2014 a numbers game
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2014A Numbers Game
North American Staffing and Recruiting Trends Report
![Page 2: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Contents
3 Introduction & Key Findings
4 Revenue and Growth •RevenueExpectations •ActualRevenue •Headcount •BranchExpansion
6 Agency Health •RevenuefromRepeatClientBusiness •RelianceonLargeClients
7 Performance Benchmarks •MostImportantMetrics •TotalNumberofPlacementsGrowth •AverageFillRate •AverageHitRate •AverageTime-to-Fill •AverageSubmissionsPerHire •AverageApplicationsPerJobPosting •PercentageofPlacementsfromATS •FeePerPermPlacement
14 Compensation •CompensationPerformance •RealCompensation
16 Trends •GreatestOpportunityandBiggestThreat •SkillsShortage
17 Insights •CandidateSourcingStrategies •ATSImportancetoFirmSuccess •GreatestQualityofaSuccessfulRecruiter
20 Demographics
![Page 3: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Growth: •77%ofrespondentsmetorexceededtheirrevenuegoalsin2013,morethan2012,2011,or2010.
•75%offirmsplantogrowheadcountin2014,comparedto82%in2013.
•Growthininvestmentisslowing:only23%ofrespondents’firmsplantolaunchnewofficesin2014,comparedto48%lastyear.Firmsthatconsiderrecruitingtechnologyimportantaremorethantwiceaslikelytoopennewbranchlocations in2014.
Metrics: •Forthethirdyearinarow,totalnumberofplacementswasthemostimportantmetricforrecruitingagencies.
•Theaveragefillrateacrossallrespondentswas46%.
•Averagehitrateincreasedforrespondents,from33%in2012to40%in2013.
•Theaveragetime-to-fillin2013was6daysfortemp,8daysforcontract,and32daysforperm.
•Respondentsmade49%oftheirtotalplacementsusingcandidatesfromtheirinternaldatabases.
Candidates: •71%ofrespondentsadmittohavingashortageofskilledcandidatesintheirrespectivesectorsfor2014versus76%for2013.
•Thebestsourceofqualifiedcandidatesfor2013wasexistingcandidatesfromrespondents’applicanttrackingsystems,followedbyreferralsandsocialmedia.
Key Findings
Introduction
In December of 2013, Bullhorn conducted its fourth annual Staffing and Recruiting Trends survey of 1,337 agency recruiting professionals.Comprisedofperformancebenchmarks,metrics,andrevenueandcompensationfigures,thisreportanalyzesindustryinsightsbyfirmsize,recruitmenttype,industry,rolerecruited,androleofrespondent.Itisacompendiumofusefulstatisticsdesignedtohelprecruitingprofessionalsdeterminewheretheystandinrelationtotheirpeers.
Forthepurposesoftheanalysesinthisreport,wesegmentedstaffingandrecruitingagenciesintofoursizes,basedontheirnumberofsalespeopleandrecruiters:1-10(small),11-25(lower-midsize), 26-74(upper-midsize),and75+(large).
2013wasbyalmostallaccountsaverygoodyearforthestaffingandrecruitingindustry.Overallrevenue,aswellastotalnumberofplacements–themostimportantmetricforfirmsacrosstheboard–increasedoverthepastyear.However,therearesignsofaslowdownfor2014.Agenciesaremoreconservativeabouttheirgrowthplans,andsomefirmsareoverlyreliantonasinglelargeclientforrevenue.Meanwhile,contractandtempfirmsaregainingmomentumfor2014,asthepopularityofrecruitingtechnologyunderscoresaneedforspeedandperformance.
3
![Page 4: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Revenue and Growth
Revenue Expectations: 77%ofrespondentsmetorexceededtheirrevenuegoalsin2013,morethan2012,2011,or2010. Intermsofrevenueexpectationsforthecomingyear,recruitingprofessionalsareoptimistic.88% expectsomesortofincreaseandonly3%anticipateadecline;92%ofrespondents expectedtoincreaserevenuefor2013. Largefirmsaremostbullishongrowthingeneral.
Actual Revenue: Weaskedrespondentstodisclosetheirfirms’actualrevenuesfor2013.Weexpressedthesefiguresasrevenueperrecruiter/salespersonbyfirmsizeandrecruitmenttype.
