When an employer works with a recruitment agency, it's often an arms length arrangement - here's the job description; send us CVs by Friday at 11am.

Even if a brief is allowed, CVs that are sent don't have inertia.

By which I mean only the quality of information in the CV has import, not who has sent it and why.

Which leads to the situation where the best CVs win and in a multi-agency competition, the fastest to send those CVs over wins.

After all, most candidates in this kind of process are visible by all agencies, including those that are working on vacancies with other employers.

"Oh this isn't the role with ABC again is it?"

Not only does a CV have no inertia, but they have risk of attrition attached too.

When the average fill rate in the UK is estimated to be between 20% and 30% you can see how this informs both the approach of the agency and the employer - reduce risk by increasing volume and hedging bets.

Quantity becomes queen over quality.

Does recruitment have to be this way?

What if, instead, you demand a relationship that provides:

- access to candidates you don't have access to yourself
- candidates who aren't vested in other recruitment processes
- and if they are, they see you as an employer of choice, because of how your process is run
- candidates who are fully qualified so that their aspirations, capability and values complement your needs, culture and context
- as well as basic points like having a salary requirement in line with your budget
- candidates who are assessed in a way that means you don't need to do a "1st interview to check broad suitability", where you receive a report on that suitability
- so that when you do meet them for the first time at 2nd interview, you already know you are selecting not eliminating

Candidates that have inertia.

Of course everything from there would follow the same focus on quality - feedback, clarity, negotiation, post offer expectation management, preboarding and onboarding.

While you also know that every other touchpoint with the candidates you didn't see still advocated you as a great place to work.

And you would be confident the person you employ is likely to thrive in your environment over the long-term, meeting or surpassing your expectations, with a 12 month guarantee that if things don't work out, they will be replaced for free.

What would you pay for that kind of service?
What would you need to do to enable that service?
What should that kind of partnership require of you?

Anyway, if you're a UK employer that's decent to your people; if you've a key hire, problem vacancy or a brand new role; and if you're still here - maybe we can talk.