Key difference between organizational recruiters and talent acquisition consultants

By the assistance of either the in-house team of recruiters or talent consultants, the organization fill their vacant posts. They both are quite different in their ways of recruiting both fundamentally and operationally. To thoroughly understand which can produce wonder for your organization's needs, you need to be aware of their differences. Here is a list of key differences from which you can choose, the most compatible one for your organization:

 

HR vs. Sales

Corporate recruiters usually endure within HR departments and often come from a human resources background, rather than a recruiting background. The approach to recruiting undertaken by corporate recruiters is quite different from what talent acquisition consultants incorporate since the former works for a solely for an organization compared to the latter which have multiple clients from diverse fields. The major role of agencies is job advertisements, executive-level candidates, phone screening candidates, getting applicants engaged in their company, and fixing interviews process while organizational recruiters are much concerned about the sales and hence give less importance towards recruitment. Subsequently, agencies are typically hungrier and have more experience in negotiation and better assessment. 

Exclusivity vs. Competition

Recruiting consultants are aware of the fact that to survive in the market they have to perform exceptionally in order to have steady growth and decent pay. You have an added pressure of responding quicker and better than your competitors whereas corporate recruiters are the company's regularly paid employees and hence feel less pressured. Like the competition in the business benefits the consumer, competition among talent acquisition consultants benefits the employer.

Technical Knowledge vs. Recruiting Expertise

The basic difference between the two is that the recruitment consultants are highly proficient in recruiting for varied positions and for all sorts of industries while the organizational recruiters are limited within their setup. The recruiting agencies have multiple requirements every passing day for a wide variety of clients while corporate recruiters have a maximum of 10 roles to fill within their enterprise. This suggests that agencies have better technical knowledge in comparison to organizational recruiters. 

Firsthand Culture vs. Secondhand Interpretation

As we know the corporate recruiter abide and live by the company policies and culture whereas agency recruiters know the culture from what they can witness in limited meetings and essentially what the hiring manager tells them it is. Hence, the in-house recruiters are in a better position of responding to questions like how is it to work in a corporate culture compared to external recruiters. A talent acquisition executive would never be known about the day-to-day activities and its related nuances and political challenges.

Investment in Corporate Brand vs. Self-seeking

External recruiters get paid to fill the vacancies and hence that is the motivation for them whereas corporate employees are more endowed working in a way that serves the organization’s best interests specifically. The company's recruiter presents their organization as a brand and hence they would want to provide the best candidate experience in terms of the level of professionalism and responsiveness throughout the entire interview process. It is a more positive approach compared with agency recruiting.

Slow vs. Fast

External recruiter works round the clock means they recruit all day, every day, with high stakes. They work in a highly contentious environment and are conventional to accumulating contacts and appropriating every networking possibility to build pools of active and passive candidates for nurture. This translates into more comprehensive applicant pools with external agency recruiters than corporate ones and usually quicker hiring cycles. Given the huge cost and lost opportunity related to slow hiring, this could turn out to be a major benefit.

Salaried vs. Performance-Based Remuneration
Mostly, in-house recruiters are organizational employees and that suggests they are on the payroll and if they aren't able to procure the required recruits, it’s worthless to put your budget into strains. In contrast, talent acquisition consultants could prove to be a more cost-effective answer for firms that aren’t continually hiring for a lot of evergreen roles. In-house recruiters are companies standard employees and so couldn't be easily dismissed and replaced, unlike the staffing agency recruiters. You can measure the worth of an agency recruiter based on the client's feedback and can access its credibility. So, it is easier to get back the worth from a staffing agency in comparison to corporate recruiters.

Conclusion

Organizational in-house team of recruiters might have more authority to change job roles, requirements, details or they can even outsource to a talent acquisition executive to fill up those positions which the in-house team have no experience with. However, the staffing firms must employ creativity to accommodate different interests, and along with it carefully evaluate the authenticity of candidate and customer expectations for each role they work to fill. External recruiters are more precise with what they want so the organizations be more likely to get what they want by a staffing agency compared to the company recruiter.