Firms That Met Or Exceeded Revenue Goals
2010 71%
2011
2012
2013
70%
73%
77%
60% 70% 80%
Byrecruitmenttype,largetemporaryfirmsandlargecontractfirmshadthehighestrevenueperrecruiter/salesperson($604,000and$549,000,respectively).RPOfirmsingeneralwereonthelowerend;smallRPOfirmshadrevenueperrecruiter/salespersonof$171,000.
Revenue Per Recruiter/Salesperson By Firm Size and Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive Search- Retained
$0 $300,000 $700,000
Executive Search - Contingent
RPO*
1-1011-2526-7475+
N/A 75+
*Note: Due to limited sample size we did not calculate large RPO firm revenue.
Revenue Per Recruiter/Salesperson By Firm Size
1-10 $266,000
11-25
26-74
75+
$339,000
$336,000
$528,000
$0 $300,000 $600,000
![Page 5: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Headcount: Hiringplansfor2014arehealthy,withonly2%ofrespondentsdisclosingthattheirfirmsplantoreduceheadcount,and75%planningtogrowit.However,thisislessaggressivethanlastyear, when82%plannedtoaddstaff.
2014 Headcount Plan By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0% 50%
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
Add EmployeesReduce EmployeesKeep Employee Count the Same
100%
86% 13%1%
77% 22%2%
68% 29%2%
69% 31%0%
63% 37%1%
64% 33%3%
Branch Expansion: Weaskedrespondentsiftheirfirmsplannedtoexpandintonewbranchorofficelocationsin2014.Giventhepositivenewsaboutrevenuegrowth,weexpectedaggressiveexpansionplans.Thiswas farfromthecase.
Only23%ofrespondents’firmsplantolaunchnewofficesin2014.49%havenointentionofdoingso,and28%areunsure.For2013,morethandoublethenumberofrespondents’firmsplannedtoexpand.And2013wasn’tanisolatedcase.Whilethepercentageoffirmsmeetingorexceedingrevenuegoalsisgrowing,theirinvestmentinheadcountandphysicalexpansionisshrinking.
Interestingly, firms that consider recruiting technology important are more than twice as likely to open new branch locations in 2014. Amongthoserespondentswhoconsiderrecruitingtechnologysuchasapplicanttrackingsystemstobeimportanttosuccess,26%plantoexpandbranchlocationsin2014.Forthosewhoareneutralorconsiderrecruitingtechnologyunimportant, only12%plantoexpandbranchlocations.
Byprimaryrecruitmenttype,contingentexecutivesearchfirmsaremostconservativeintermsofheadcountplans,whereascontractandtempfirmsareprimedforheadcountgrowth.Interestingly,RPOfirms’growthplansarecomparativelymodest.GiventhetremendousgrowthRPOhas seeninthepastseveralyearsthisfinding wassurprising.
Firms Planning Branch Expansion
2011 56%
2012
2013
2014
39%
48%
23%
0% 70%30%
![Page 6: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Agency Health
Revenue from Repeat Client Business:Firmsthatgenerateahighpercentageoftheirrevenuefromrepeatclientbusinessdemonstratethevalueofnurturingstrongcustomerrelationshipsanddeliveringsustainableresults.Itappearsasthoughstaffingandrecruitingfirmsunderstandtheimportanceofcustomerrelationshipsandkeymetrics(aswe’llseelater): 72% of respondents generate 50% or more of their revenue from repeat client business.
Resultswererelativelysimilaracrossrecruitmenttypes,rangingfrom57%ofrevenuefromrepeatbusinessforpermfirmsto64%fortempfirms.
% of Firms That Can Stay in Business if Largest Client Was Lost
1-10 93%
11-25
26-74
75+
95%
100%
98%
Firm
Size
70% 85% 100%
Reliance on Large Clients: Whilerevenuefromrepeatclientbusinessisasignofstrongagencyhealth,relyingtooheavilyonasingleclientcanberisky.Thenextquestionweaskedinthesurvey–“what percentage of your total revenue does your largest client represent?” –aimedtodeterminethenumberoffirmshedgingtheirbetsonadangerousproposition.
