It amazes me how many companies still think giving vacancy exclusivity to a recruitment consultant is to their detriment and only benefits the recruiter.
Their thinking typically goes along the line of ‘more recruiters means more candidate coverage equals a better shortlist’.
In a vast candidate market where industry-specific skills are not being sought that logic would be fairly robust, for example, if the business was seeking an Admin Manager.
However, house building recruitment is diametrically opposite in its characteristics. Supply of experienced candidates is very limited and industry experience is normally a prerequisite.
So here’s what happens when multiple recruiters get instructed on the same vacancy in house building:
- The recruiters know there are only a handful of potentially suitable and interested candidates so it becomes a race to get to them first and claim the introduction. This will always be at the cost of a thorough search of the candidate market and a full explanation of the house builder’s vacancy requirements to any prospective candidates.
- Inevitably in a tight-knit industry, the recruiters will cross paths by calling the same candidates. Those candidates will be put off by recruiters competing for their attention on the same job. The last thing you want to do in a ‘skills short’ market is create barriers to potential candidates.
- The recruiters will prioritise work they have exclusively over vacancies where they are competing at their own risk for a fee. The impact is time slips by as recruiters focus on another house builder’s vacancy first, leaving you with little or no progress on your recruitment.
So if you want to get the best from a recruiter, to fully search the market and maximise candidate interest, invest the time in selecting and engaging a consultant you really believe in. Then give them the work exclusively.