Two schools of thought for Staffing Firms. First - account management and recruitment is done by the same person. Second - account management and recruitment are separate. Which school do your prefer?

Views: 320

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I prefer to work in a separate environment.  My company has too many different clients and jobs for someone to do both tasks. 

I prefer separate.  My thought is that there are "sales people" and than you have recruiters. Yes we both do sales but I think there is a true calling for both. My 2cents.

Thank you Mike. My firm currently separates the roles. There's that age old problem though that exists in recruitment firms as well... the disconnect between marketing and production. In recruiting, that's the account managers and the recruiters. You get the occasional finger pointing that says that "the job specs were not clear." I definitely agree with you that "sales people" and recruiters are different "animals", but I also firmly believe that recruiters need to be sales people as well. They need to have the ability to sell to candidates.

Hi Marcia. That's the setup we currently have for the same reason you indicated. The rationale being the account managers can focus on revenue generating activities while the recruiters can provide the candidates to close the deals. 

Marcia Tiemeyer said:

I prefer to work in a separate environment.  My company has too many different clients and jobs for someone to do both tasks. 

I've always worked in environments that are full-cycle, where we do both sides. An advantage to that is that it's much easier to recruit on a job when you're talking directly to the client and know what they really want. It's rarely an equal split though, there are always recruiters, usually the more senior ones, who are more client heavy, while the more junior recruiters have fewer clients and focus more on candidate recruiting. That works because the junior ones will feed candidates to the senior ones and then as they get more senior, they'll become more comfortable with clients and do more developing of their own clients.

I've never worked in an environment where it's separate though, so I can't say that one way is better than the other. I know both models are popular, though it seems like the separation tends to be more in contract staffing environments.Is that true? We do mostly direct hire.

Follow-up question. What are your thoughts on a "buddy system", where an account manager is paired with a recruiter? What I can see as ad advantage is that there will be FOCUS on each team's job openings.

Jimmy, 

I have worked in environments where the sales and recruiting desks were separated, but not to the point of zero overlap. The best sales people I worked with were also good recruiters (maybe not the best sourcers, but they knew their recruiting 101). 

My last recruiter job was in a firm which paired up recruiters and sales people, but only for specific jobs. Among the benefits of the buddy system is more accountability and yes, more and better focus and a shorter turnaround. My current job is open season for all jobs across the board and only individual accountability for production, a system with its own benefits and drawbacks, chief among which is there may not be as much of a 'team' effect if a recruiter chose to work different jobs belonging to different reps every day. 

Some AM - Recruiter combinations I have seen work this way:

All Jobs  for All Clients

All Jobs  for Specific Clients

All Jobs requiring Specific Skills (specialized by say Technologies)

Jimmy Roa said:

Follow-up question. What are your thoughts on a "buddy system", where an account manager is paired with a recruiter? What I can see as ad advantage is that there will be FOCUS on each team's job openings.

Depends on the environment but I think that the person who manages the account should recruit for the account.  Our staffing firms have business developers who go out and get new business and the senior recruiters then manage these accounts and work the roles.  The larger agencies have what you would call an internal consultant who work with the senior recruiters on accounts before being promoted into senior recruiter roles.  This ensures some continuity of relationships should a recruiter move on.  Some clients don't like working with many people in one company so it would also depend what they feel comfortable with?  I would have a client services manager who checks in with clients out of courtesy if you run many accounts.

My feeling is if your are going to recruit and sale, why not just do own your own company.  Why give a company 50%+ for doing nothing, makes no sense. 

Hi Julie. I agree with you - some clients do not like working with many people in one company. It actually holds true with candidates as well. Some candidates get annoyed when too many recruiters from one firm call them. I guess it really boils down to relationship marketing and relationship recruiting. 


Julie Kearns said:

Depends on the environment but I think that the person who manages the account should recruit for the account.  Our staffing firms have business developers who go out and get new business and the senior recruiters then manage these accounts and work the roles.  The larger agencies have what you would call an internal consultant who work with the senior recruiters on accounts before being promoted into senior recruiter roles.  This ensures some continuity of relationships should a recruiter move on.  Some clients don't like working with many people in one company so it would also depend what they feel comfortable with?  I would have a client services manager who checks in with clients out of courtesy if you run many accounts.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsored Video

Marketing Partners

Upcoming Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

Recruiting Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2014   Created by RecruitingBlogs.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

scroll to the top