. At the end of these interviews, I often say that I find a new job for 2 out of 10 candidates. This is not particularly good or bad but industry average. Your chances are thus 20%
This was for the science, here is for the art:
It is difficult and dangerous to break down everything into KPIs, ratios and percentages. If your personal ratio is 9 or 90% depends on many factors: the recruiter, the job, many internal and external, known and unknown factors – and most importantly on you.
Conclusion:
The question is not if 15% of the candidates find a job through a headhunter or not but rather what do YOU have to do to one of the candidates who gets the job?
Our job is to put a hiring manager and a candidate together into one room. This is where our job ends and yours is starting. At the end of the day, the most appropriate candidate will be hired – and not the headhunter.
sending...
I believe chances to find a new job through a headhunter are much bigger than 15%, particularly in the Gulf where, in the absence of well-established Talent acquisition teams in companies, headhunters are the major source of recruitment.
Charbel, Thanks for commenting. I agree with you. Depending on you, you can push them up and I guess the 15% are valid for those candidates who come in for an interview, leave an OK impression and are never heard of again…
For those who base their job search on headhunters only it might be even less. Job search is a multichannel task where the chance for success grow significant to the number of channels used (professional network, friends, agencies, targeted companies, etc).
Headhunter are only one of the several channels.
Tom, thank you for your comment. I agree. Please see also my posting “10 tips on networking” The idea is that two, three good headhunters you trust should become part of your network. Having 2-3 professionals work for you 8 hours a day to find a new job is far more efficient than doing the job all by yourself…
I agree with Tom that it is a multi-channel task. Also with Jorg about developing relationships with people in your segment.
As regards 15% that’s an interesting number.
I would expect senior/executive level positions to be filled more through the use of headhunters. More junior positions may not use a search company at all.
Vince, Thank you for your comment. You are right that you do not really need a search firm to find a junior profile. If you are a S&P 500 company and lost your CFO, however, you will not put this on a job board.
Though I heard these “15%” twice, I do not agree with this figure…
When I was in outplacement a few years ago, the outplacement firm said the chances of finding a job broke down to about 75% from network contacts, 10% recruiters, 10% postings, and about 5% of the time, the applicant creates the position.
As you say, the percentages may vary by individual depending on experience level, skills and strenghts, etc. and whether you are employed or unemployed when seeking alternative employment.
Their point was that, if one is looking for a job, one should allocate the most time and effort to networking.
Recruiters are certainly helpful and useful but, in my case, I only got one interview through a recruiter, one or two through responding to job postings, and the rest through network contacts and it was pretty close to what the outplacement firm told me to expect. Ultimately, I was hired through a network connection.
In addition, there are firms that do retained searches, where they have been hired by an employer exclusively to identify the candidate for a specific position with a specific firm. If you are dealing with a retained search firm and they have decided you are a qualified candidate, you are much more likely to be hired.
Other types of recruiters are competing amongst each other to find candidates and odds of getting selected for a job through this type of recruiter are probably lower.
So, my experience is, if you currently have a job and a recruiter contacts you about another opportunity, or a retained search firm contacts you, the odds of getting an offer are higher. If you are out of work and seeking a job, you are more likely to locate a position and get hired through your network contacts.
PS: Yesterday evening, I talked to one of my top candidates and promised her that her personal percentage to find her next job through me is more likely 100% than 15%.
This is not the first time I gave a “job guarantee” and I kept my promises in the past. I know my market, recognize top talent and understand which demands are always “hot”.
PPS: my candidate accepted a new job offer through me yesterday
Executive Search Firms are paid to find an exact or near perfect fit based on the job description, culture, and growth potential of the role. They are not hired to do exploratory interviews or to allow a candidate to grow into the role.
Unfortunately, clients hire a good search firm to weed out the other 85% of candidates who really don’t fit the specific role.
This does not mean the other candidates are not valuable and could not contribute.They are just not what the client is searching for in that window of opportunity.
Thanks for your insights.
I couldn’t agree more with this point.
Personally, I often experience that candidates do not always fully distinguish (usually because they don’t know) between headhunters who proactively find not necessarily the best but the right candidates for their clients and recruitment agencies who advertise and wait for candidates to knock on their door.
As a headhunter I work for my clients – if I happen to come across a candidate who asks me for their help I will give them a realistic overview of what I can do for them depending on the current market situation but their chances are typically slim. The blame should not be on the headhunter as it is not their job to find candidates new jobs but to find suitable candidates for their clients.
This is why I chose to be a headhunter as opposed to a high street recruitment agent and as such my job is to sift out the “unsuitables” for my clients…
WRONG 100%
Sandy, Can you explain please?
