Recently I had an (relatively) interesting ‘ phone conversation with an agency recruiter who was offering his services for one of our vacancies.
Me: “I am not using agencies on this one. I’m sure we will get a good response to our ad.”
Agency recruiter: “Oh, so you are filling it internally then.”
Me: “No, not internally. We will be appointing an external candidate, but one we have found ourselves.”
Agency recruiter: “That’s what I mean. You are recruiting internally.”
I explained to him that internal recruitment is when we only advertise a job to our own employees, and appoint one of them. Despite the explanation, I am sure he will persist in referring to an organisation’s direct recruitment as “internal recruitment”.
Why does this matter?
The recruitment industry’s misuse of the term “internal recruitment” is harming the brand of all employers, in the eyes of some jobseekers. If you look on internet forums used by candidates, you will frequently find them complaining about employers who they believe have falsely advertised vacancies that were always intended to be given to an internal candidate. Invariably, “role filled internally” is an explanation given to them by an agency recruiter. Agency recruiters will not give the real explanation “role filled by the company’s HR department appointing an external candidate directly. You should have applied via their website, instead of through this agency”
Why do recruitment agencies want to muddy the water by describing direct recruitment as internal recruitment?
Agencies want to keep candidates who have registered them as their ”stock”. To do this, they want to give those people the impression that they are the only recruitment channel into the organisation with a vacancy. They will say they have been retained by the client company, even if they are one of a number of agencies that the company is using, or even if they are just submitting c.v.’s speculatively. There are agencies that will put details of positions on their websites that they have ripped off the employing company’s website without permission. They then hope to sell one of these “kidnapped” candidates to the employing company.
How do companies see it?
As a company recruiter, what is my order of preference of the various recruitment channels? If there is a plentiful supply of candidates, my preference is to advertise directly, whether through the company website, job boards, LinkedIn or press advertising. I am then dealing directly with candidates, and finding them at lowest cost. If suitable candidates are harder to find, I will use agencies on a contingency basis, alongside direct advertising. I only do that to widen our access to suitable candidates. Only in the case of a very specialist and/or very senior position would I put it with an executive search company, and not advertise direct.
As that is the choice of recruitment channels, where does internal recruitment fit in? In most companies I have worked for, where we had just one employee who is being promoted to a particular role, we would just appoint. Admittedly, some organisations advertise all roles as a matter of policy. Personally, if the organisation was advertising purely to technically comply with a policy, I would not contact a recruitment agency. Why not just put it on your website for a few days?
Where we are genuinely recruiting internally, that is to say restricting applications to existing employees, there would be no external advertising and no agencies contacted. The most frequent situation is that current employees can apply to vacancies that are being advertised externally, and compete against external candidates on their own merits. If the internal candidate is successful, it is wrong to conclude that it was a bogus exercise, and the result a foregone conclusion.
What should candidates do?
If you meet an organisation’s advertised requirements, and you want to work for them, apply direct. If you rely on an agency to submit your details to the organisation, that puts a price tag on your resume equivalent to 20% of the starting salary. Remember that the agency recruiters are not working to find you a job, neither are they working to fill my vacancies – they are working to get a fee.
Recruiting recruiters.
I think employers should reclaim the job title “internal recruiter”, which should only be used for roles that primarily involve genuine internal recruitment. There would be a very small number of those, found only in large organisations.
Many job boards and agencies specialising in HR staff refer to company recruiters as “internal recruiters”. If you are recruiting an recruitment specialist, do not encourage them by using the phrase “internal recruiter”. Company recruiters are the real recruiters, as we actually offer the employment. Agency recruiters are just intermediaries. (And that's probably a kinder description than they usually get).
