Recruitment, particularly under the success-fee model commonly referred to as contingent recruitment, operates under a set of expectations that would be considered unworkable in nearly any other professional service. Clients routinely request high-level support, market insights, and candidate access, while withholding any form of guaranteed compensation. The expectation is clear: payment only occurs if a hire is made, regardless of the time or expertise invested. This dynamic would be unthinkable in legal, architectural, or even culinary services. Imagine, briefly, insisting to pay for a restaurant meal only if it surpasses personal taste; yet this is the logic that underpins how many businesses engage with recruitment partners.
At the same time, organizations loudly proclaim that “talent is our greatest asset,” yet the process of acquiring that talent is often outsourced through the least stable, least strategic model available. Contingent recruitment encourages surface-level engagement, duplicative candidate outreach, and rushed decisions. It prioritizes speed over substance, volume over value. In contrast, this article critically examines retained vs contingent recruitment, highlighting why retained recruitment is better suited to the demands of modern hiring. It also unpacks how the executive search process, when properly structured, delivers consistency, insight, and long-term value for critical hiring decisions.
"A job description lists tasks. A job definition invites purpose."
The Restaurant Analogy: A Mirror to Market Madness
To understand the flawed dynamics of retained vs contingent recruitment, it helps to examine an everyday activity: dining out. When we visit a restaurant, we accept that we are paying not only for the food itself but for the entire experience. This includes the chef’s training, the sourcing of ingredients, the service team’s labor, and the convenience of not having to cook. Even when a meal doesn’t exceed expectations, we still pay the bill. The transaction acknowledges effort, expertise, and delivery, not just personal satisfaction.
In contrast, the contingent recruitment model ignores this logic. Employers expect recruiters to invest significant time and skill upfront, while deferring payment unless a hire is made. This is an anomaly in the professional services world. Few would expect a lawyer, consultant, or architect to deliver value on spec, yet recruiters working under contingent terms do exactly that. If a candidate withdraws, or internal alignment shifts, the recruiter walks away unpaid, regardless of the quality of work delivered.
The root issue lies in the invisibility of recruitment value. Unlike food served on a plate, most of a recruiter’s work happens behind the scenes: sourcing, screening, competitor mapping, market feedback, and delicate negotiations. These contributions shape outcomes, but often go unseen and unappreciated.
This is why retained recruitment is better suited for today’s complex hiring landscape. It formalises the relationship, supports depth over speed, and aligns incentives between client and recruiter. More importantly, it recognises that hiring is not a linear transaction but a strategic process involving trust, collaboration, and risk management. Through the lens of the executive search process, we see the clear advantage of retention: consistent effort, greater accountability, and a focus on long-term outcomes rather than short-term wins.
A Historical Model Born from a Commoditized Market
The widespread use of contingent recruitment did not happen by coincidence. It was shaped by the needs and conditions of the post-war industrial economy, where the labor market was transactional, job roles were repetitive, and employers had the upper hand. Hiring at scale required volume, not nuance, and speed was prioritized over precision. In that environment, it made sense for employers to pit multiple agencies against each other, with compensation awarded only to the fastest provider who could fill a vacancy. Quality was secondary to output.
That logic, however, belongs to a market that no longer exists.
Today’s hiring environment is more competitive and more complex. Talent is scarce in strategic verticals like technology, healthcare, ESG, and executive leadership. Candidates weigh more than salary: they consider mission, flexibility, values, and long-term development. Global mobility, hybrid work, and shifting expectations have fundamentally changed how people engage with opportunities. In this context, retained vs contingent recruitment is not just a matter of pricing model. It is a question of strategic fit.
Modern hiring requires depth, alignment, and care. According to the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC), 80 percent of contingent briefs result in no placement, despite significant recruiter investment. Meanwhile, LinkedIn reports that companies using multiple recruiters for the same role see a 35 percent increase in candidate dropouts, due to poor coordination and duplicate approaches.
This approach is not just inefficient. It is actively harmful. The executive search process, which emphasizes trust, confidentiality, and sustained engagement, cannot be delivered in a contingent setup. This is exactly why retained recruitment is better positioned to serve the demands of modern hiring. It is designed for outcomes, not just activity.
