In brand republic 4th oct 07
Promotions & Incentives 04-Oct-07
Senior figures from the sales promotion world have begun calling for recruitment agencies to contribute towards the cost of staff training, but not everyone agrees. James Quilter joins the debate.
The increasing number of recruitment agencies flourishing in the marketing sector reflects the modern-day adage that there is no such thing as a job for life. And these agencies exist for good reason, providing an essential service to employers and employees alike. However, they have come under fire from the very industry they are there to serve.
ISP chairman Clive Mishon has criticised recruitment agencies for their "schizophrenic" relationship with the industry, arguing that they take a lot out of the sector, but put nothing back in (see box, right). He says recruitment firms make money from the development of staff, which has been paid for by agencies, and suggests recruiters should contribute towards the cost of training.
WIN-WIN SITUATION
At first glance, Mishon's idea should be a win-win for agencies and recruiters alike, because better staff training means improved candidates for jobs. But hiding just below the surface is another issue - the lack of staff in the industry. Fewer graduates moving into the agency sector in recent years means well-trained staff, especially account directors and planners, come at a premium. Mishon believes a levy on recruiters to pay for training could help solve this problem.
Mishon's view that recruiters should contribute to training is shared by the MCCA. Its chairman Graham Kemp says recruitment consultants should be more involved in the industry, but admits any arrangement on training would have to be reciprocal. "It has to be collaborative," he says. "You can't force these companies to sacrifice profit. That would be divisive. But, yes, recruitment firms should put something back into the industry."
While marketing agencies accept recruitment companies are essential, stories abound of poor practice. This includes actions such as headhunting their own agency client's staff and moving in one employee only to take them on to another agency once the fee has been paid.
Saatchi & Saatchi X managing director Simon Hathaway says he understands Mishon's view of the recruitment sector, but doubts whether his aims would make a difference. He argues that the decline of marketing in clients' boardrooms has persuaded graduates to look at other sectors such as management consultancy.
Hathaway says: "We all agree that recruitment agencies are up there with estate agents in terms of business practices and lack of trust. But I don't know if getting them involved in training is going to solve the real problems - keeping people in the business and getting top graduates into agencies."
Not all agencies see recruiters in the same light as Hathaway. Mark Joy, managing director of Branded Moments of Truth, labels the idea that recruiters should pay for training as "laughable". He says the onus is on marketing agencies to keep staff happy.
"It's a free labour market and the reality is that agencies benefit from recruiters' expertise as well as their employees," he says. "They provide a service in getting us qualified people and saving us time. The idea that they should compensate agencies for training staff is unrealistic. You train people because you need them to do the job properly and justify your fee to the client."
MEASURE FOR MEASURE
Unsurprisingly, Joy's view is echoed by the recruitment agencies themselves. Christina Elsom, director of Blue Skies Careers, disagrees with Mishon. She says her company measures candidates on a number of criteria, such as whether they would fit in with an agency's culture or whether they had the experience to do the job. Training would not necessarily be at the top of this list.
Emma Brierley, chief executive and founder of recruitment agency Xchange-team says the fee paid by agencies is spent identifying potential candidates and vetting them on a range of criteria besides training.
"People move around for all kinds of reasons. It seems that Mishon is trying to blame the recruitment industry for people wanting to move jobs," Brierley says. "Very few people are tempted to leave because headhunters offer them jobs. Office politics is a bigger reason for leaving than pay or recognition."
Elsom's response to Mishon is more blunt. "Our job is to find jobs for people and fill vacancies, we are not there to improve people's skills," she says.
Both agencies are adamant they are not involved in headhunting agency staffers and reiterate that all candidates come to them voluntarily.
NO ALTERNATIVE
Mishon, who readily admits to using recruitment agencies, accepts that in a market where demand outstrips supply, there is little alternative but to use recruiters. But he says that the agencies, as the customer in this arrangement, should be able to 'induce' recruiters to make some sort of contribution to training. This is one area of difference between Mishon and the MCCA.
However, some sort of rapprochement between the two sides could be on the cards. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) is taking on the rogues in the industry with the introduction of a code for the marketing sector. This will consist of a code of practice for recruitment companies as well as customer and candidate charters.
The REC initiative, which is led by Brierley, aims to tackle sharp practices in the sector, such as sending out CVs to companies without discussing the opportunity with the candidate first.
Mishon will watch developments with interest, but whether the code goes as far as he would like is another matter. However, there is room for further collaboration between the trade associations. Blue Skies' Elsom refuses to rule out some sort of contribution to the training of graduates. While Kemp at the MCCA hopes cooperation will develop to the point where recruitment agencies will be able to get accreditation from the trade body.
Whatever the outcome, the shortage of staff means that discussions between recruitment agencies and the trade bodies are likely to continue in the short term. Unfortunately for the trade bodies when it comes to the issue of staffing, the agencies they represent are in a sellers' market and in that situation buyers will have to be realistic in their demands.
WHAT PRICE DEVELOPMENT?
Businesses in the marketing services arena are only as good as the people that they employ - so the biggest task of agency heads is to recruit, develop and retain this talent. In this task they have a schizophrenic relationship with the recruitment agencies because they are responsible in the giving and taking away of this talent.
It is the marketing agencies that pay to recruit the talent and meet the costs of training, only to then see that talent recruited into a competitor. This volume of turnover is good for recruitment agencies, but makes one wonder what they are putting back. What are they doing to address this issue with the rest of us? They can no longer merely be interested bystanders.
I would appeal to all these recruitment businesses to step up and work with those responsible for developing industry qualifications, such as the ISP Diploma, in meeting our challenges. Now is the time for them to play - and pay - their part in the development of talent as well as helping people to move on in their careers.
And before recruiters say, "well, what's in it for me?" (other than more dynamic and better qualified candidates), I believe that the development of an effective partnership between recruitment agencies and industry trade bodies will help to address some of the gripes expressed by the former. After all, a problem shared is often a problem solved.