I really like when new ideas come around and universal statements are made that the cool new thing is going to do away with the “old” way.
A primary difference between Hyrian and traditional search firms is in the way it gets paid. Most firms are paid between 20 and 30 percent of a new hire's salary, and only when the position is actually filled. Hyrian charges a flat fee, tiered according to the complexity of the hiring process for each position. It gets paid for the candidate search, even if a client decides to scrap the position.
For example, a search firm would normally charge a fee of between $15,000 and $22,500 for a successful placement of a $75,000-a-year salaried senior accountant. Hyrian's fee would be $3,900.
Great, so they are less expensive than the traditional search firm. What I want to know is:
-What is the quality of candidates found?
-Through what means are they finding them?
-Will they be able to hire enough top-notch recruiters who want to work in this system?
-With a smaller fee will they be able to spend the 10, 20, 40 hours needed to find the difficult candidates or will they only be going after the easy to find ones also known as the low hanging fruit?
From what I have heard Hyrian is a good company. I respect them and I want to be clear about that.
But I remember getting in the business in 1998 and shortly there after hearing how Monster.com, the Internet, web sites and email were going to allow candidates direct access to hiring managers. That the recruiting industry as it was then was going to go away like the dinosaurs.
Here is a comment similar to my experience in the article:
Web sites like Monster.com, CareerBuider and other, even cheaper technologies have made it easier to find job candidates, and for candidates to find jobs, she said.
It is worth noting that the person quoted in the article that I have cited here is not a representative of Hyrian.
That last line I have an issue with. If it is easier to find candidates then why is Hyrian or any search firm in business? I would think employers could do this on their own and not need any assistance. Candidates should be knocking down the doors of employers and their security guards with tazers and batons trying to control the horde.
That is just not the case. New tools have not necessarily made finding the best or the right candidates any easier. Matching candidates to open jobs is still an art no matter how much new technologies try to make it into a science.
OK. I vented enough here.
Like the crocodile I and many of my colleagues will continue to adapt and will survive just fine.
I welcome the competition. Thanks for the motivation. Let’s get it on…