Matchmakers v. Money Makers
The other night I was asked why, if I'm “such a good recruiter”, am I not working at an agency “making half a million dollars”. First of all, I never told this person anything about the quality of my recruiting, but nice to know my reputation precedes me. We were debating the prudence of wearing a competitor's logo to a company happy hour. (I thought/think it’s a major faux pas, in case you were wondering.) Second of all, in my experience, it is not a given that you are going to find the best recruiters at agencies. Third, I was quite incensed at the implication that a “good recruiter” is defined by their income level. And while I fumed I realized my irritation was misguided, as there is truth to the fact that good recruiters who want uncapped earnings work in agencies, not in-house. And that leads us here, where I succinctly break down the difference between matchmakers and money makers in recruitment. And I am going to dedicate this piece to Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, who reminded me that being successful has nothing to do your tax bracket.
As I said, the above mentioned individual is somewhat right. You will find most money makers working in recruitment agencies, where earning potential can be unlimited. I tried that route and was eventually terminated because my focus (my clients, their team) was not aligned with the agency’s focus (profit). This is not to say that money makers can only be happy and effective within the agency setting. But their drive and focus will not translate to success in house. They are going to care about pace and quantity of hires, because it's how they sustain. That focus is going to be valuable for any organization at some point or another, and that is why you will be hard pressed to find any company that has not used an agency to hire. Luckily, most money makers know what motivates them, and will never leave those commission checks behind to recruit in house. But there are matchmakers (like myself) who get their start in agencies, where they learn the hustle of the hunt. Thank you agencies!
On the other hand, we matchmakers are much less interested in maxing out our earning potential quarter over quarter. Our drive is a bit more big picture. A matchmaker has to find a company with a cause, or mission, they truly believe in. Our motivation is a desire to further that mission, through growth. And rather than filling as many roles as quickly as we can, we care about the complex practice of finding the right people, for the right role, at the right time. I like to call it “sustainable growth.” Matchmakers choose to use their skills to do well for more than just themselves. We care about our companies, the teams they are built around, and the individuals who comprise those teams. We understand people and culture, and are willing to put them ahead of our paychecks. We supplement our hustle by immersing ourselves within the companies and teams we are growing, allowing us to become spokespersons and brand ambassadors in addition to recruiters. The line between recruiting and people operations is ever thinning, and it’s internal recruiters who are best equipped to juggle those priorities.
This is hardly an all inclusive theory, but rather a gross generalization to describe two extremes. There are some recruiters who are money motivated, and they rock out in agencies. There are other recruiters who love the challenge of growing cohesive, sustainable teams, and they find a home in-house. In recent years, we are lucky to see a middle road, with hybrid agencies like BINC and Mitchell Lake, where you get a healthy balance in times of high volume hiring. Make sure you know what your recruiting needs are, and find the right people to get them done.