How much does the volume your agency supplier works at affect the quality of service they provide to you and the candidates you want them to represent?

Lets do the maths.

Assuming a fill rate of 20%, which is commonly mooted in the UK for contingency recruitment. And assuming a recruiter is targetted with 5 filled vacancies a month.

That means they need at least 25 new vacancies a month to hit target.

On new vacancies alone, and assuming a dedicated recruiter works 50 hours a week (!), this allows them 8-10 hours to fill your vacancy. But this time also includes business development, service delivery, and aftercare.

Of these vacancies some will be easier to fill, so it goes without saying these take priority if that recruiter wants to hit their threshold.

And considering many vacancies take 2 to 3 months to fill, these harder vacancies will stack up, taking less and less priority as new fillable vacancies come through.

Yet these are the problem vacancies you most want to fill.

Vacancies that need insight, contextual adaptation and a requirement for scarce skill. Not something you want an agency just to keep an eye out on, in case someone great stumbles across their desk. That's pot luck, rather than a measured approach.

Quite the dichotomy!

Doesn't logic follow that you give your contingency suppliers fillable vacancies, where everybody's happy, and look at your problem vacancies with a different lens?

What might that look like?

Is it the same approach that is effective for common skills and volume?

Or is it an approach focused on quality and specificity?

And if the second is what you need, doesn't it make sense to do that from the outset, when you confirm your requirements, partnering strategically with the right recruiter?

Or is it better to lose those three months, before you make a change?