I spent time this morning reading a blog on a British based site leadingemployersblog.com. It was titled "The Big Recruitment Debate". It was a debate with only one view being represented, which does not make a debate.

The poster named “Admin” asked the question;
‘Is it time to review the way that recruitment works?
- if a business was really committed to recruiting the absolute best, the absolute most suitable would they really put their recruitment in the hands of a third party that absolutely can not communicate the message of the business as well as someone that works there?
- Surely a website/jobsite/resource that has a large market share in a sector can offer you the choice, the control and the ability to recruit the best people at a more cost effective rate?”

This is a simplification, and I'm paraphrasing, but he/she compared recruiting through a 3rd party to making travel arrangements in the "old" days by going to the friendly local travel agent. Now you can to do it all yourself (easier & cheaper) online. When he makes travel arrangements now he can view the hotel inside and out and make an informed decision based upon the criteria he/she wants; not that of a third person that is driven by the desire to sell me the one they want to.

So, I went on to read the responses assuming someone would talk about the very valid reasons "outsourcing" recruitment has value. Advertising and job boards had a defender. One response came from an advertising agent that defended job boards by putting the blame "squarely at the consultancy’s door. If you always put bad job ads on the web you will always get bad response.”

Another responder referenced a slide presentation that said "Recruiters = Outsiders".

And still another responder said: "The main reasons why many organisations are ditching their recruitment outsourcing arrangements are"
1. They believe that their own employees can do the job better than those of a third party.
2. They have realised that to outsource recruitment means you can’t trust a third party to portray your company’s image in the best light.
3. They consider that, where recruitment has been outsourced, applicants are confused about who they are communicating with.

Finally - "You can’t sell Life Assurance without an FPC, but yet some cowboy can advise a person on what they should do in their next career step?"

For Crissakes! Is that what I’ve been doing for a living for the past 30+ years? A cowboy sales reps that know nothing about my client companies and is motivated only by making a sale? Advising candidates about their careers without the knowledge or ability to offer that advice? Damn, can’t believe I’ve gotten away with it all this time!

Let me offer some debate - The fact is that most 3rd party recruiters more often than not know more about the companies than a lot of the people working in them. Yes, we are motivated by making money which requires us to make placements but……if that were our only motivation we would not last long. We are in the employment marketplace everyday and have a broad outlook of our industry specialty. Our livelihood depends upon our knowledge of our market, our candidates, the companies' cultures, etc. etc. etc. We have the knowledge; the expertise and the ability to knock on hidden doors not open to “insiders” to uncover talent.

The problem seems to be that of perception. The implication is that new technology is making us obsolete. I heard the same predictions when Monster & CareerBuilder, etc. became so universal. It didn’t happen then but we can’t ignore the opinions and ideas out there now.

What can we do to elevate the negative perceptions or should we not be concerned. Should we ignore the detractors and doomsayers? Are we in danger of losing the clients that value our expertise to DIY recruiting?