In all the years I have been recruiting, I have yet to speak to a hiring manager who has NOT used a staffing company.

Yet, I rarely encounter a hiring manager who is thrilled with their partnership. I would say two out of 10 are happy. Most people I meet with call it a necessary evil....OUCH.

Why do clients feel this way? Most recruiting companies follow the same process. For example, how many times have you heard this? "I have the perfect candidate for your job opening." It is called skill market, candidate spotlight, candidate marketing, and the list goes on and on.

The reality is, they are shopping that candidate around to the highest bidder, or sometimes the candidate is not even in the market for a new role. Trust me, I have seen it. It is a terrible approach for the candidate and client.

So before you engage with the same old process, you really should speak with my team first. It is time for you to try a different approach. An approach where the candidates we source are exclusive to your organization, one where you're meeting with your recruiter weekly, and most importantly, a process tailored to your organization.

We have taken on some challenging projects at OTHR, but this may be the hardest one yet...

Senior Environmental Scientist: PFAS, PE License, Security Clearance, Serve as a technical advisor on environmental policies and standards, Ensure regulatory applicability to the Federal Government, etc... to name a few of the must-haves.

Before onboarding this client, they had tried several other "specialty" agencies with no luck.

Not only did we find them the candidate they were looking for, but we also saved them $27,000 with the OTHR Hourly Recruiting Model.

Most specialty firms will charge you 30% of the yearly salary for this skill set and require a portion to be paid upfront.

With our process, our client only paid 12% of the annual salary.

Hiring shouldn't cost a fortune.

[Have LinkedIn? You can like, share, or comment on this story HERE.]

After seeing this EXACT SAME post by 23 different people on my feed, I had to say something...

This specific copy of the post is by a VP trying to say that bad performers should not be terminated.

Yes, you read that correctly.

He then assumes that if someone is terminated, they are shouted at, humiliated, and misunderstood.

Do you really want to live in a world where "terminating an employee due to performance" is shunned?

Do you really want to live in a world where a bad performer is blamed on "how YOU treated THEM", rather than how they broke your trust in doing the job they were hired to do?

Do you really want to live in a world where terminating a bad performer is somehow viewed as "costing them their dignity?

Personal responsibility goes a long way in how successful someone is in their career and life. I understand that success is measured in different ways, but performing poorly at work and then blaming it on anyone but yourself is not going to result in you becoming closer to whatever "success" means for you.

Staffing Agency Showdown: On The Hook vs. The Usual Suspects

Buckle up, because we’re about to take you on a rollercoaster ride through the highs and lows of traditional staffing vs. On The Hook Recruiting!

Legacy Staffing Agencies:

- Fee Frenzy: “Hey, we’ll take 20-30% of that first-year salary. No biggie!”

- One-Size-Fits-All: “You get what you get, and you don’t get upset. Next!”

- Minimal Effort: "Here are 10 resumes that all your competitors have seen and didn't want to hire. They are REALLY strong candidates!"

On The Hook Recruiting:

- Cost Model Magic: “Hey, we’re all about transparency! Pay an hourly rate and cap out at 12% of the first-year salary. Oh, and if we fill the position early, you only pay for the hours we worked. Easy peasy!”

- Personal Touch: “We get to know you, your team, and your culture. Then we find candidates who are basically the human version of your favorite coffee blend.”

- Data Ownership: "Your organization is the ONLY employer that will see your candidates from us. Now that's a partnership!"

Your challenge: Hiring in 2025 without ridiculous costs.

Your solution: A true partner, focused on your hiring goals and budget.

OTHR: 1 client, 4 positions filled, and $53,100.00 saved... so far!

One of our clients requested a cost analysis and I decided it was worth sharing to give Hiring Managers hope that another option exists.

Despite what you read on LinkedIn, hiring and recruiting in 2025 doesn't have to be challenging or expensive. Legacy recruiting firms LOVE to sell you that narrative so they can charge RIDICULOUS fees.

This is a cost analysis for one of the long-term projects we are currently working on. This employer is hiring PMs for environmental engineering-related work at several different locations. Based on the schedule, we have filled four positions and have two more left. Their savings will continue to increase drastically as we finish this project.

[Have LinkedIn? You can like, share, or comment on this story HERE.]

A great example of how our Hourly Recruiting Model delivers value to our clients!

This may be the most powerful example of how our approach sets us apart. We took on a Tooling Design Engineer role back in October. This role had been open for two years! Internal recruiters had tried to tackle it and countless agencies took a stab at it. Our client had very specific requirements and they were happy holding out until they found it.

By December, we had an offer on the table for a candidate. Unfortunately, he turned it down. A few short weeks later, we had another candidate with an offer on the table. The best part for our client; they only spent $14,400 for us to find this individual. That is a $10,600 cost savings when compared to the competition's pricing. To say the team was excited would be an understatement. Rumor has it, they even brought in cake to celebrate!

The moral of the story, we are going to stick with you until the role is filled and we will do it at a price point that makes the relationship sustainable.

[Have LinkedIn? You can like, share, or comment on this story HERE.]