Bysize,thefindingswerefairlytame,withonedefiniteexception.48%ofupper-midsizerespondentsget70%ormoreoftheirrevenuefromtheirlargestclient.
Wealsoaskedrespondentsiftheycouldstayinbusinessiftheylosttheirlargestclient.Only6%ofrespondentsadmitthatthey’dcloseifthiswerethecase.However, 22% of respondents reported that 50% or more of their revenue comes from their largest client.
Percentage of Revenue from Repeat Client Business
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
Percentage of Revenue
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
5%
0-10%
8%
5%
11-20%
8%
21-30%
9%
31-40%
13%
41-50%
8%
51-60%
9%
61-70%
22%
71-80%
16%
81-90%
6%
91-100%
Whileseveralrespondentsatsmall,lower-midsize,andlargefirmsfeltatriskofshuttingdowniftheylosttheirlargestclient,norespondentsfromupper-midsizefirms(26-74)feltvulnerable.Upper-midsize firms are most reliant on a single client, but are the least afraid of going under if they lose that client.
![Page 7: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Performance Benchmarks
Forthe2014StaffingandRecruitingTrendsReport,wecollectedperformancebenchmarkdatafromthemorethan1,300recruitingprofessionalswhotookoursurvey.Usethedatainthissectiontoseehowyoucomparedtoyourpeersin2013.
Most Important Metrics: Weaskedrespondentstoranktheirkeymetricsinorderofmostimportant(#1)toleastimportant(#6).Tokeepmeasurementconsistentwithpreviousyears,wechartedthepercentageofrespondentswhoconsideredeachofthesixmetricswemeasuredasMOSTimportantinthegraphbelow.
Forthethirdyearinarow,totalnumberofplacementswasmostimportant.Interestingly,thismetric hasincreasedinimportanceeveryyear.Hitrate(definedasstartsdividedbysendouts),ontheotherhand,hasdeclinedheavilyyear-over-year.Andtime-to-fillhasbecomeincreasinglyimportant,thoughit’sstillatthebottomofthelist.
Whilefillratewasthesecondmostimportantmetricoverall,thiswasinfluencedbysmallfirms. Forlower-midsize,upper-midsize,andlargefirms,averagegrossmarginofplacementfeewas actuallythesecondmostimportantmetricin2013.
TotalnumberofplacementswasthetopmetricforallrecruitmenttypesexceptforRPOfirms, whichconsideredtotalnumberofplacementsandtime-to-filltobothbemostimportant.
HowSuccessfulWereFirmsin2013?
Most Important Key Performance Metric
201344%
2012
2011
0% 50%25%
Total Number of PlacementsFill RateAverage Gross Margin of Placement FeeTotal Number of Job OrdersHit RateTime-to-Fill
38%
31%
![Page 8: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Total Number of Placements Growth: Giventhattotalnumberofplacementswasagainthetopmetricforrecruitingfirms,weaskedwhetherrespondents’totalnumberofplacementsgrewoverthepastyear.
71%ofrespondentssaidtheirtotalplacementsgrew,20%saidtheydidn’t,and9%wereunsure.
Byrolerecruited,financeandaccounting,legal,andsalesprovedtobehotfunctionalareas.
% of Firms Exhibiting Total Placement Growth in 2013 — By Role Recruited
Finance &Accounting
LegalSales
Clinical/ScientificIT/Technical
Professional/SpecialtyHealthcare-GeneralEngineering/DesignHealthcare-Locum
TenensOffice/Clerical/Admin
All/GeneralistHealthcare-Per Diem
NurseLight Industrial
Healthcare-Travel NurseMarketing/Creative
0% 50% 100%
78%
76%
76%
74%
73%
73%
70%
70%
67%
65%67%
55%
55%
50%
50%
Average Fill Rate in 2013: The average fill rate across all respondents was 46%. Forthisreport,wedefinedfillrateasthetotalnumberofjobordersfilleddividedbythenumberofjobordersreceived,multipliedby100.
Respondentsfillingjobsfortheshippingindustryhadthehighestfillrate(67%),whilethoseinentertainmenthadthelowest(36%).
