We don't need recruiters
Are you saying that a lot lately? "We are handling the recruitment for this role ourselves". In the current climate there is lots of talent on the market right? Well, actually NO that's WRONG.
I have spent 40 years in the recruitment industry, and this will be the fifth downturn recession/global crisis/ call it what you will that I have worked through, and there has always been a fallacy that when companies make lay-offs that means that the market is suddenly flooded with super talented people for other companies to pick up quickly, easily and far cheaper than using a recruiter. Back in the late 70's that was possibly the case but now, unless this is a company that is closing it's doors for good, or is literally cutting back it's staff to just the owners, that is just not true. A good company will hold onto its talent for dear life, even in some cases, promoting them or offering more money.
In my experience, this is what happens when companies need to make layoffs to save money, and yes of course there are exceptions, and yes it is industry related, but this is as a general rule of thumb.
First round of layoffs: Paid interns, trainees, new staff (3 months in) and those senior/middle managers who nobody really knew what they did, along with the people who have been able to stay 'just under the radar'. You can usually tell when companies who have never had a staff appraisal program, suddenly start rushing to 'formally assess all staff'.
Second round of layoffs: Usually comes within three to six months of the first round and targets the formally appraised staff who are 'not cutting it'. This is particularly noticeable in sales positions and fundraisers - anyone who is responsible for bringing money into the business - who isn't!
It is only if a company gets to a third round of layoffs and beyond, that the real talent is at risk, and to be honest by this time, the talent has seen the writing on the wall and they are reaching out to recruiters - the people you don't think you need right now.
So posting a job on line and sourcing people yourselves, on the surface now appears to be a much cheaper option than using a qualified recruiter but, how cost effective is it? In this age of 'click to apply' more and more people are applying for positions without even reading the job post. How many homecare workers have applied to your Executive Assistant to the CEO role? I rest my case! You get hundreds of applications that you HAVE to go through because the one person who is worth interviewing just might be in there. The screening questions are great but guess what? people lie. So how much of your time is this taking? How much is your time worth per hour? What else could you be doing with that time that is of much greater value to your company?
It usually takes around 3 months to discover that the hire you made is not going to bring anything to the party, so the process begins again. How much has it cost now for that cheaper hire?
It is the job of an experienced recruiter to know why people are on the market and what value they would be to companies. It is their job to look at who is giving references and what was the REAL reason for the lay off. It is their job to question skills, competencies and abilities. They spend many hours doing their job, so that you can spend an hour of your time to confirm that their candidate can do the job you want them to. It is also a recruiters job to be aware of those people who are NOT on the market to be able to make them aware of the opportunity that your company could offer them.
So when you are looking for that next hire, look beyond the fee that a recruiter charges. Consider their service and the work they do for that fee, versus the valuable cost of your time. You may well be surprised at just how cost effective using a recruiter can be.