My candidates are executives, and a lot of accountants, lawyers, engineers etc don’t want anyone to know they are seeking a new position…..also executives do not have the time to look for a new job yet they do want that change…
I have seen the 15% figure for at least a decade (New York Times survey in 2000) but I do think the number is a bit higher for senior executives.
However, in my work with senior executives for more than 20 years, I find that most people – still – find their jobs through a personal contact or referral. Networking works!
One of the greatest misconceptions I find among senior executives is that a recruiter will “find a job” for them or – as you noted above, Jorg – that the recruiter will work for them 8 hours a day. I do agree that having recruiters in your network is immensely valuable, but executives must take charge of their own careers and not rely on the (usually false) hope that a recruiter will do it for you.
As a retained search firm, my company works for the employer, not the candidate. So, while we treat all our candidates with respect, we handle only a few projects at a time. I am open with candidates that I may not be able to place them – ever. But I meet them and give them advice if I can. I provide a list of my competitors to highly qualified candidates.
The expectiation is that if they find work through my com-partner network, they will remember me when they need to do a C-level hire in their new role.
Good question. I wish the success rate was much higher.
I am currently looking for my next executive management role and am placing a great deal of faith in the select recruiters with whom I have discreetly engaged. I also tend to hate the networking approach, since I would prefer, perhaps naively, to think that the best jobs will go to the most qualified candidates, rather than the most popular ones.
Isn’t a meritocracy better than cronyism and nepotism, or am I being too idealistic?
I think it is not the “best” but the most suitable candidate who gets the offer. It depends on the context how “most suitable” will be defined…
Michael – don’t think of networking as a “popularity contest” or nepotism or cronyism but rather as your opportunity to let people find out about you – so they can choose you as the most qualified! If you’re not visible to recruiters and employers, they can’t consider you.
You’re putting your faith in recruiters – but always remember that their allegiance is, appropriately, to their clients, the hiring companies. They are not invested in YOUR success. I fear your search will be long and discouraging if this is your only channel.
15% ???? maybe, maybe not, but…I think it depends on the type and level of job you are looking for. A significant number of companies use search firms for C-level and senior management positions. So the chances of getting these positions through a search firm are significantly higher than 15%. However, on entry-level, mid-level jobs, companies often use their internal recruiting function and might give the job to a few contigency recruiters, so the chances of getting the job through a recruiter are much lower.
At any rate, I agree that job search is a multi-chanel task and if you can increase your odds of getting a position by 15%, that’s great.
Thanks, Wendy. I agree with your comments
An integrated multichannel search strategy (= combined forces) is clearly a must in order to identify those companies and their most powerful top managers (or shareholders) that benefit the most from the candidates core competencies. Executive search firms that are “part of the target industries” can assist here, but the manager is the driving force behind his “next step” search.
It is thus hardly surprising that executive search firms do not play the leading role in this context. They mainly focus on current (demanding) search assignments and are therefore not always available.
Thanks, Wolfgang. I agree with the first part of your statement that the manager is the driving force behind any recruitment. However, at a certain level in the hierarchy, search agencies are inescable. On C-level, headhunters DO play the leading role. Unless the job is filled internally, there will be always an executive search firm involved when we talk about seats to be filled in the executive floor.
I would have to have more information to really comment on this. We are a search firm and we do a lot of C-Level searches. Most of the time, our candidates do not come to us, we find them. If we do and they are qualified and a good match then the probability that they will get the position is much higher than 15%. However if a candidate comes to us and says they are looking the probability is pretty low that we will have an immediate opening and can help them. In those cases the probability might even lower than 15%. Many of the candidates who get hired are not even looking when we contact them.
I think that 15% is probably correct overall; however, there are large differences depending on your circumstances/background. The differences are likely driven by active search versus reactives changes. If you have a strong background/existing position, recruiters are likely to able to provide you broader exposure to opportunities that are not advertised.
If you are in an active search (e.g., unemployed), then you should be on recruiters radar screens, but spend most of your time on networking activities.
Jason
As the owner of a search firm (headhunter) I would say you have to seperate search firms from general recruiters as they have different functions and opperate differently. The general recruiter could get 10 – 100 applicants from advertising and candidate databases, ONLY one will get the job – that is much less then 15%.
A Search firm typically does more research on who is who and then headhunts / poaches potential candidates therefore, may only have 2-5 quality candidates. Dianne and Louise have made the point that a good recruiter will treat candidates with respect as they are our product (so to speak) but the clients pay the bills. Any one looking for a job should utilise recruiters, personal networks, internet and any other means at there disposal. Do not limit your opportunities by putting all your eggs in one basket.
