The Surprising Truth About Working With Multiple Recruiting Agencies

In my discussions with healthcare hiring managers, I often hear companies say they’re struggling to find qualified candidates for their key open (permanent) positions. I typically ask what they are doing and what is not working. More often than not, they’re working with multiple recruitment agencies, yet still not getting the results they want. So why is it that more agencies don’t equal better results? In this post, I’ll dispel the myth of working with multiple agencies and explain why it can actually be detrimental to your recruitment efforts.

Recently, I had a conversation with Janice, an HR Director for a 130-bed medical center. She shared that they were struggling to fill some management-level roles and weren’t getting many applicants. When I asked what they were doing to find candidates, she said they were working with up to 20 different recruitment agencies. I wasn’t surprised to hear this. I said to Janice, “Well, give us those roles and we’ll fill them for you”. (I’m sure she just thought this was recruiter bluster and didn’t think much of it). Janice replied that their Chief Nursing Officer preferred to work with multiple agencies to “ensure complete market coverage”. That is a pretty common theory I hear. But as I explained to Janice, this strategy was actually hurting their recruitment efforts, would ensure the market was NOT covered, and in fact, it was accomplishing quite the opposite of what they intended.

The common belief is that working with multiple agencies on key management hires will increase the likelihood of finding the best candidate. However, the reality is quite different.

Below are the reasons why:

Contingency recruiting Model

Many hospitals expect their agencies to work on a “contingent basis”, which means the agency only gets paid if they successfully place a candidate who stays employed for a certain period of time. I understand why facilities would want to structure their recruiting model that way, but they are not helping themselves by doing so. Because of this model, agencies are essentially “working for free” until they make a successful placement. Therefore, they are forced to work on multiple roles (10-15) at the same time to spread out their risk and increase their chances of getting paid on at least 1 of them. This results in agencies putting only a small percentage of effort into any one role.

Competition EFFECTS Among Agencies

Recruitment agencies working on the same role are now in competition with each other, which means they must move quickly to present candidates to the client. As a result, they only shoot a quick message out to candidates who are actively looking for jobs (the “active candidate market”), which is only a small segment of the overall candidate market.

The best quality candidates, passive candidates, are already employed and not actively looking for new opportunities (though LinkedIn reports that 89% are open and will consider new roles). Thus, these agencies miss out on the 70% of the candidate market that makes up the passive candidate market by not targeting them.

So much for “ensuring complete market coverage”!

Source 100% of the candidate market!

Lower PrioritY RANKING

Recruitment agencies rank job roles against other roles they’re working on, and they spend more time on the easiest roles to fill. Factors such as the difficulty of the search, communicativeness and responsiveness of the client, the client’s brand reputation, and the facility location can all affect the ranking of a role. And then, the fact that you are working with multiple agencies means your role is likely to be ranked even lower in priority and receive less attention.

Candidate Pool Dilution

Working with multiple agencies can lead to multiple recruiters repeatedly pitching your role to the same candidates. This can dilute your brand and diminish your offer. Candidates can also become wary of multiple pitches from different recruiters for the same role and may lose interest in the role altogether. It’s kind of like putting 20 different “For Sale” signs up in your front yard when selling your house. Not a good look.

agencies reduced to “resume vending machines“

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, in rush to find a candidate they can quickly email over to you for submission, agencies are put in a position where they are not allowed time to do the most important job that they SHOULD be doing for you, which is finding THE RIGHT candidate, not just the next one! Recruiters should be completing thorough assessments and employing robust measures to ensure any candidate submitted is a clear match for the job and the expectations of the hiring team. This takes more time than just firing off a resume (that checks off the basic skills requirements) to the client. This is only wasting the client’s time as most qualified resumes (statistically) are not a good fit for the job and facility. It takes a professional recruiter to drill down, source, assess, and recruit candidates who not only meet the skills and experience requirements but also attitudinal and behavior measures!

Conclusion: There is a better way

In conclusion, the idea that working with multiple recruitment agencies will result in better results is a myth. In fact, it can lead to counterproductive results, diluted efforts, lower prioritization, and actually missing out on the best candidates in the market.

Instead, it’s better to work closely with a select agency that devotes its full attention to your critical role and scours the entire market for the leader you are looking for! And, importantly, you are not going to spend any more money on the recruitment effort by retaining their services. In fact, in the long run, you will likely spend less because you are hiring properly “fitted”, matched-to-the-culture employees who will become a value add that you will not have to replace in 5 months!

This will ensure that you get to look at the highest quality candidates that fit your needs and increase your chances of experiencing the best possible result and outcome.