Written by Jonathan Evans, CEO of WorkForce Strategy Consultancy Discovery Adr.
I have been working in recruitment for over 30 years. Meanwhile, I saw the industry at its best and its worst. I have seen recruiters change their life, help companies to evolve and create opportunities that transform careers. I also saw how the structures and incentives underlying the industry can stimulate behavior that damage confidence, waste money and harm companies and candidates.
Recruitment has always been critical. Good people accelerate growth and strengthen resilience; Bad people create slow risks and progress. For decades, companies have turned to recruitment agencies to fill this gap. And let's be clear: there are many exceptional professionals in recruitment. They know their markets, they care about their customers and candidates, and they often work tirelessly to deliver.
The problem is not the people. The problem is the model.
The flaw in “no victory, no fees”
Most agencies always operate on an emergency: they are only paid if they place someone. On the surface, it looks like a safe and friendly option. But in practice, this creates behaviors that rarely serve companies or candidates.
When the reward is only delivered with a placement, the incentive is to focus on speed and volume. Recruiters are measured on CVs sent rather than the question of whether the rental will prosperate. Companies, being distrusted to be disappointed, push the costs to minimize the risks. The agencies, under pressure, continue the volume to protect their margins. The cycle is repeated, Trust is crumbling and everyone loses.
Even the best recruiters find themselves working in a system that rewards short -term victories on long -term success.
When the incentives go too far
Sometimes the model pushes behavior beyond ineffectiveness in practices that are ethically questionable. An example is the deliberate poaching of the candidates shortly after being placed, simply to obtain a second fee to fulfill the same role again.
During an ATS demonstration which I attended, a supplier proudly presented the flexibility of personalized fields. For an agency client, they had even built a “poch per date” field. The fact that such an area existed and was spoken of such casualness was deeply worrying. This has normalized the idea that the extraction of investments people is a legitimate commercial tactic.
These are practices like these that explain why recruitment has the reputation it makes. The industry is tarnished not by its people, but by the behaviors encouraged by a model which puts the costs before ethics, the confidence of customers and the well-being of candidates.
Why the model is not working in 2025
The weaknesses of the contingency have always been there. But in today's environment, they are impossible to ignore.
The skills shortages persist. UK employers continue to report difficult to move, in particular in engineering, health care, technology and professionals services. Each rental counts, and the cost of rehearsing the process when someone leaves is too large.
The expectations of the candidates have changed. Employees now want more than a pour of pay. They seek values, flexibility, objective and development opportunities. The traditional processes, driven by speed, do not assess these factors. Applicants are paid only on skills, not on motivation or cultural alignment. It is not surprising that research shows that 40% of hires fail within 18 months.
Technology has advanced. IA supply, behavioral profiling and employers' brand tools provide a more in -depth overview than database research. But emergency models discourage investment. Many agencies stick to old processes and mass awareness, because they cannot risk spending time on methods that may not lead to costs.
And let's not forget the limits of the CV. A CV is a declaration of information, sometimes facts, sometimes. I have never seen one who says “I played this role for four years but I was not very good in this area.” The past experience is not a guarantee of future success, especially when hiring for what the company will need in two or three years. The hiring ready for the future requires calibrated evaluations of the capacity, potential and stretching benched in accordance with an organizational strategy – not just an analysis of the history of the career.
The return on investment is under the microscope. Boards of directors do not oppose recruitment when it delivers. But they cannot justify expenses for hires that fail and destabilize the teams.
In this climate, “no victory, no fees” is less like protection and more for a bet.
Why internally is not the whole answer
Frustrated by agencies, many companies have constituted teams of internal talents. On the surface, this seems reasonable: reducing dependence on external providers, controlling costs and keeping knowledge internally. In reality, the image is more complex.
The desire to reduce costs is often the largest motivation factor, but few organizations measure if this approach is really more profitable. Once you take into account failed hires, productivity time and the burden of permanent general costs, savings are often minimal. Audits frequently show that any financial advantage is quickly eroded by risks.
Companies also underestimate the resource required to perform an effective internal function. Today's candidates market is more vocal than ever, to quickly share bad experiences that can damage an employer brand. Without an appropriate investment, internal teams may have trouble balancing the needs of the company by protecting the experience of candidates.
Even the established internal teams are faced with clear limits. They are often extended on too many fronts and do not have the knowledge and expertise of the market to pass higher contributions to niche technical hires and appointments for the elderly, while leaving a short time for the bases, such as giving candidates comments or even recognizing a request. The lack of feedback remains one of the largest complaints of job seekers and a major source of reputation damage to employers.
These teams are also linked by office hours, while candidates are expecting more and more to a commitment in the evening and on weekends. And although most of the time hiring, more significant measures of the quality of rental, retention, productivity time and the experience of candidates are often overlooked. The real hiring cost is rarely attributed because the internal teams are fixed general costs. Measuring correctly this would give the rooms of the Board of Directors a very different vision of the effectiveness of their hiring processes.
Internal functions can offer some control, but rarely flexibility to evolve from top to bottom with changing demand. This is why many organizations are still looking at support. The real question is not whether external partners are necessary – they are, but what type of partner will be aligned best with the long -term needs of the company.
Change time
It is not a question of criticizing recruiters. Many are excellent in what they are doing, often despite the constraints of the system. It is a question of recognizing that the The traditional contingency model is no longer suitable for purposes. It encourages bad behavior, creates distrust and, in some cases, actively damages companies and candidates.
The recruitment is well is invaluable. It transforms organizations, brings future leaders and strengthens resilience. Hurts, he wastes money, undermines the teams and damages the careers.
After three decades in industry, my point of view is simple: companies deserve better. They need recruitment solutions that are aligned with the strategy, not on transactions. They need quality, retention and resilience, not just CVs. And they need partners whose incentives correspond to their success, and not partners trapped in a model that puts costs in the short term above the long-term value.
In 2025, it is time for the industry to evolve.
About the author
Jonathan Evans is the founder and CEO of Discovery Adr, a award-winning advice specializing in labor strategy, the development of leadership and organizational resilience. With more than 25 years of experience by helping businesses, from the scaling of SMEs to global PLCs, Jonathan advises business leaders on how to create strategies of people who stimulate performance, reduce risks and support growth. He is a defender passionate about design resilience and transforming the risk of people into a strategic advantage.
