Why you should closely evaluate recruitment suppliers before engaging them

Companies are experiencing the poorest quality of work they’ve seen from some Australian recruitment suppliers. Isn’t it time for careful evaluation?

Several meetings in the city over the past few weeks have given me a lot to think about.  

Firstly, the Australian mining industry continues to grow. Demand for gold, lithium, and rare earths won’t be slowing any time soon.

Positive news.

The other thing I’ve picked up is Australia's recruitment market still continues to baffle employers.

Not so positive.

Let's be clear. The recruitment industry isn’t in bad shape. And this post isn’t about tarring every recruiter and recruitment company with the same brush.

But many internal HR and recruitment leaders are asking a fair question.

“How do we tell the difference between a recruiter who adds value, and one who doesn’t”

It’s also a great question. And the answer has to start with better supplier evaluation.

What do employers want more than anything?

Over the past few weeks, conversations with HR and talent leaders have followed a similar pattern.

The frustration isn’t recruitment itself. It’s how some recruitment services are delivered.

Some of the feedback is surprisingly consistent.

Companies aren’t interested in hearing about a recruitment supplier’s services and products.

Companies only care about solving their own issues and needs. Rightly so.

They're not interested in a recruiter's service list.

So, it’s only right that recruitment companies spend time clearly understanding the most common issues and needs a company has.  

This includes offering useful insights:

• labour market trends
• flight/attrition risks
• salary benchmarking
• skills availability
• candidate insights (why they leave companies, why they join, what appeals to them most)

 This advice should be par for the course, but it’s rare.

Companies don’t want several calls a day from different recruiters

Companies often advertise jobs themselves first. They’ve placed a job advert to attract candidates directly.

They don’t want immediate calls asking if they need help, or people’s resumes fired over.

According to LinkedIn’s Global Talent Trends report, most HR and recruitment professionals prefer agencies who can proactively network with people who may not be applying to jobs. 

As recruitment suppliers, surely that’s a given? It’s not.  

Finding people who haven’t applied. Or people who may not actively be looking, but are open to a chat about a new opportunity. And building talent pools of skilled people before jobs are created.

That’s where value is created.

Companies don’t want to sift through large volumes of resumes

Companies don’t want multiple resumes followed by a request to choose their favourite.

Creating extra work for internal teams isn’t fair. It’s also lazy and it shows a lack of understanding and respect for internal teams.

SEEK data shows an average of 184 applicants are applying per job ad (April 2025).  This year's figures are due in a few weeks. Given what's been written across various forums and news sites, this figure is likely to rise. 

So, internal recruitment teams are already battling to filter large volumes of applicants. Sending more resumes doesn’t solve the problem.

Offering clear advice on why a candidate can fit usually does.

Their skills. Experience. Motivation. Results. Cultural alignment. Those types of things. 

Shortlists should feel confident and considered, not an opportunity for a spray and pray.

Companies don’t want their brands diluted 

Companies don’t want to see multiple recruitment suppliers posting identical job ads beside their own on job boards.

Not only does it create confusion for candidates, it also dilutes a company’s brand. Just ask your marketing team for their thoughts. 

Employer brand research from LinkedIn shows 75% of candidates consider an employer’s reputation before applying for a job.

Brand perception is massively important. How jobs appear in the market matters. How they’re positioned also matters.

And how recruiters represent the company matters too.

If recruitment companies aren't supporting your brand, there’s no value to working with them.  

Why supplier evaluation matters more than many companies realise

Surely, it’s time for companies to start evaluating and rating their recruitment suppliers more closely.

Interestingly, many companies we meet don’t have a formal evaluation process. Yet employment costs continue to be one of the largest expenses on the balance sheet.

Without the right recruitment suppliers in place, companies risk losing control of their hiring process.

The cost of hiring the wrong person can be significant.

Forbes Australia reported that 74% of companies report an average loss of $14,900 for each bad hire. For a company of 1,000 people with an average turnover of 15%, that’s a staggering $2.2m lost each year.

Whether your employee headcount and turnover are similar or different, doing the maths can be sobering.

That risk deserves attention.

Five evaluation questions worth asking recruitment suppliers

Recruitment suppliers, like any strategic supplier, should be evaluated.

Here are five useful questions employers can ask.

 

1. What’s your process for attracting talent?
2. What makes your approach to (specific part of the hiring process) different from other recruitment companies?
3. How do you screen candidates to ensure you only present the right people?
4. How would your recruitment process best align with our hiring strategy?
5. What guarantees or safeguards do you provide to protect hiring outcomes?

 

Good recruiters will welcome these questions. Great recruiters will answer them clearly and confidently.

Consider implementing supplier performance measures

Evaluation shouldn’t happen once. It should be 'always on.'

A few companies use recruitment supplier scorecards to measure performance.

Common metrics include:

• candidate quality
• time to shortlist
• interview-to-offer ratios
• retention of placed candidates
• hiring manager satisfaction feedback

 

Another useful step is a service level agreement.

An SLA helps define:

• communication expectations
• delivery timelines
• quality standards

It also gives both parties something objective to measure.

Final thought

The recruitment industry still has many excellent professionals.

But like any supplier market, quality varies.

Companies who evaluate their recruitment partners carefully usually see better hiring outcomes.

Better engagement. Better candidates. Better long-term relationships.

And ultimately, better people joining their teams.

Recruitment suppliers should be evaluated just like any other strategic partner.

Otherwise, how do you know you’re consistently getting the best available service in the market?

If you think it's time you evaluated your suppliers, get in touch for an open and frank discussion. Whether we can help or not, you'll always leave the conversation with a straight answer. 

---

Related articles

Every little thing you do shows others who you are

• Leadership
• Mining People Matters

Job Interview Tips: The Unique 7-Step Technique to Stand Out

• Personal Development
• Career advice
• Free Resources