Forprimaryrecruitmenttype,retainedexecutivesearchfirmshadthehighestaveragefillrate.Contingentexecutivesearchfirmshadthelowestfillrateandcontractwasclosebehind.Thissuggeststhatifcontingentjobsaren’tfilledquickly,theymightnotendupfilledatall.
![Page 9: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Average Fill Rate By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0%
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
70%
41%
59%
44%
66%
39%
55%
30%
Average Hit Rate in 2013: Average hit rate increased for respondents from 33% in 2012 to 40% in 2013. Wedefinedhitrateasthenumberofsuccessfulplacements(starts)dividedbythetotalnumberofclientsubmissions(sendouts),multipliedby100.
Hitratevariedconsiderablybetweenindustries,withpackaging/warehouse/transporthavingthehighesthitrateandtherestaurant/hospitalityindustryhavingthelowest.
Average Fill Rate By Industry
ShippingPackaging/Transport/Warehouse
IndustrialConstruction
TransportationManufacturing
Consumer ProductsRetail
Business ServicesTelecommunications
Marketing/PR/Media/AdvertisingAutomotive
Energy/ChemicalPharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Restaurant/HospitalityHealthcareTechnology
Finance/InsuranceUtilities
GovernmentEntertainment
0% 40% 80%
67%
60%
55%
51%
51%
50%
48%
48%
47%
47%
47%
46%
46%
44%
43%
42%
41%
40%
40%
39%
36%
Average Hit Rate By Industry
Packaging/Transport/WarehouseShipping
TransportationIndustrial
ConstructionManufacturing
AutomotiveEnergy/Chemical
TelecommunicationsBusiness Services
RetailMarketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Pharma/Biotech/Medical EquipmentHealthcareTechnology
UtilitiesFinance/Insurance
GovernmentEntertainment
Consumer ProductsRestaurant/Hospitality
0% 30% 60%
50%
50%
50%
46%
44%
43%
42%
42%
41%
39%
38%
38%
38%
38%
37%
36%
36%
35%
34%
34%
31%
![Page 10: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Similartothefillratepattern,contingentexecutivesearchandcontractfirmshadthelowestaveragehitratebyrecruitmenttype.
Average Time-to-Fill in 2013: Forthereport,wedefinedtime-to-fillasthenumberofdaysorhoursrequiredtofillanewjobopening.Despitethefactthattime-to-fillwasdeemedtheleastimportantmetricofthesixweevaluated,analyzingityieldedsomevaluablefindings,mainly–whattypesofrespondentsandfirmsareobsessedwithspeed?Theansweris,aswe’veseenthroughoutthereport,tempandcontractfirms.
Broken out by recruitment type, the average time-to-fill in 2013 was 6 days for temporary, 8 days for contract, and 32 days for permanent.
Becausetime-to-fillvarieddrasticallybetweenrecruitingtypes,wesplitouttheindustryviewbycontract,temporary,andpermanentrecruitment.Interestingly,time-to-fillatcontractrecruitingfirmswaslowestfortheentertainmentandautoindustries(2days),butasmentionedearlier,entertainmentalsohadthelowestoverallfillrate(36%).What’sthepointoffillingjobsquicklyifyoudon’talsofillthemajority ofthem?
Average Time-to-Fill by Recruitment Type
ContractTemporary
PermanentExecutiveSearch -RetainedExecutiveSearch -Contingent
6
37
68
Days
832
Average Hit Rate By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0%
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
60%
37%
47%
39%
48%
37%
51%
30%
![Page 11: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Average Time-to-Fill By Industry — Contract
AutomotiveEntertainment
Marketing/PR/Media/AdvertisingPackaging/Transport/Warehouse
TelecommunicationsConstruction
ManufacturingIndustrial
HealthcareShipping
TechnologyPharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Finance/InsuranceTransportation
GovernmentRetail
UtilitiesConsumer Products
Business ServicesEnergy/Chemical
Restaurant/HospitalityDays
22
556
889910111111111111
1313131617
Average Time-to-Fill By Industry — Temporary
4
3
0.9
0.1Restaurant/HospitalityConstruction
Packaging/Transport/WarehouseShipping
Energy/ChemicalUtilities
HealthcareBusiness Services
TelecommunicationsMarketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Finance/InsuranceEntertainmentTransportation
GovernmentPharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
RetailManufacturing
Consumer ProductsIndustrial
TechnologyAutomotive
Days
0.2
23
4
5
67
81011111212
15
5
1530
Average Time-to-Fill By Industry — Permanent
12TransportationEntertainment
Packaging/Transport/WarehouseBusiness ServicesFinance/Insurance
AutomotiveUtilities
ManufacturingTelecommunications
TechnologyGovernment
Pharma/Biotech/Medical EquipmentConstruction
Retail
Industrial
Restaurant/Hospitality
Consumer Products
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Energy/Chemical
Healthcare
Shipping
Days
2121222325262727272829303131313434
N/A (limited sample size)
3639
For 50% of respondents overall, average time-to-fill improved in 2013; it worsened for only 13%. Weaskedrespondentswhosetime-to-fillworsenedtoexplainwhythishappened.ThemostcommonreasonsincludedstrictercorporateHRprocessesfromclients,alackofqualifiedcandidates(alsothebiggestoverallchallengefor2014),andalackofurgencyfromclients.
