How recruiters work

Greg Wyatt • April 3, 2024

I’ll start with some disclaimers and points for consideration:

My knowledge is principally in the UK. I’ve worked as an external recruiter, in-house recruiter, hiring manager, and I’ve looked for work in a downturn.
This post is aimed at giving a little insight into standard working practices, how we work with hiring processes, and why that leads to some of the experiences commonly talked about. It’s about expectation management.
I’ll use broad terms where applicable, and a steer on how others may use more obscure terminology to discuss the same

These are the areas I’ll cover today:

What a candidate is
Different agency recruitment models
Different types of agency recruiter
The internal recruiter
A few takeaways

What a candidate is

If you jump on any recruiter website, I’m pretty sure the vast majority will say something along these lines:

“We’re disrupting the market with better candidate experience.” As well as a lot of promises of being different in a way that looks much the same as everyone else.

And yet what your experience is will differ wildly.

Part of this may be marketing gumpf.

My belief, based on many discussions with fellow recruiters, is that the industry definition is different to a job seeker’s definition.

The vast majority of hiring processes see candidates as an employable person being considered for a job.

I use this terminology myself. For example, a job advert may have 99 applications, while only 5 are potential candidates - because they meet the criteria of the role, while the remaining applicants don’t.

The nuance of this definition is that the more cynical the process, the worse the memory retention of which candidates were considered.

By this I mean some companies may have seen you as a candidate at 2nd stage interview, then completely forget about you if they’ve discounted you from the process - because you are no longer a candidate.

Using this definition, many recruiters think they give a first class of candidate experience because they only relate it to the people they consider as candidates.

This is equally true of someone who treats everyone decently and those who only treat people they place into jobs decently.

On the other hand, pretty much everyone that considers employment sees themselves as a candidate for employment.

After all, assuming you are accountable, you wouldn’t apply for any job you didn’t see yourself as suitable for.

And even if you chose not to apply, it’s not necessarily because you didn’t see yourself as a candidate. It may be because though you are a great candidate for that vacancy, your experience of the process made you choose to step away. Which might be as simple as not liking the advert or email you read.

There’s another industry nuance to the candidate definition.

In the same way you may have heard about the hidden jobs market, so too do we talk about the passive candidate market:

“70% of candidates aren’t looking for a job, and these are the best candidates.”

Not my words, btw.

If you’re interested in reading more on the active vs candidate debate, I’ve written about it on my other newsletter: Your Mileage May Vary.

If you think it strange that I’ve started an article on ‘how recruiters work’ with a discussion on candidates, it’s simply because our relationship with our candidates is a sign of how we work with employers.

Without placing candidates in one form or another, most recruiters wouldn’t make any money, so it is deeply integrated into how we work.

Different agency recruitment models

Typically agencies earn their money through the successful placement of staff, irrespective of the nature of work.

The fee is often derived as a percentage of salary, and in most situations is budgeted for separately from the pay the new employee receives.

The overall steps any recruiter works to are these:

Receive job description from employer
Advertise job (either on a job board or through outreach like emails, calls)
Find and submit qualified candidates
Arrange interviews
Coordinate offer process

The differentiator is the quality of information at each step, and how rigorously they are executed.

For example, my requirement for recruiting a vacancy is a full consultation on the company, vacancy, context and culture, which I summarise in writing in a detailed candidate pack. Where there are issues, I advise the employer on how we can overcome them. This is a simplified version of the first bullet point for me.

There are nuances around this type of process.

Some agencies may rely more on a video presentation, others may ‘sell in’ candidates.

Some agencies will use psychometrics or other types of assessments.

Some will meet all candidates, some won't even talk to them.

But the general steps have a lot of crossover.

In a 100% transactional process, the steps are reliant on the quality of documentation- job description and CV- and leave the candidate and employer to do much of the rest.

Most recruitment processes are somewhere in between (I’m sure some are better than mine too, or do it differently, but this is for illustration).

