Recruiters Get Paid When the Candidate Signs. That's the Problem.

That's a strange way to price one of the most important decisions a business makes.

A company pays a large recruitment fee the moment the contract is signed. But the success of the hire doesn't become clear to much later on.

• Did the person improve delivery?

• Did they remove pressure from the leadership team?

• Did they solve the problem the role was created to fix?

Or did the business spend six months discovering the hire wasn't quite right.

Under the traditional recruitment model, the fee is already gone.

That misalignment has never made much sense to me. So I structure things differently.

Instead of charging a large upfront placement fee, the cost of the hire is spread across the first year. And businesses only keep paying while the hire is actually working in the role.

If the person leaves early, the payments stop.

Which means I'm not just paid for introducing a candidate. I'm paid for the hire actually working inside the business.

It also changes the conversation before the search even begins.

From:

Can you send over some CVs?

To:

What does this role actually need to deliver in the next 6-12 months?

Because if the outcome isn't clear, the hire is just a gamble. And I'm now sharing that risk with the organisation.