I’d be keen to know the views, and experiences others have had on this. What has worked best for your business?

  • A) Recruiting non experienced recruiters and training them from scratch?
  • B) Recruiting experienced recruiters who should hit the ground running?

From my ‘personal’ experience, I’ve always seen greater results recruiting individuals with no experience in recruitment, and in many cases no sales experience either. They’ve always started with an ice cold desk, and learned the role as their desk develops. In most cases, every individual I’ve trained from scratch has achieved their first placement within the first 2 months.

On the other side of the coin I’ve also hired ‘experienced’ recruiters, all with a minimum 2 years experience. When looking at the records, the time it takes for the experienced recruiters to generate their first placement has been exactly the same; 2 months.

I use the first placement scenario purely as an example of comparison. When I’ve compared the first year fees generated I’ve also found very little difference between the two.  

It would be intriguing to see what the majority preference is in hiring.

  • A) Hiring non experienced recruiters, training them from scratch



  • B) Hiring experienced recruiters 

Views: 319

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

While ramp up time maybe the same, I'd be interested to know the difference in turnover between the two.  While recruiting may not be for everyone, loyality among experienced recruiters may not be as high.

Reply to Discussion



All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below


RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2024   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service