You can tell a transactional process from public adverts - if an advert looks like a copypasta job description, it’s likely they haven’t qualified the vacancy in detail. Equally it shows in how the agency interacts with you.

How we are paid also has an impact in quality of service.

2.1 Contingency

This is the most popular recruitment model, akin to ‘no win, no fee’ where we only derive income from placements. This might be a percentage of salary or fixed fee.

In the UK it’s estimated that the average fill rate is between 20% and 33%. This is a range from several sources, but next to impossible to pinpoint clearly.

At the lower end, for ease of math, for every vacancy filled, that recruiter won’t fill four vacancies. Therefore their fee implicitly accounts for unfulfilled work.

The reason it’s so low is that most vacancies provided to recruiters are given on a ‘multi-agency’ basis and even in competition with the employer themselves.

A lot of contingency recruitment is ‘first past the post’ too, in that a submitted CV is seen to be owned by the agency that submitted them first.

As a small exercise - let’s say Joe Recruiter has to fill 3 vacancies a month to hit target. This means he has to work on 15 vacancies a month to achieve the goal. You can see how this might impact quality of service, especially if there are multiple different candidates for each role. And especially if the race is on to get CVs over as quickly as possible.

This can result in some of the bad experiences talked about in recruitment, from refusing to divulge company information (for fear of divulging competitor secrets), to trying to find out who you are interviewing with (which may be so they can use them as leads) to dropping contact if there is nothing they can do for you.

It isn’t necessarily the case, and there are some great contingency recruiters out there, especially those that work more closely with employers, often with exclusivity.

Fwiw, when I was a pure contingency recruiter, early in my career, my fill rate varied between 50 and 70%, annually. It’s higher, consistently, now.

2.2 Other models

The traditional counterpoint to contingency is ‘ retained ’ where we receive a portion of a fee up front to service a vacancy. This also requires exclusivity, and because employers have skin in the game, better access to hiring process information.

I don’t like this term personally, because it can be used to imply one approach is better than the other. That’s not true, neither is inherently better, each with their own issues and challenges, and it is just a fee model.

However, what it can mean, in how it can lead to mutual obligation from the employer while allowing a more qualitative approach to candidate work - this is what can lead to superior service. I.e. the philosophy is what’s important, and a fee model can reflect that.

A different approach is through RPO (recruitment process outsourcing) whereby, like any outsourced arrangement, a 3rd party can manage recruitment for the employer, to different service levels.

Over the past few years we’ve seen other models come through from subscription types (bizarrely called Recruitment As A Service), to embedded/insourced (acting as an in-house talent/recruitment function but as a 3rd party, similar in notion to RPO) to Uber-style apps.

Personally, my approach is try and find employers who benefit from a strategic partnership - any fee is just a consequence, and can take roughly the shape of any of those above.

I think two important points come from the paragraphs above:

a/ that candidate experience is really hard to deliver consistently when dealing with the volume of vacancies you see in a contingency model, and still takes intent in other models

b/ that agencies are paid to fill jobs, not to help find people jobs

That second point can cause so much frustration if you assume it’s the job of a recruiter to help you find a role, especially when our marketing talks about how we help candidates - which comes back to that definition above.

Recruitment is typically quite a short-term business, so it’s rare that you’ll see recruiters cultivate long-term relationships with job seekers, if they can’t help you directly.

Which is ironic, considering many jobseekers will reciprocate the help they’ve received, with people they’ve built trust with. Doubly ironic when it’s someone with hiring authority that gets radio silence from previous suppliers.

I don’t mind saying that while my goal is to help job seekers, a happy byproduct is the same job seekers occasionally ask for my help recruiting in future, with less of the need to sell my credibility.

Different types of agency recruiter

There’s around as many types of agency recruiter as there are recruitment agencies.

What complicates matters is that as an industry we sometimes try to hide what we do by clever names, some of which may have meaning, some of which are smoke and mirrors.

