For years, businesses have accepted contingency recruitment as the default way to hire. The idea seems simple: multiple recruiters compete to fill a role, and you only pay if they succeed.

But when you break it down, contingency recruitment isn’t as effective or cost-efficient as it claims to be. It’s a system designed for volume, not quality, and it often leaves employers with rushed hires, inflated costs, and a chaotic hiring process.

Here are the three biggest myths about the contingency recruitment model—and why businesses are finally moving away from it.

Myth #1: “You Only Pay for Success”

On the surface, contingency recruitment looks like a risk-free option. If no hire is made, no fee is paid. But that doesn’t mean you’re getting a good deal.

The reality is, you’re overpaying for volume-driven hiring.

Since contingency recruiters only get paid if they make a placement, they work on as many roles as possible—often juggling 10+ jobs at once. They know most of these won’t result in payment, so when they do land a hire, they need to charge a high placement fee (20-25% of salary) to make up for all the unpaid work elsewhere.

This means:

• You’re not just paying for your hire—you’re covering the cost of every other job they worked on but didn’t fill.

• Speed is prioritised over quality, because recruiters can’t afford to spend too much time on any single role.

• Recruiters focus on easier-to-place candidates, not necessarily the best long-term fit for your company.

A better approach? Paying for actual recruitment work, not just outcomes. When recruiters are compensated for their effort rather than relying on placement fees, they can focus on finding the best candidate—not just the fastest hire.

Myth #2: “More Recruiters = More Candidates”

Some companies believe engaging multiple contingency recruiters will widen their talent pool and increase their chances of finding the right hire.

In reality, it just creates chaos.

When multiple agencies compete for the same hire, the focus shifts from finding the best candidate to being the first to submit resumes. This creates a flood of low-quality applications and several hiring challenges:

• Duplicate resumes from different recruiters, leading to confusion and disputes over candidate ownership.

• A race to the bottom, where recruiters submit candidates as quickly as possible before conducting proper screening.

• Less commitment from recruiters, because they know they’re competing against others and might not get paid at all.

A better alternative is working with a dedicated recruiter or hiring partner who understands your business and invests time into finding the right candidates—not just flooding your inbox with resumes.

Myth #3: “It’s the Industry Standard”

Many businesses assume contingency recruitment is the way hiring has always worked—and always will.

But that’s only because there haven’t been better alternatives.

For decades, the recruitment industry has been built around commission-driven, transactional hiring. Large agencies have structured their businesses around contingency fees because it maximises their revenue—not because it delivers the best hiring results.

Now, companies are realising they don’t have to accept high fees, low commitment, and rushed hiring.

A more effective approach is emerging—one that:

• Aligns incentives with hiring success, not just placements.

• Offers cost transparency, so employers know what they’re paying for.

• Encourages deeper searches instead of quick CV drops.

Businesses are moving toward on-demand talent acquisition, fixed-pricing models, and hiring support that actually prioritises their long-term success.

Time to Move Beyond the Myths

Contingency recruitment isn’t “free” when it results in rushed hiring, inflated costs, and wasted time. More recruiters don’t always mean more candidates, and just because something has been the industry standard doesn’t mean it works.

Companies that want better hiring outcomes at a fairer cost are now looking beyond contingency recruitment—to hiring models that focus on quality, accountability, and long-term success.

Because recruitment shouldn’t be a gamble. It should be a partnership that actually works for employers.