Is the construction recruitment industry undervaluing itself?
There is something strange happening in construction recruitment.
Agencies are competing for business on contingency terms, reducing fees, accepting increasingly difficult terms and in some cases, working with no formal agreement at all.
The question is simple:
Why?
Imagine asking an estate agent to market your £2 million house on a multi-agency basis, with no contract, no commitment and no guarantee that they will receive a fee.
They arrange the photography.
They write the marketing.
They advertise the property.
They contact their database.
They arrange viewings.
They invest their time and money generating interest.
And then, potentially, another agent sells it.
Or worse still, the vendor finds a buyer themselves through the exposure created by the agent’s marketing.
Would a professional estate agent accept that?
Of course not.
Yet recruitment has somehow normalised precisely this model.
Recruitment is not a CV delivery service
A good recruitment consultancy isn’t simply forwarding CVs.
It is identifying people who may not be actively looking.
It is understanding the employer, the project, the culture, the package and the opportunity.
It is knowing which candidates are genuinely suitable — and which ones aren’t.
It is having conversations.
It is selling the opportunity.
It is managing expectations.
It is protecting relationships on both sides.
And ultimately, it is putting its reputation behind the introduction.
That takes time, experience and expertise.
So if an employer is driving fees down and expecting agencies to work below their standard terms, what incentive is there for the recruiter to invest that level of effort?
There isn’t one.
The Race to the Bottom
The contingency model has created an environment where multiple agencies can be given the same vacancy.
Everyone races to send a CV first.
Candidates get approached repeatedly.
Employers receive dozens — sometimes hundreds — of applications and CVs.
Recruiters are reluctant to invest heavily in a search because there is no certainty they will be rewarded for doing so.
And the result?
A recruitment process driven by speed and volume rather than quality.
That shouldn’t be what our industry is striving for.
Would Construction Benefit From a Property-Style Model?
Perhaps it is time to look at recruitment differently.
In property, a sole agency agreement creates accountability.
The agent has a defined period in which to market the property and find a buyer.
The vendor knows who is responsible.
The agent knows that if they do the job properly, they have a genuine opportunity to complete the transaction.
Why shouldn’t specialist recruitment work in a similar way?
An employer appoints a recruitment consultancy.
The consultancy receives a defined period — perhaps 14, 21 or 28 days — to work exclusively on the assignment.
The recruiter commits resources.
The employer commits to working with them.
And both parties have clarity.
No more racing to be first.
No more two degrees of separation.
No more sending speculative CVs simply to get your name on the desk.
If you know the right candidate, approach them.
If you don’t, find them.
If you have been appointed to represent the employer, represent them properly.
Quality Over Quantity
There is another issue that needs addressing.
Look at the number of applications many construction vacancies now receive through professional networks and major job platforms.
300 applications in the first day might look impressive.
But what does it actually tell us?
Very little.
If anything, it can demonstrate the disconnect between application volume and genuine suitability.
A senior construction professional with 20 years’ experience isn’t likely to compete with 299 other applicants by clicking an “Apply” button.
The best candidate may not even be looking.
They may be running a major project.
They may be sitting in a client meeting.
They may be perfectly happy where they are.
And they may never see the advert.
That’s where specialist recruitment should add value.
Employers Need to Ask What They Are Buying
If an employer appoints an agency purely because it offers the lowest fee, perhaps the more important question is:
What are you actually buying?
Are you buying access to a database?
Are you buying a CV?
Or are you buying expertise, market knowledge, candidate relationships and someone prepared to represent your business in the market?
If it is the latter, then perhaps the fee shouldn’t be the starting point.
The starting point should be the quality of the service and the likelihood of making the right appointment.
It’s Time to Protect the Profession
Recruitment agencies also have a responsibility here.
If we continue accepting poor terms, competing solely on price and agreeing to work alongside numerous other agencies without commitment, we shouldn’t be surprised when recruitment is treated as a commodity.
Perhaps the industry needs to become more confident about the value it provides.
That means proper agreements.
Clear terms.
Defined responsibilities.
Real commitment from both parties.
And where appropriate, sole agency or retained assignments that give a recruiter the confidence to invest properly in the search.
Because if you have been appointed to fill a role, you should have the opportunity to actually fill it.
And if you do the work, make the introduction and deliver the candidate, you should be rewarded for it.
The Future Should Be About Better Recruitment — Not Cheaper Recruitment