Am I a boutique headhunter or am I a recruiter? Or a Talent Ecosystem Intelligence Officer?

I’m proud to be a recruiter who wears my process on my sleeve.

Whatever we term ourselves there are broadly a limited number of types of agency:

2.1 Temps/interim Agency

This is where you sign up for temporary work, on an hourly/daily rate employed through a contract for service.

This is typically on-demand recruitment, where the agency will make money through a margin/markup related to your rate.

Interim recruitment is a little different technically, in that interim typically have a skills set a traditional employee wouldn’t have, and provide a service through their limited company that is held outside of IR35.

The agency here will likely have a margin on the daily rate.

2.2 Permanent agency

An agency that works mainly on permanent vacancy, typically paid on filling a job by the employer.

2.3 Specialist recruiter

These are typically recruitment agencies that specialise in a domain. This could be a broad industry like ‘industrial’ or a market vertical like ‘marketing’.

It doesn’t necessarily mean they have specialist knowledge of the roles they recruit, although this can be the case. It means more that they regularly recruit on a type of role.

2.4 Generalist recruiter

Typically they don’t have one specialty, but may work closer with certain employers across a variety of vacancies. They might be pure scattergun of course!

2.5 Headhunter

This can mean many things, principally as a marketing spiel.

The idea is that headhunters access candidates who don’t apply for jobs, typically passive. Although broadly they use many of the same tools other recruiters do.

The crux of the message for employers is that they have a capability beyond what the employer can achieve themselves, which can be true.

2.6 RPO / embedded / insourced

An approach which manages part or all of a recruitment function. I find RPOs often are pitched at the multinational end of the market, while embedded / insourced are geared more towards start-ups and scale-ups.

2.7 And many more

Ultimately it shouldn’t matter what a recruiter does, more how they can be a conduit to a job.

It’s quite common to hear of job seekers blacklisting agencies for poor service. I get it - so frustrating, demoralising and occasionally crushing to be on the end of bad experience.

However, a key message I always say is this

Don’t let a bad process get in the way of what might be good employment

This is as true at the employer end as with agencies.

With agencies, the onus is often on winning the next vacancy, rather than giving service to people who may or may not be candidates. And that employer may not know how those agencies work.

While with employers, many hiring managers have never been trained on recruitment or interview, while being very busy at work. It’s not an excuse, but can lead to a more polarised experience as a candidate, than what they would be like to work with.

The internal recruiter

These are recruiters employed directly by the employer to fulfil their recruitment. Often these are termed Talent Acquisition Managers, Internal Recruiter, Recruitment Manager.

They aren’t always about just filling vacancies, but also about managing the system of recruitment.

It’s a field that is overwhelmed due to a huge amount of layoffs, where internal recruiters are often overburdened, even in very large companies.

When working on vacancies, the mandate is to fill those vacancies, and again this can lead to frustration if you ask corporate recruiters “do you have any jobs I might be suitable for?”.

Whether or not there is an argument that they could help you, it’s more effective to do the work yourself and either research the business to what they are recruiting, or simply ask directly “could you tell me who is the best contact for <your field>”, “when are you likely to recruit for these roles” and help them help you.

Takeaways

There’s so much to talk about on this subject, and I’ve no doubt I’ve missed glaringly obvious topics. If I have, let me know and I’ll update this article.

Equally it’s easy to oversimplify what is a huge and complex industry - please treat this as an illustration rather than something to specifically rely on.

Some takeaways:

It’s worth learning the rules of the recruitment game when you can. Be curious and ask questions.
While we should be criticised for poor behaviour, if you don’t understand why a recruiter works in a certain way, please don’t assume it’s for bad reason.
Recruitment is a stressful job at the best of times, which can lead to thick skin and callous behaviour. It’s not an excuse, more a symptom of the system we all work in.

The next article will be on ‘principles of a good CV’.

Thanks for reading.

Greg

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Tone deaf - No problem, pt 6

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026

It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.

