Evaluating managed staffing recruiting models

Posted by: Joel Capperella

Previously we discussed how to evaluate the need for a managed staffing program and revealed the three most common managed staffing program methods.

If you have already decided to deploy a managed staffing program and have chosen to use a third party to run it, it’s time to perform an evaluation of possible staffing partners. A crucial element of this evaluation will be to look closely at the recruiting model used by the managed staffing partner. The way in which talent is sourced and brought into the organization has an impact on both the quality and the cost.

In order to properly evaluate the recruiting models that professional staffing partners will bring to the table, you must first understand your own organization’s talent needs and processes.

The managed staffing partners’ recruiting model should fit with your current process culture and also help advance your organization’s desire to continuously shape and improve talent acquisition processes. Ultimately, the recruiting method selected should enable your company to better engage the candidate marketplace in the skill areas that matter most.

Here are the most common models of recruiting found across managed staffing programs.

Provider discrete. This recruiting method is completely at the discretion of each professional staffing provider participating in the managed staffing program. 

Pros:

• Allows for evaluation of quality against various models
• Gives hiring managers the ability to establish preferences that suit their needs

Cons:

• Difficult to control cost and quality, regardless of what type of managed staffing approach is in place
• Prone to leaving gaps in coverage (geographically or by skill type) due to potential inability of any single or combination of partners to fill specific recruiting needs

Branch coverage. This recruiting model typically leverages the individual branch offices of a specific staffing provider participating in the managed staffing program.

Pros:

• Offers physical presence of recruiters to a company’s regional offices
• Individual offices typically operate their own P&L, which may naturally incentivize their performance

Cons:

• At the mercy of individual offices of the same parent company, which could result in a frustrating level of inconsistency
• Physical presence might not translate to good coverage ability. That is, the local office might focus on different skill sets than the managed staffing program requires.
• Limited ability to scale beyond individual branch capabilities

Centralized branch coverage. Regional branch offices of participating staffing providers are centrally managed by either the managed staffing provider or by a participating supplier’s parent company.

Pros:

• Increases accountability and control over quality and cost
• Collaborative recruiting across multiple offices of participating staffing providers

Cons:

• Consistency and quality between participating staffing providers might vary
• Performance reporting, even when using technology, can potentially be inaccurate

Dedicated hub. This recruiting method involves remote recruiting by a team dedicated to a specific client or focused only on similar managed staffing clients.

Pros:

• Typically advanced methods that maximize the value of social media recruiting outlets
• Increased ability to source ahead of talent demand
• Better communication of client position, employment brand, and skill needs to candidate marketplace
• Improves cost of delivery

Cons:

• No physical presence
• Virtual on-boarding might not align with current client processes
• Managed staffing provider running project must support dedicated hub methods
• Hub recruiting resources might be better at handling volume than handling hard-to-find and discrete skill sets

Hybrid hub and branch. In this recruiting model, coverage is handled by both locally connected branch offices and a centralized, remote recruiting hub.

Pros:

• Provides ability to handle both generic volume and specific, hard-to-source skill sets
• Greater ability to develop talent community with shared ownership
• Local and national representation
• Better communication of client employment brand to candidate marketplace
• Improves cost of delivery
• Greater ability to scale with client needs

Cons:

• Physical presence varies
• On-boarding experience might be inconsistent
• Hub coverage might vary depending on sourcing volume and shared recruiting resources
• Participating MSP must have ability to deploy the hybrid recruiting model

It is possible that a selected managed staffing program will utilize more than one model. It is important to understand the model that will dominate and to examine the provider’s success with this approach.

It is also advisable to avoid making cost be the determining factor in selection. Such an approach invariably leads to questionable coverage and poor supplier performance. Seek out alternatives that naturally improve the cost efficiency of delivery while ensuring that the right level of focus is given in the correct proportions to hard-to-find skill sourcing and covering expected volume.