At AACC, I had the pleasure of a long conversation with a national sales manager of a $30M company (10 sales reps and 10 technical support folks) where I discovered his opinion that "sales reps these days just aren’t as strong as they used to be." I said, "Really? I’ve found that sales reps are just as good as the ones from the ‘good old days.’" So, naturally, I asked him about his hiring practices. He said that they hire their own people with no outside help (no recruiters) through ads, sales rep referrals, and a Rolodex. I asked him who screens the resumes and he told me that the regional manager handles that. I said, "Wow, that’s a lot of time." And he responded, "Yes, but we don’t have the money for a recruiter."

Really? Let’s break that down:

1. How much do you spend on ads? Monster.com costs about $395 per ad. A client came to me last spring who had placed 4 ads on Monster.com for a total of $1600 and ended up with a big bag of nothing. Her HR department ran ads in other places (she didn’t know where), and four weeks later, she was back at square one.

2. The regional sales manager (in this instance) costs between $100-$120K, which is around $2000/week. With each hire, you lose at least one week of time ($2000) to that effort. The more money the regional manager makes, the more it costs you in terms of their time. What about the manager who travels with her team? Deals get made in the field. With, say, asp (average selling price) ranges of $3000 up to $30000 and more, that adds up. If the sales manager isn’t there, how much is lost in potential sales? Not to mention the training and education lost for members of the current team.

3. Relying on ads and referrals seriously limits your recruiting efforts. If recruiting isn’t your business, you can’t possibly have access to the kind of pool a seasoned recruiting firm has–which means you’ll never have several great-quality candidates to choose from. Therefore (although there can be exceptions), you won’t hire the same caliber of candidates. (Given that this manager is displeased with his sales force, that would suggest that I am absolutely correct.)

So: Once this manager adds up (1) money spent on ads, (2) the lost time of his Regional Sales Manager, (3) lost sales/team-building/training time,(4) lost sales resulting from a lesser-quality sales force, and (5) the signigicant chance for hiring errors, working with a third-party recruiter becomes a reasonable and cost-effective option.

A good recruiting team is an asset to their clients in time and money savings, productivity, efficiency, and sales-force-effectiveness. They can also help management identify what is working and then retool recruiting to address those key points. For example, one management team in Tucson could find candidates, but was struggling with getting them to accept offers. When we retooled their process to include a mandatory "plant town," acceptances went up. They were just too close to the problem to see the solution. And they didn’t have the experience they needed. I know "best practices." I can help!!

A recruiter can help when you’re considering promoting internally by giving you a barometer of talent, availability, and salary that will help you feel better about giving the internal candidate a shot (or not). Knowing what your options are results in a better decision.

Bottom line–it’s a "cost vs. price" argument in which you have to consider all the factors:

Recruiter Costs vs. Manager Time

Limited candidate pool

Advertisement

Top-performing Reps

Time lost to hiring process

Missed opportunities in sales

Missed opportunities in building teams/territories

Cost vs. Price

Have you evaluated yours?