On job offers

By Greg Wyatt • November 4, 2026

If you ever thought 'outcome-led' was a pretentious headline for a recruiter, it's also how you should think about your job search. Welcome to the 50th edition of Jobseeker Basics. As well as sharing advice that - hopefully - helps you navigate our mercurial jobs market more easily, there's always been a separate utility to these newsletters. I use them to update chapters in A Career Breakdown Kit , so that I can ensure it is always as current as possible. People who've bought the Kindle edition will get an automatic update when the 2027 edition is released in January/February. Paperback owners are invited to contact me for a free digital update. For this newsletter, I've tightened some of the language around accepting job offers - pretty boring update, but maybe necessary for fringe cases. I often talk about outcome-led recruitment. While it might sound pretentious there's a simple reason, which underpins everything I do. Begin with the ending, work back and find the right path. In recruitment this means flashing forward 12 months. What did a successful hire look like? What problems did they solve? What separated excellent from good from adequate from inadequate? What were the outcomes you needed for it to have been a successful hire? Nail these points down and you work backwards. What good actually looks like in viable candidate profiles. What needs to be communicated to them to encourage them to take a step forwards. How we find them - whether in a headhunt, an advert, networking or other. I also talk a lot about why a job search should be the inverse of how that vacancy might be filled. And so it is that the outcome you want in your job search should inform your strategy to find that job. Ironically, On Job Offers is Chapter 31 in A Career Breakdown Kit, slap bang in the middle of the book on page 162. With good reason, given you may find yourself needing to look for work again in future, sometimes by choice and sometimes by the other. All the more reason to have a strategy you can replicate and improve on, time and time again: 31 - On job offers At some point you’re going to get a job offer. It’s helpful to be clear on what this should look like at the start of your job search. Because, if you don’t know your destination, how can you be sure which path to take? Here are the main points to consider. Identity At the start of any job search, remind yourself of your career identity. This may be at the point of an unexpected redundancy, when you’ve decided your current job is no longer right, or if a recruiter contacts you out of the blue with a compelling proposition. Try this once a year, even when gainfully employed, because it’s easy for the path of employment to diverge from where you want your career to go. What is your current context, personally, with family, in life? What do you need and how does work reflect this? What are your core values? The ones that underpin who you are and who you want to see in the mirror. How does work reflect this? What are the things you enjoy, are neutral about, or dislike in your career? What does this look like in your current job? How has your employer changed in the past year? How has the world changed? How does this reflect you as a person? Who do you want to be as a person, family member, friend and peer? What impact do you want to make? How much do you need to earn and by when? These answers aren’t fixed and can change quickly with a change in circumstance, as you change over time, or for reasons out of your control. Clarify what you want and what you need, and therefore what this looks like in your next job. This identity informs your job search strategy, part of which is the roles you go for, part of which is the approach you take, and part of which is what an acceptable job offer is. Total compensation & opportunity cost It's common to see salary as the most important factor in a job offer negotiation. It's better to look at negotiating total compensation and opportunity cost. Total compensation is the overall financial value of a role. It includes: Salary Pension contribution Bonus Commission Car allowance RSUs Some benefits are salary sacrificed or tax efficient - their value goes beyond what they appear on paper. A great pension scheme will save you 20% or 40% on tax payments in the UK across the salary invested. It might even, at a higher salary level, improve access to child benefits. On the other hand, opportunity cost is the consequence of taking an offer, compared to what you might have if you stayed. For example: Moving to a three-day hybrid, compared to full remote. What's the cost of mileage or time commuting? What's the cost of heating your home when fully remote? Or - a role that offers more money now, with no progression in future. Compared to a role that pays less now, and will leapfrog in future, while giving you skills that support career growth. Are these contractual and likely to happen, or are they empty promises? Look for evidence such as a track record with other employees. It's entirely possible to accept an offer with a higher salary and find yourself worse off with take home pay. Establish all the financial implications of an offer. Impact Impact goes both