![Page 12: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Average Number of Submissions Per Hire: On average, respondents needed to submit 6 candidates to the client for every hire.
Theaveragenumberofcandidatesubmissionstotheclientforeveryonehirevariedbytypeofrecruitment,withfirmsspecializinginpermanentplacementrequiring7submittedcandidatesforeveryhirecomparedtojust4candidatesfortempagencies.
Byrolerecruited,mosthealthcarerolesrequiredthehighestaveragenumberofsubmissionsperhire,with11fortravelnurses,10forperdiemnurses,and6forgeneralhealthcarepositions.Theexceptionwaslocumtenenshealthcarepositions,whichrequiredthefewestsubmissions(4),asdidlegal.
Average Number of Applications Per Job Posting:Respondents received an average of 28 applications per job posting. Contractfirmsreceivedmuchfewerapplications–17–versusanaverageof49fortempfirms.Tempfirms’highnumberofapplicationscontrastedwiththeirlowsubmissionsperhire,indicatingthatwhilequantity ofcandidatesisn’taproblem,qualitymaybe.
Submissions Per Hire By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
8
5
4
7
6
4
5
4
Overall 6
Applications Per Job By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
60
18
49
35
47
17
42
Overall 28
30
![Page 13: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Perdiemnursingjobsreceivedthemostapplicationsperposting,followedbyoffice/clerical/adminjobs.Interestingly,office/clericalpositions,despitedrawingahighnumberofapplications,haveaskillsshortageproblemwhichwe’lldiscusslater.
Percentage of Firms’ Placements Made from Candidates in ATS:Overall,respondentsmade49%oftheirtotalplacementsusingcandidatesfromtheirapplicanttrackingdatabases.
Contractfirmsmadethehighestpercentageofplacementsusingexistingcandidatesfromtheirdatabases,whereasretainedexecutivesearchfirmsweremorelikelytoturntonewcandidates.Wealsoknowthatcontractfirmsthatdealwithahigh-volumebusinessaremorelikelytouseVMS,wherespeediscritical,andconsider“existingcandidatesfromtheATS”tobetheirmosteffectivehigh-qualitysourcingmethod(discussedlater).
Alow-volume,long-leadbusinesslikeretainedexecutivesearchwouldrelylessonexistingcandidateswhomaynotbeanexactfitforaseniorpositionandmoreonrelationship-centricsourcingstrategieslikesocialmedia,thenumberonecandidatesourcingstrategyforretainedexecsearchfirms.
Fee Per Perm Placement:Weaskedrespondentsatfirmsspecializingprimarilyinpermanentplacementtodisclosetheirfirm’saveragefeeperplacementin2013.Theaveragefeeperpermanentplacementwas$16,602.
Applications Per Job Post By Role Recruited
Healthcare-Per Diem NurseOffice/Clerical/Admin
All/GeneralistMarketing/Creative
Finance & AccountingHealthcare-Travel Nurse
SalesProfessional/Specialty
LegalLight Industrial
Healthcare-GeneralEngineering/Design
Clinical/ScientificIT/Technical
Healthcare-Locum Tenens
0 60
50
30
4741
393736
33323231
2423
1918
6
Average % of Placements Made From Existing Candidates — By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0%
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
60%
55%
51%
46%
45%
47%
51%
30%
![Page 14: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Compensation
Compensation Performance:Respondentsareoptimisticabouttheirtotalcompensationforthisyear(definedassalaryplusbonus),withmoreexpectinganincrease(84%)in2014thanfor2013(81%)or2012(77%).
