2014 a numbers game

2014A Numbers Game

North American Staffing and Recruiting Trends Report

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

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

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

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%

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.

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%

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.

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%

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%

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.

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

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%

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

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

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%).

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

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

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

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 • sales@bullhorn.com • @bullhorn

About Bullhorn

20

21