ways. The impact you can have in your new role, and the impact your new role will have on you. A high paying job that takes you away from a young family might be a solution or a problem. A brilliant job that’s an unsustainable commute won’t work long term. Does that matter to you? A well paid job that gives you a good balance at home yet will only be a cog in a machine - a dream for some, unfulfilling for others. Impact also includes trajectory. Are you someone who wants to do the same job over time, in a structured way? Someone who wants regular advancement and career development? Both, and others are fine. Make sure you know what you are getting yourself into. Culture & People It’s at least partly true that people leave bosses, not jobs. While decent people can become bad bosses for various reasons, some of which relate to the environment they manage within. The problem is that people are on their best behaviour in interview processes, while culture as it’s pitched doesn’t always reflect the culture experienced. The interview process should be there for you to gather facts as much as possible. Do your research to get a sense of a company’s values, principles, how it treats its people, and all those other elements that will affect a career with them. This is research to be done at interview stage or before. Ikigai (with a little i) A wonderful Japanese concept. In its original form it means ‘what you get out of bed for’ or ‘those small moments we take pleasure in.’ Rather than the westernised Venn Purpose Diagram many are familiar with as Ikigai (with a big I). If you ask people in Japan what they think of Ikigai they may well say something along the lines of ‘huuunnhh?’ ikigai is a helpful principle when considering a job offer. It’s those qualities unique to you (often defined by your career identity) that you take pleasure in, while others around you may not get it. Sometimes this is gut instinct. Important to listen to, important to challenge. It’s at least part of your decision in a job offer. Even if everything else might be just alright, ikigai in your offered job might be good reason to take it. Or it might be the company’s purpose and what they are doing to improve the world. ikigai is unique to you and it makes everything better if you can find it. Those are the key points to look at if given a job offer. There’s no right or wrong, only right for you and the people you support. Negotiating salary There are a lot of moving parts in any salary negotiation, both at your end and with the employer. There are two main elements. The first is your place in the market - do what you can to find the range of fair pay available to you right now. The second is compensation philosophy - how do companies reach an offer? Both come down to asking questions and research. Assume nothing. I would err on the side of boldness in a salary negotiation. At final interview stage, I’d ask for the top end, based on what I’ve learnt - if they see me as the best candidate, why wouldn’t I? If they offer a little lower than I expect, I’d be positive about it and ask what else they can do to improve their offer. It’s unlikely you’ll lose out on an offer by being clear and respectful. If you want to drill deep into negotiations, I recommend reading Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss. His advice on deep listening, calibrated questions and price anchors are directly relevant to salary negotiation. Negotiating is highly contextual, so you should be careful if following opinion-led advice on what works for that individual. After the offer As with a salary negotiation, the post offer process and run up to employment is different from employer to employer. You can indicate that you're happy to proceed and ask the employer to issue the formal paperwork. Be aware that accepting an offer, even verbally, can create a legally binding contract. If you're not ready to commit, make that clear and reserve your formal acceptance until you've reviewed the written terms. In practice, the legal risk of withdrawing before starting is generally low. Most employers will have little commercial interest in pursuing someone who no longer wishes to join, particularly where they have suffered no demonstrable loss. However, contractual obligations and reputational consequences are worth considering. Treat the Offer Letter as a formal proof of your new employer’s offer of employment. If something isn’t right with the Letter, ask the employer for clarification. Once you've accepted the offer, signed and returned the letter, and any conditions have been satisfied, you can resign and agree a start date with your new employer. Aim to understand their onboarding process. Is there anything helpful you can do before your start date? Make sure you know when, where and any arrival instructions for your first day. As for your wider job search - you should withdraw from other applications when you formally accept an offer. It’s your choice whether you keep your cards close to your chest, accepting a suitable offer with the prospect of something better coming up. You can cross that bridge if you come to it. While this is not something I recommend, a tough job search is as good a time as any to look after number one.