Intermsofrealizedcompensationoverall,2013wasslightlylesslucrativethan2012.61%ofrespondentssawayear-over-yearcompensationincreasein2013,versus63%whosawonein2012.
Real Compensation in 2013:Nowlet’stalkactualnumbers.CEOsunsurprisinglymadethemostmoneyin2013($154,000),butsalespeopleandaccountmanagersmademuchmorethanrecruiters($92,000versus$74,000).
Actual Compensation Performance Compared to Previous Year
Increase Decrease Stay the Same
2010
24%
22%
54% 2011
29%
11%
60% 2012
13%
25%
63% 2013
25%
14%
61%
Average Compensation By Role
CEO/Owner/Managing DirectorSales VP
VP of OperationsRecruiting Manager
Salesperson/Account ManagerHR
IT Manager/CTO/CIORecruiter
Social Media/Marketing Manager
$0 $90,000 $180,000
$154,000$145,000
$123,000$109,000
$92,000$81,000
$75,000$74,000
$73,000
![Page 15: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Wealsobrokeoutcompensationbyfirmsizeandthreeroles.SmallfirmCEOsmadeanaverageof$149,000,whereasCEOsoflower-midsizefirmstoppedthechartswithaveragecompensationof$215,000.AndwhileCEOsatlargefirmsmadethesecond-highestamountamongtheirpeers,recruitersatlargefirmsmadetheleast—withaveragecompensationof$62,000.
Analyzingcompensationbyrecruitmenttype,it’sclearthatretainedexecutivesearchiswherethemoneyis.CEOsforfirmsspecializinginretainedexecutivesearchpulledinacomparativelymassive$230,000inaveragecompensation.
Average Compensation By Firm Size
CEO/Owner/Partner
Recruiter
Salesperson/Account Manager
$0 $250,000
1-1011-2526-7475+
$149,000
$100,000
$215,000$190,000$200,000
$78,000$79,000
$63,000$62,000
$83,000$97,000$92,000
$119,000
Average Compensation By Recruitment Type
CEO/Owner/Partner
Recruiter
Salesperson/Account Manager
$0 $250,000
ContractTemporaryPermanentExecutive Search - RetainedExecutive Search - Contingent
$146,000
$100,000
$159,000$139,000
$230,000$149,000
$71,000$53,000
$77,000$84,000$96,000
$95,000$74,000
$93,000$95,000$105,000
![Page 16: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Trends for 2014
We examined several key trends for 2014 based on our 2013 findings.
Greatest Opportunity and Biggest Threat:In2014,accordingtowrite-inresponses,thegreatestopportunityforrecruitingfirmsissocialmedia.In2013,thegreatestopportunityforrecruitingfirmswastheverysimilar“accesstopassivecandidatesviasocialmedia.”“Mobilerecruiting”isadistantsecondfor2014,followedby “BigData.”
For2014,basedonopen-endedresponses,thegreatestobstacleorthreattosuccessisalackofqualifiedcandidates.Thisiscloselyfollowedbyeconomicconcernsandincreasedcompetition.In2013thegreatestchallengewas“alackofskilledcandidates,”followedby“unrealisticclientexpectations.”
Percentage of Respondents with Shortage of Skilled Candidates — By Industry
TransportationUtilities
Pharma/Biotech/Medical EquipmentEntertainment
Energy/ChemicalIndustrial
TechnologyHealthcare
TelecommunicationsAutomotive
ManufacturingFinance/Insurance
ConstructionGovernment
Restaurant/HospitalityBusiness Services
RetailMarketing/PR/Media/AdvertisingPackaging/Transport/Warehouse
Consumer ProductsShipping
0% 50% 100%
84%
78%
77%
76%
73%
73%
72%
72%
71%
71%
70%
70%
70%
70%
68%
64%
64%
64%
61%
61%
54%
Skills Shortage:Thegoodnewsisthattheskillsshortage,whilebeingthebiggestchallengetwoyearsrunning,isslightlylesspervasivethisyear.71%ofrespondentsadmittohavingashortageofskilledcandidatesintheirrespectivesectorsfor2014versus76%for2013.
