Oxford provided a survey in 2008 which asks employers if they believed they would get a better candidate from utilizing 5 contingency search firms or one retained firm or contingency firm with an exclusive arrangement. 91% stated contingency. Oxford spent the next year educating these employers with facts and statistics to show that utilizing more search firms was a fallacy.

Here’s why:

Contingency search is a race. Recruiters search for qualified candidates, and will send a candidate that is a 50% fit to log in the name. They all look for the low hanging fruit. The recruiters are not looking for the top 10% in the marketplace because they do not have the time to locate the top 10%. Quality control rests in the hands of the client.

Since speed is the number one criteria, recruiters are sending low to mid quality talent and the hiring manager is in charge of quality control and is making his decision from the pool of not so high quality candidates. The problem for the employer is that if he has seen a bunch of losers that have the appropriate criteria in their resume, he will hire the first one that can walk and chew gum at the same time. He is primarily looking not at A caliber candidates. The client is in most cases looking at b and c caliber candidates.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king. The Client has a high propensity for a mis-hire with b and c players because the candidate needs to be replaced or is not achieving their results within 3 -6 months. Jack Welch, CEO of IBM in topgrading stated that he is only hiring A players and is letting go of C players. Brad Smart , PHD, helped him with the A, B and C players. The A players got promoted, the next 40% percent were B players, the workabees. The C players were let go. Jack Welch in his book straight from the gut talked about how to hire and interview A players. By understanding talent management you have a common denominator. A players were the only candidates that can allow an organization to excel and they were the only level that Welch would hire. Jack Welch was the first person who says he is hiring a players and letting go of c players.

At Oxford we believe in a shared risk search approach. We consistently send in 90-95% fits working with the shared risk model. You receive one to two candidates to make sure we are on target. Time is not of the essence so we have the time to find the A players. The A players are not on the job boards, they are not looking at linkedin postings. In plain English locating and recruiting an A Candidate is like trying to have a molar extracted from the back of your jaw. The search is not a race and there is not a misfire. The Difference is that you are now making a decision to hire from the the best talent that is available versus making a decision from the best of the worst. Quality control now rests with the search firm. We define hiring the wrong person as a misfire because you aimed your sights in the wrong area. You will have one misfire out of every two 2 hires when hiring B and C candidates.

They can’t afford the mishire.

Additionally There are two messages you can promote to the marketplace One message is that there is a job opening on the street with a bunch of recruiters working it. The other is the proper message. It is one message to the marketplace with a value proposition to the marketplace from one source.

When you have multiple recruiters on the same assignment, the check goes to the recruiter who logs the candidate first primarily by looking at low hanging fruit on the job boards and from posting ads. They are not finding the hidden players. It is making the best decision they can from the worst in the marketplace.

How to proceed.

We would like to change the process and have you make the best decision from the best talent. The cost to the company is 15 to 24 times the salary for a misfire.

We want you hiring from the best of the best rather than hiring from the best of the worst. We would like to change your paradyme to only working with
A Players which will dramatically change your job and increase your bonuses.

We need 3-4 weeks to find these individuals.

We will need to develop an employer value proposition with you.

We need to take them through a winning hiring process that keeps them fired up and allows you to get the information.

we take this process and make it a higher quality process with us being the quality control.

Our opportunity cost for midlevel searches is $12,500. We ask you to share the risk for this search by advancing $5,000. We give you a performance guarantee that we will return the$5,000 if we do not deliver three quality candidates in 30 days. Track Record – We have always succeeded with each search and never had to return the advance.

The question now before you is are you want to continue doing or would you rather build their company taking it to the top?

For more information call?