Someone made the point relating to candidates thinking that recruiters will do there work for the job seeker, the only time this will work is if the candidate is very marketable (Specialist skills) the recruiter may try to find or create an opportunity for the candidate. We have done this in specialist areas but it is not worth the time it takes for most job seekers.
Recruiting is not an exact science. I’ve worked with a recruiting firm before and had a very negative experience.
After my contract ran out, I found out I was not within their “comfort zone” both in terms of experience (they worked more junior positions) and industry (they had no contacts in my areas of expertise).
Needless to say, I did not find anything through them. Nonetheless, I know people who found new jobs through this same firm within 2 months of retaining them. Bottomline, it depends on the firm, the candidate, and ultimately the market, to provide an optimal match that will yield positive results all around.
Neither right or wrong, adequate or inappropriate.
If you are seeking ajob, it is already hard to qualify a headhunter, not to mention to quantify your chances. Even when you get a 50/50 (odds and pros toegther), you still have several NOs and no YES.
A headhunter job is no God position, neither he/she can advocate to have a fair judment on the candidates qualifications. And sometimes they commit errors, as everybody does.
To conclude, if someone is capable to quantify excactly the chances, I would like to know the mathematical formula! Thanks.
For low level role – 80%, for middle level – 30%, for top level – 5%….
The word respect was mentioned and this is a key component in all business relationships. The best headhunters know this yet there are too many headhunters who pay lip service to this aspect aspect of their position. It is a growing, negative trend in this industry and it is not one that helps recruiters.
Everything is negotiable…except respect.
Well, unfortunately there is an element of truth in some of the negative comments re: this subject. I had a discussion recently with another founder of an executive search firm and we discussed this, “the difference between a head hunter and a search professional is this, a head hunter will help a candidate through the front door, while recruiting candidates/employees of same company out the back door”.
An executive search professional not only develops relationships built on results, integrity and ethical business practices, but also expertise within a given industry or specialty and works cohesively within the Search Industry as well, with other ethical Search Firms when needed, in the best interest of their client or candidates. If this means a fee split, so be it. In the long run, the candidate wins, the client wins, the search firm wins and where applicable, the industry partner firm wins. A search professional also realizes that not only is this a relationship business, but the candidates they introduce through the front door, will become their clients and if the search professional behaves, discusses or attempts to conspire towards unethical practices through the recruitment process, the candidates now with the clients company is privy to those unethical practices or lack of integrity and chances are, will never hire that recruiter or search firm as a client. Nor should they.
My findings over the years is in dispute with Mohammed in terms of % of low, mid and top level employment success through an Executive Search Firm. In placement companies, I believe he is correct. There is a distinct difference.
In Search Firms, especially Retained Search Firms such as ours, the success rate is high because the retainer shows a commitment to hire on the clients part, which ensures the search firm’s time is not wasted nor is the candidates time. As we state on our website, we strive to only work in an ethical manner with integrity in each and every interaction with candidate, client, other search professionals and if we feel we cannot assist a candidate in their endeavors or a client, we will refer to another firm who we are sure can or we will ask a partner search firm to step in and work alongside us with a fee split agreement to expedite the search experience in a successful way for our clients and candidates.
A successful, long term search professional realizes that it takes us all working together to be successful. A candidate can also explore other avenues by being proactive but when they form an honest relationship with a search firm, that firm typically goes the extra mile for the loyalty of the relationship. This brings about a cycle where candidates become clients, clients call search professionals and so the cycle continues. Another key element is timely follow up with all parties. We are facilitators.
Unfortunately, there are still some less than ethical firms, independents and “head hunters” out there and they continue to give the industry a bad rap to those who haven’t had positive experiences with an ethical firm or independent.
Good discussion going on. Indeed “15%” is a buzz word and it depends on many circumstances if your personal ratio is 15, 50 or 0%…
Question: What can a candidate do to enhance the chances??
It’s really about timing. I would say it really depends on the time line that the candidate/professional expects the headhunter would come back with a role that they are able to move into. If say your time horizon was 100 days then the chances are as above 15%. If you are willing to wait 2-3 years then I would say, it is 99%, as there would be sufficient time for the market conditions to become “right” for a move.
Depends on what you are looking for. Contract jobs are almost always filled through recruiters, but you need to know the right ones. Candidates with 1-4 years experience will benefit from recruiters as well. However when it comes to middle management and experienced professionals looking for permanent roles even 15% seems too high. For executives networking seems like the best option.
I agree this depends on many aspects and you named some of them. Others can be the job profile: it will be easier to find in IT than in mining…