Byindustry,thefindingsaresomewhatpeculiar.Technology–whichinpreviousyearshadacriticalshortageofqualifiedtalent–isrunninginthemiddleofthepackthisyear.Transportation(84%),pharma/biotech(77%),andutilities(78%)allsawhigherreportedshortagesthantechnology(72%).
![Page 17: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Insights
What Makes a Successful Recruiting Firm?Forthisyear’sreportwesoughttolearnmoreaboutsomeoftheelementsofrecruitersuccess,startingwithbestpracticesforsourcingcandidates.
Candidate Sourcing Strategies:Weaskedrespondentstoranktheirmostsuccessfulcandidatesourcingstrategiesfor2013frombest(1)toworst(7).Themostsuccessfulsourceofqualifiedcandidatesfor2013wasexistingcandidatesfromrespondents’ownapplicanttrackingsystems(3.3),followedbyreferralsfromprevioussuccessfulplacements(3.4)andsocialmedia(3.5).
Jobboards–oftendiscussedanddebatedintherecruitingmedia–wereinthemiddlewitharankof3.6.Aggregatorsites(4.6),re-hires(4.8), andcoldcalling(4.8)didpoorly.
Segmentedbyfirmsize,thefindingsvarysignificantly.Forlargefirms,themostsuccessfulsourceofqualifiedcandidateswasjobboards,followedbyreferrals.Theleastsuccessfulsourcewascoldcalling.
Meanwhile,lower-midsizefirmsfaredbestusingexistingcandidatesfromtheirATS,followedbyreferralsandjobboards,butdidpoorlywithcoldcalling.Upper-midsizefirmsweremostsuccessfulwithexistingcandidatesfromtheirATSaswell,andalsosawstrongresultswithjobboardsandreferrals,butdidterriblywithre-hires.
Average Rank of Candidate Sourcing Strategies
Existing Candidates from ATSReferrals
Social MediaJob Boards
Aggregator SitesRe-hires
Cold Calling
1 7
3.3
Best Worst
3.43.53.6
4.64.84.8
Average Rank of Candidate Sourcing Strategies By Firm Size
1-1011-2526-7475+
Job Boards
Referrals from Placements
Existing Candidates from ATS
Social Media
Aggregator Sites
Re-hires
Cold Calling
3.1
1 7Best Worst
3.33.6
3.8
3.33.43.5
3.4
3.43.23.1
3.4
3.73.4
3.83.4
4.74.74.8
4.5
4.85.1
4.44.8
5.05.04.94.8
![Page 18: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Socialmediawasthemostsuccessfulsourceofqualitycandidatesforpermanentstaffingfirms–amajorevolutionsinceour2011TrendsReportfoundsocialmediatobetheleastsuccessfulsourcingmethod.Butforcontractfirms,wherespeedyplacementsarecrucial,existingcandidatesfromapplicanttrackingsystemswerethebestsourceofqualitycandidates.Fortempfirms,referralsfrompreviousplacementsprovedtobethebestsource.
Retainedandcontingentexecutivesearchfirms,notshowninthegraph,hadcommonresults.Forretainedexecsearch,thenumberonesourcingstrategy–likeperm–wassocialmedia(2.4ranking).Referralswereadistantsecond(3.3),andre-hiresweretheleasteffective(5.4).Forcontingentexecutivesearch,thetopcandidatesourcingstrategywasalsosocialmedia(3.0),followedcloselybyreferrals(3.0). Lastwas,again,re-hires(5.4).
How Important Is Recruiting Technology to Agency Success? Applicanttrackingsystems(ATS)arenolongeraluxury–they’reanintegralpartofagencysuccess.89%ofrespondentsconsiderrecruitingtechnologysuchasapplicanttrackingsystemstobeimportantorveryimportanttotheirfirms’successfor2014, ahigherpercentagethan2013or2012.
