Survey: 70% of Recruiters Allow Clients To Steal Candidates

UK Recruiter recently completed a survey which revealed that 69% of recruiters submit candidates to their clients without following up, resulting in back door hires. When a successful placement is later identified, most recruiters will either call to negotiate or send an invoice directly over - but what about the successful placements that are never found?

In their infographic, UK Recruiter suggests 4 things to keep missed placements to a minimum:

  1. Get a signed agreement. This eliminates any future discrepancy about whether the client agreed to pay you for candidate referrals, and on what terms. This will also make it easier to collect payment in the event that you discover a missed placement later on.
  2. Don't send unsolicited CVs. Without a signed agreement, the client can argue that they never agreed to pay you for candidate referrals - so don't send a single CV until the agreement is signed and returned to you - especially to a client that you don't have a prior relationship with.
  3. Build strong client relationships. A client is less likely to hire a candidate behind your back if they have a good relationship with you - so be sure to provide great customer service and get to know your clients on a personal level.
  4. Track your candidate submissions. Even if you follow the other three pieces of advice, you may still be a victim of missed placements - so it's crucial that you track your candidate submissions throughout your protection period.



What do you do to cut down on back door hires?

Views: 1552

Comment by Mitch Sullivan on March 31, 2015 at 1:22am

Hiring a candidate as a result of an unknown agency sending in an unsolicited CV isn't a back door hire.

Comment by Nicholas Meyler on March 31, 2015 at 2:29am

Could still be contestable, in certain circumstances.  There is a lot of vagueness in some of the terms used.

Comment by Mitch Sullivan on March 31, 2015 at 2:29am

OK, "unknown" may have been a clumsy choice of word.

Let's replace it with "not engaged with".  An agency who you have no relationship with and/or who you haven't briefed on a job vacancy.

Comment by Nicholas Meyler on March 31, 2015 at 2:33am

Good point.  I think you are fundamentally correct, but if it all comes down to "procuring cause", and that is the 'gold standard' within the Industry, then arguments could be made in favor of the company making the submission, possibly.  Still, submitting a resume to an 'unwilling' client is hardly a good idea.

Comment by Nicholas Meyler on July 30, 2016 at 12:48am

I will also state that sometimes it is quite obvious that a company has hired a referral (during a retained search) who came from an earlier search (over a year ago), and that the legal ramifications of suing are ambiguous enough that CEOs are unwilling to pursue litigation on behalf of their company, merely because they are afraid of countersuit, failure, etc.  Seems like a bad move, but it happens.  Vagueness of terms in contracts, etc. is partly responsible, but I think lack of ambition is another cause.  Sometimes companies "err on the side of safety" because they perceive so much is at stake, even when they have an 'open and shut' case.


You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!

Join RecruitingBlogs


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

Just enter your e-mail address below



RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2019   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

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