Is contingent recruitment evil?

[Paul Jacobs]

Do you get the sense from reading the recent blog posts (eg and eg) from Recruitment 2.0 members Aaron Dodd and Greg Savage and watching this video from Bede Ashby, that working in competition with other agencies, rather than on a retained / exclusive basis, is not in a recruiter's / agency's or client's best interests?

Do you agree with their sentiment? If it is bad for the industry's image and impacts negatively on the service provided, should the recruitment industry in the Asia Pacific region band together and change the rules?

On the flip-side, are there any advantages for the client and recruiter with a contingency model? (other than the client paying a potentially lower rate)

Why is the contingency model more common in some roles (eg IT recruitment)?

[Ross Clennett]

Contingent recruitment will continue to thrive while clients in certain sectors eg IT, sales, public practice law, prefer it and the recruitment agency market is happy to supply that service. It's akin to a lottery and if a recruiter can continue to score a (eg) $15,000 fee for 5 or 6 hours (direct) work and the client does not have to pay any recruiter for work done and result not delivered then contingency it's not going to go out of style any time soon.

If recruiters were skilled in clearly demonstrating to the client how a contingent assignment rarely provides the best outcome for all parties (candidates, clients and recruiters) then there would be far less of it.