Firmsacrossallsizesconsiderrecruitingtechnologyimportanttosuccess,butsmallfirmareonthelowerendofthefindings,at86%,versus93%forlower-midsizefirms,94%forupper-midsizefirms,and93%forlargefirms.75%ofrespondentsfromlargefirmsconsideredrecruitingtechnologyveryimportant.
Byrecruitmenttype,thefindingsareverydifferent.Itappearsthattheshortertheplacementcycle,themorerespondentsconsiderrecruitingtechnologyimportanttosuccess.Forahigh-volumeplacementsbusinesslikeRPO,contractstaffing,andtempstaffing,recruitingtechnologysuchasapplicanttrackingsystemsiscrucial.A whopping 86% of RPO respondents think recruiting technology is not just important, but very important.Foralonger-leadorlower-volumebusinesslikeexecutivesearch,recruitingtechnologyisperceivedaslessimportant.In other words, the firms that rely most on recruiting technology have a need for speed and automation.
Respondents Who Consider Recruiting Technology Important or Very Important to Firm Success
2011
84%
2012
87%
2013
89%
Average Rank of Candidate Sourcing Strategies By Primary Recruitment Type
ContractTemporaryPermanent
Social Media
Referrals from Placements
Existing Candidates from ATS
Job Boards
Aggregator Sites
Cold Calling
Re-hires
1 7Best Worst
3.24.3
3.9
3.43.3
3.6
3.43.4
3.0
3.83.3
3.1
4.44.1
4.8
4.55.6
5.4
5.34.0
4.2
![Page 19: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Respondents Who Consider Recruiting Technology Important or Very Important to Firm Success
— By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
ExecutiveSearch -Retained
0%
ExecutiveSearch -Contingent
RPO
100%
92%
92%
86%
86%
79%
96%
50%
The Greatest Quality of a Successful Recruiter:Wewantedtoconcludethe2014TrendsReportonaqualitativenote.We’vepresentednumerousbenchmarksthatdemonstratewhatsuccesslookslikeforrecruitingfirms.Butwhatmakesasuccessfulrecruiter?Whatcharactertraitsseparatesomeonewho’sjustinitforpersonalgainfromarealprofessionalwhocaresaboutpeople–amasterofappreciatinghumanpotential?Whatisthesinglegreatestqualityofasuccessfulrecruiter?
Weaskedrespondentstowriteintheirideas,andthemostdominantanswerwas“persistence.”Thiswasfollowedby“the ability to listen”and,supportingtheimportanceofholdingonagainstallodds,“tenacity.”Onehighlyoptimisticindividualwrote“good looks.” Greatest Quality of a Recruiter
PersistenceAbility to Listen
TenacityAbility to Follow Up
CommunicationSourcing
NetworkingRelationship Building
PerseveranceDrive
Determination
0 80 160
141
51
50
48
48 37
31
31
28
26
23
![Page 20: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
DemographicsAbouttheTrendsReport
In December of 2013, Bullhorn conducted its annual trends survey of 1,337 North American recruiting agency professionals. Below is a breakdown of respondents by:
Firm Size (total number of salespeople and recruiters)
•1-10:58% •11-25:17% •26-74:13% •75+:12%
Primary Type of Recruitment
•Permanentand/orRPO:41% •Temporary:12% •Contract:33% •ExecutiveSearch-Contingentand/orExecutiveSearch-Retained:13%
Geographic Locations
•UnitedStates:91% •Canada:9%
Bullhorn®createssoftwareandservicesthathelprecruitersputtheworldtowork.Foroverfourteenyearsourinnovationshavepoweredtherecruitingandstaffingoperationsoffast-growingstart-upsupthroughtheworld’slargestemploymentbrands.HeadquarteredinBoston,withofficesinSt.Louis,Vancouver,LondonandSydney,Bullhorn’srecruitingCRM,backoffice,andsocialrecruitingproductsservemorethan10,000clientsrepresentingnearly300,000usersacross150countries. For more information: Please visit www.bullhorn.com or call +1(888) GoLive8.
BullhornisaregisteredtrademarkofBullhorn,Inc.Allothertrademarkscontainedhereinarethepropertyoftheirrespectiveowners.
1.888.GoLive8 • [email protected] • @bullhorn
About Bullhorn
20
![Page 21: 2014 A Numbers Game](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051521/586ce8171a28ab427c8ba0cf/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21