The Procurement Fallacy: When “Smart Buying” Backfires
Much of the inefficiency in recruitment today stems from a deeply flawed procurement mindset. This mindset assumes that maximum value is achieved by reducing upfront costs and treating service providers as interchangeable. In transactional industries, this logic may be valid. But when applied to services rooted in expertise, trust, and human nuance it consistently produces poor outcomes.
The appeal of contingent recruitment lies in its apparent simplicity. Clients are drawn to the idea of “no hire, no fee,” which seems to transfer risk to the supplier. On the surface, it appears smart: why pay without guaranteed results? Yet in practice, this model drives the wrong behaviours. Recruiters are forced to hedge their time and attention, prioritising roles with the highest probability of conversion rather than those requiring depth or complexity. They often receive incomplete briefs, face limited access to hiring managers, and operate in parallel with multiple competitors. This fragmentation creates inconsistent messaging, duplicated candidate approaches, and a poor candidate journey.
The irony is that companies often avoid retained recruitment because of a previous bad experience. But instead of improving partner selection or clarifying process expectations, they default to contingency as a fallback. This only compounds the problem. The recruitment equivalent would be abandoning fine dining because of one underwhelming meal, and deciding fast food is the better long-term choice.
The truth is that a mismanaged retained search does not invalidate the model. It simply highlights the need for better execution. The executive search process is built around thoroughness, confidentiality, and strategic alignment. It cannot function within the constraints of a contingent setup. This is why retained recruitment is better suited to hiring critical roles. It supports clarity, accountability, and long-term success, rather than short-term convenience.
Why We Accept the Absurd: Social Norms and the Invisible Recruiter
The core issue with contingent recruitment is not just how it works, but how widely accepted it is. While the operational inefficiencies are well documented, the more insidious problem lies in culture. Across most professional services, clients recognise the value of expertise regardless of outcome. Legal advice is paid for whether or not the case is won. Consultants are compensated for recommendations even if strategies are never implemented. Architects invoice for designs that may never be built. Yet in recruitment, especially under contingent terms, clients expect full service, expert insight, and fast delivery without paying a cent unless a hire is made.
This inconsistency reflects the lingering legacy of outdated recruitment practices. Many still associate the industry with high-volume cold calling and transactional CV-pushing. That perception, rooted in the 1990s agency model, fails to reflect how modern retained recruiters operate. Today, high-quality recruiters function as strategic partners. They act as brand custodians, candidate experience designers, and market analysts. Their value extends beyond filling a role. They help organisations avoid costly mis-hires, improve hiring processes, and build long-term talent pipelines.
These outcomes are typically delivered through a structured executive search process, where depth, alignment, and discretion are critical. Despite this, retained recruitment often faces resistance, not because the model is broken, but because expectations remain shaped by legacy thinking.
In any other context, refusing to pay for professional work simply because it didn’t result in a perfect outcome would be viewed as unacceptable. Yet recruitment is still burdened by a model that commodifies effort and obscures value. This is a key reason why retained recruitment is better. It recognises the full scope of work involved and restores professionalism to an essential business function. Until that perception changes, recruiters will remain under-recognised for the strategic impact they deliver.
The recruitment industry continues to be undervalued not because it lacks impact, but because it lacks perceived legitimacy. The issue is not effectiveness, but recognition. As long as talent acquisition is treated as a transactional line item rather than a strategic lever, hiring outcomes will remain inconsistent and often disappointing.
Retained recruitment offers more than just an alternative pricing model. It represents a deeper shift in mindset. It moves organisations from a reactive, volume-based approach to one that prioritises alignment, depth, and long-term value. It transforms the recruiter’s role from vendor to partner, and the process from activity to outcome.
When businesses adopt this model, they typically see higher-quality hires, stronger retention, and a more coherent employer brand. These are not incidental benefits. They are outcomes of a disciplined, consultative approach, grounded in the principles of the executive search process.
It is time to acknowledge the true cost of contingent recruitment. It often sacrifices quality for speed and encourages inefficiency under the illusion of flexibility. Why retained recruitment is better is not a matter of theory. It is a matter of structure, alignment, and results. If this model were applied in any other service industry, it would be rejected. Recruitment should be no different.
The executive search process deserves more than a contingent approach.
Let’s talk about how a retained model brings structure, quality, and results to your hiring. Book a discovery call