Funny how the debate about a blog post by Katie McNab has found its way overseas with some quite different points of view UK vs. US.
Of course there is no right or wrong but as I have worked in many areas of recruitment (TPR, In-house, tech vendor, media buyer, website designer, job poster etc) I thought I'd share how I'd run an In-house team.
My approach would be of architect - builder - contract labour.
The expertise I would employ would be architect. This to me is where the real value lies. I would make sure I personally was up to date with the latest and greatest ideas. I'd know what existing tactics still worked well and which did not. I would be looking to build something of great beauty that underneath had the functionality of a well oiled machine. A Ferrari with a BMW engine. Or an iPhone running on Android.
I would also know my customers REALLY well. It's all about relationships and I would make sure these were held at the highest level. My very small team would be there to make sure our customers were happy and our candidates had a great experience. But, I may not employ one single recruiter. I would not pay directly for an ATS or a career site. I would not be building a Facebook Page or post jobs to my LinkedIn profile. But my team would be known by the right suppliers who would manage these things for us as part of an outsource type model for attraction and marketing.
I would have a builder with the experience to manage the contractors but I would not expect them to do any building. That's what we have contractors for. Their expertise would be in selecting the right level of labour on the right type on contract and then make sure their work is up to the required standards.
They would also be keeping an eye on internal talent to make sure internal mobility was maximised and that the quality of new hires was reflected in individual performance and retention. Don't want to keep on recruiting leavers!
Of course we'd need skilled people to get the "real work" done but why employ them? Why not have a team of on-site day rate contractors dealing with the volume and then bring in niche project specific experts for the more intricate jobs. Ultimate flexibility in my opinion.
It is recruitment of the right contractors and niche experts that my team would focus on. Let the contractors et al know the markets; we just need to know the people that know the markets.
So that's my view on the In-house and TPR model/relationship. I think this way there is more harmony and less conflict. I think it gives the employer far greater flexibility, access to better market knowledge/expertise and is financially lower risk. Sound expensive? Maybe at face value but if you end up with better people, that stay longer and perform better I'd say it is significantly lower cost than anything else out there.
Utopian? Maybe? Aiming for the moon? Maybe so. But why just do the same as everyone else, put up with the same crap, face the same struggles. I'd rather innovate and die than follow and be boring.......