I do hope so!
But I would argue that companies already get significant benefit for the fee they pay to a search firm in saved internal recruiter/HR salaries, time to placement and therefore revenue. If we assume that companies who hire are seeking to leverage the investment they are making in the successful candiate's salary and benefits - not an unreasonable assumption unless companies hire through sheer charitable good will! - then it is obvious that the longer a piece of headcount remains unfilled the more they are losing in revenues. Specialist search recruiters who know what they are doing fill such headcount quickly and efficiently freeing up internal resources for less speciliast demands and saving money.
Now if anyone has any stats on this I'd be interested.
I believe a good recruiter is better at screening candidates matching/eliminating as appropriate. So I would expect a referred candidate to perform better. They were better screened.
Yes but then the client thinks they know better, hire someone you have flagged as being a potential problem despite what looks like an excellent match for their stated requirements (you have to give the client what they want surely!), it all goes belly up after 6 months and you get paid double for filling the same headcount twice!
Cynical moi? Never!
I've never heard of that particular statistic. My impression is that high-performing individuals strive to exceed expectations, period. I don't believe the way they were hired or source of hire has much, if any, impact in their on-the-job motivation or outcomes.