For decades, businesses have been sold the idea that contingency recruitment works. That paying a recruiter only when they hire someone is a smart, low-risk way to fill roles. That competition between multiple recruiters ensures access to the best candidates. That placement fees are just the cost of doing business.

But the reality is different.

Contingency recruitment isn’t just inefficient—it’s a model that works against the interests of employers, candidates, and even the recruiters working within it.

Yet, this multi-billion-dollar industry continues to operate on a system that prioritises speed over quality, transactions over partnerships, and sales over hiring expertise. A model that rewards agencies, not employers. That favours short-term wins over long-term success.

The landscape is shifting. Technology, AI, and evolving hiring expectations are exposing contingency recruitment for what it truly is: an outdated, overpriced, and misaligned approach that businesses have relied on for too long.

The question is—who’s willing to change?

The Industry Hasn’t Changed – But the World Has

Recruitment, at its core, is about finding the right people for the right roles. That hasn’t changed.

But everything else has.

Businesses now operate on data, precision, and efficiency—yet hiring is still dictated by an outdated model designed for a pre-digital age.

Technology has transformed how companies source, attract, and assess talent. AI-driven hiring tools provide more insights than ever. Employer branding is more powerful than a recruiter’s database. And yet, companies are still handing 20–25% of a salary to an agency for sending a few CVs.

Meanwhile, many of the best recruiters have left contingency recruitment altogether. They’ve moved into in-house roles, embedded talent models, or advisory positions where they can actually focus on quality hiring rather than chasing placement fees.

So why are businesses still clinging to contingency recruitment?

Because they’ve been told there’s no other way.

A Model Built on Misaligned Incentives

The problem with contingency recruitment isn’t just that it’s expensive. It’s that it doesn’t actually solve hiring problems—it creates them.

It’s a model where recruiters are rewarded only for making a hire, not for making the right hire.

Where employers think they’re reducing risk by only paying for results—without realising that the entire model is designed to prioritise revenue, not service.

Where agencies claim to be hiring partners but operate on volume-driven sales targets, not long-term talent strategy.

Where businesses complain about poor candidate quality while participating in a system that forces recruiters to take shortcuts just to stay afloat.

Everything about contingency recruitment incentivises bad hiring decisions.

• Recruiters don’t get paid for effort. Whether they spend 10 minutes or 10 weeks on a search, the result is the same: no hire, no fee.

• Speed beats service. The recruiter who secures representation rights to the hired candidate wins—not the one who conducts the best search.

• Employers get flooded with candidates, not necessarily the right ones. Contingency recruitment is a volume game, not a precision process.

This isn’t recruitment—it’s a high-stakes, low-commitment numbers game. And businesses are the ones footing the bill.

Why This Model Still Exists

If contingency recruitment is so flawed, why is it still the dominant model?

Because the industry wants it that way.

The recruitment agency business model is built on high-margin placement fees, aggressive sales tactics, and a constant churn of clients. Large agencies don’t need to change—they make millions from employers who keep buying into the illusion of “low-risk” hiring.

And even recruiters within the industry know the model doesn’t work.

Many would rather be advising, consulting, and truly partnering with businesses to find the best talent. But the structure of contingency recruitment doesn’t allow for that. Instead, they’re stuck in a system that rewards volume over depth, speed over accuracy, and placements over partnerships.

The agencies win. Everyone else loses.

There’s a Better Way

Businesses that rethink how they approach hiring will be the ones that build stronger teams, attract better talent, and stop overpaying for a service that doesn’t deliver.

The future of hiring isn’t about who can send a CV the fastest. It’s about who actually understands your business and can find the right people to grow it.

That’s what real talent acquisition looks like.

That’s what I built EasyTalent to do.

And that’s the conversation the industry should be having—because this outdated system isn’t built for the future of hiring.

The real question is—who’s ready to move forward?