AM Forum is a new free event being hosted by Work Group and The FIRM. Built on what matters to you, it's entirely focused on helping senior in-house resourcing professionals to exchange ideas, share experiences and develop their professional networks. The inaugural event was held on Thursday 23rd January at Coq d’Argent in London. Through a series of interactive group sessions, the delegates considered the business case for in-house recruitment, followed by a debate on insourcing vs. outsourcing priorities. This report is a detailed insight into the views of the senior in-house recruiters who attended the event.

1. AMBriefi
8.00am jan
EX
8.00am ja
EXAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefi
8.00am jan
C
AMFORU
HIRE PURPOSE
A REPORT ON THE FIRST AM FORUM MEETING
OF SENIOR IN-HOUSE RECRUITERS
23rd January 2014 | Coq d’Argent, London
Work Group, in partnership with The FIRM

2. PAGE 2 | HIRE PURPOSE
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
Yes there were recruitment agencies but these were
broadly cv houses with candidate screening services.
When I left the function for business education 20 years
later those of us who remained committed to an in-house
operation were a minority.
Ten years on and the pendulum swings back towards a
mixed economy where the debate is now about ‘what goes
where?’ This paper makes for interesting reading, not just as
a record of how debates change over time but also in what
is still hotly contested. What strikes me from the discussions
and the recorded insights from various participants is that
first, there is a need to be very clear on what requires
in-house control, direction and handling – in other words
what is genuinely value adding; and secondly, that there is
a real need for those responsible for resourcing outcomes
to become familiar with how to manage, measure and
evaluate the quality of the channels that are now used by
recruiters and job seekers alike. There is a risk with the
unfamiliar that choose to abdicate rather than outsource
and in the digital space we should take time to reflect on
how confident we really are to evaluate what is happening
and direct what needs change.
My reflection on what follows is that regardless of where you
are and what you decide going forward, ensuring you have
made the compelling case for the value you add to the
business and that you then have right capabilities in-house
to deliver the best outcomes remains a major challenge.”
Professor Chris Bones
WHEN I STARTED
IN HR IN THE
EARLY 1980S
OUTSOURCING
RECRUITMENT
WAS YET
TO COME.
‘‘

3. HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 3
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
Making the case for in-house recruitment 4
Insider stories 10
The ins and outs of resourcing 16
Mostly insource 18
Mostly outsource 19
50/50 – depending on circumstances 20
50/50 – where opinions differed 21
Afterword by Simon Howard, Chairman of Work Group 22
Final thought from The FIRM 23
CONTENTS

4. PAGE 4 | HIRE PURPOSE
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
MAKING THE
CASE FOR
IN-HOUSE
RECRUITMENT
THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY COMPANIES HAVE DECIDED TO BUCK THE
OUTSOURCING TREND AND BRING RECRUITMENT BACK INTO THE COMPANY.
In the opening half of the session, we explored some of the justifications for this. On the
following pages we explore the strengths and weaknesses of these as arguments for in-house
recruitment, based on the contributions of participants around the room.
Our participant group included some people using recruitment process outsourcing (RPO)
providers, some using a partially outsourced model, but also some who had entirely in-house
recruitment functions. Significantly, there was some debate over the extent to which
weaknesses in outsourced elements were intrinsic, or perhaps could be due to a poor
provider or poor contract management. This brings things back to the overarching point that
priorities both for and against in-house alter depending on the size of the business and the
scale of the resourcing challenge.

5. HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 5
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
I COULD MEET THOSE METRICS
BY HIRING THE LOCAL PAPER BOY
‘‘
‘‘

6. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
Alignment to business strategy
Probably the most universally popular justification for bringing
recruitment in-house was alignment to the wider business
strategy. Most people felt that even embedded outsourced
providers are not “part of the tribe”, so they won’t be able to
identify with the employer in the way that the in-house team
does. Because in-house teams know the business better, they
also “know how to attract the right talent”. RPOs can have their
own agendas, so conflicts of interest emerge. People agreed
that the relationship between business and RPO can be good,
but it’s built on contracts and formal scopes rather than organic,
office-based interaction. So there’s not as much opportunity to
really get to know the ins and outs of a business and identify
with its fortunes and challenges.
That said, some commented that if you set up your RPO properly,
there’s nothing an outsourced solution can’t deliver that an in-
house function provides. It does depend, however, on the quality
of the provider and effective management of the contract.
Long-term advantage
Closely aligned to the above point about business strategy, there
was substantial support for the idea that in-house teams are
more likely to look at long-term benefits for the company, rather
than short-term contractual compliance. Some felt that reputation
ownership comes from being in-house, and it affords the company
a degree of integrity that might be hard to attain through a
third-party provider. Others felt that in-house recruitment leads to
a higher quality candidate experience, candidate engagement
and employer reputation. One commented: “In-house is a long-term
strategy whereas RPOs are a tactical short-term solution.”
Ability to react to change
This was often viewed as a result of being aligned with business
strategy, and well-versed with the company, which only really
happens when you keep recruitment in-house.
“The in-house team will understand the business drive and strategy
and be able to react to change.” Teams agreed outsourced
relationships may be hamstrung by KPIs and contracts, whereas
the in-house team might have better insight into the landscape
and understand the industry in which they operate better.
Conversely, one person observed that outsourced relationships
are easier to scale up and down, and it’s easier to “get rid of”
poor-performing outsourced recruiters than it is to fire an
ineffective in-house team/team member.
This brings things back to the overarching point that priorities
(both for and against in-house) alter depending on the size of
the business and the scale of the resourcing challenge.
Time, cost and quality of hire
The most intense debate at most tables centred on the
importance of time, cost and quality of hire, and the relevance
of each shifts substantially with the differing priorities of
individual companies.
One group entirely discarded “cost of hire”, on the basis that it’s
irrelevant, or just not a top priority. “I could meet those metrics
by hiring the local paper boy”, said one. In particular, many
participants from “knowledge capital” businesses felt this was
not a significant priority. But conversely two groups did have cost
of hire in their top five factors, commenting that “this is the key
that opens the door”, and that few Finance Directors would
contemplate allocating budget without being reassured on this
factor. For some, it’s been a significant part of the justification
for setting up an in-house team and they are delivering on the
promises made.
Quality of hire was universally agreed to be important - “the
quality of hire is what CEOs are interested in rather than cost”.
But others raised the issue that often this is only partially within
the control of the recruitment team, with line managers making
final hiring decisions, sometimes in a manner that can be hard to
influence. A number of participants dryly noted that in reality this
is extremely difficult to measure, and therefore while it might
make an attractive business case to set up an in-house function,
it can be very difficult to show a measurable return against
these criteria.
Time to hire is particularly critical to project or contract-driven
businesses, often needed to scale up in specific skill areas at
very short notice. That said, if time to hire is to be kept to a
minimum, this requires active management of a talent pool
of candidates, and the extent to which an in-house team
are able to achieve this will depend on their scale, and the
frequency of opportunities they are able to offer to that group.
Some commented that in very specific skill areas where they
only have occasional roles, they are unlikely to be able to match
the speed of headhunters who are in regular contact with these
specialists. One participant commented that what you really
want to measure is “time to effectiveness” rather than
“time to hire”, but how would you measure it?
PAGE 6 | HIRE PURPOSE

7. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 7

8. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
Interestingly, several groups commented that both speed and
cost of hire are usually the business case put forward by RPO
firms for outsourcing elements of recruitment, but the extent to
which this is true for in-house or RPO solutions will depend on
the talent pool being targeted, and the volume of recruitment.
Although the above criteria are often staple targets for the
recruitment function, at least one participant was able to tell the
room that their organisation has concluded that they were not
actually linked to business performance and that “we threw
out all the KPIs”.
Global consistency
Global consistency was quite a divisive subject, as being a key
priority for some organisations, but an irrelevance for others.
There seemed to be some consensus that global consistency would
probably be easier to achieve in-house, but that this wouldn’t
necessarily make a good business case in some organisations.
Others felt quite the opposite could be true, with RPOs
sometimes resourcing global or international contracts from one
or a few locations, versus in-house teams who would be
embedded with individual business units around the world.
In this scenario, a strength of the case for in-house recruitment
could be the ability to adapt to local recruitment markets,
rather than applying a one-size-fits-all solution into locations
where it’s not appropriate.
Ability to build talent pools
Some participants are actively building talent pools in key skill
areas, but this is a significant time commitment requiring a
substantial in-house team. There was some support for the view
that if this is possible to achieve, the business benefits from
having a direct relationship with this talent pool rather than
through a third party. But for many, this remains an unrealistic
target for them to achieve in most of the skillsets they recruit,
and this would often be an advantage for external recruiters
with a specialist focus.
Insight into talent landscape
Again, the extent to which this could be achieved depended
largely on the scale of the in-house function and the diversity of
roles they recruit for. In businesses which recruit from a small
number of disciplines, this can be a significant advantage of
in-house recruitment, but for those recruiting a far larger number
of disciplines, they would be far less likely to achieve this.
Better candidate experience
This featured in many groups’ top five. Some people view better
candidate experience as a contribution to process effectiveness,
and quality of hire. “From the first touch with people, you can’t
afford to delegate contact with key talent, because it’s the quality
of the people that makes the difference”. Someone noted,
“At some stage in the process, candidates realise the person
they’re talking to is not one of us, and the level of engagement is
correspondingly lower, until they feel they are interacting with the
actual business.” People discussed that the more direct contact
applicants have with the company, the better their reputation is:
a long-term advantage. “There’s a lot to be said for direct hire,”
said one attendee, explaining that it feeds into reputation and
engagement of high-quality candidates: “We see better retention
and better performance when we direct hire.”
Wider reach of employer brand
No-one placed this in their top five in-house priorities. There
was confusion amongst some as to why this was there at all,
as widening reach of brand isn’t necessarily an outcome of
in-house recruitment. Very divisive conversation around
employer branding took place during the “swingometer” activity.
Debate was sparked over whether employer brand should
ever be in-house, let alone “widened” by in-house recruiters.
“We’d never do that”, said one group member. Some felt that
professionals should provide this non-core area of knowledge,
while others contested. “There’s no way any company I know
would ever outsource employer branding, they’d firmly hold on
to it because the responsibility for success is theirs only.”
PAGE 8 | HIRE PURPOSE

9. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
FROM THE FIRST TOUCH
WITH PEOPLE, YOU CAN’T
AFFORD TO DELEGATE
CONTACT WITH KEY TALENT,
BECAUSE IT’S THE QUALITY
OF THE PEOPLE THAT
MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
‘‘
‘‘
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 9

10. INSIDER STORIES
WHEN I JOINED, THEY SHOWED
ME THE £100,000 COFFEE MUG...
‘‘
‘‘
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
PAGE 10 | HIRE PURPOSE

11. “When I joined Mintel, I was shown the £100,000 coffee mug. In the
previous year, we’d spent £100,000 with a recruitment consultancy,
but none of the candidates had stayed for long. But they did send
us a free mug.
The reason this was happening was that we have a lot of very niche
roles, so agencies were sending through CVs as soon as they had
a vaguely plausible technical match, even if the people weren’t really
suited to the role. Actually, that’s much more than a cost problem,
as managers were wasting time on inappropriate interviews,
and ultimately offering roles out of frustration.
Over three years, we managed to get from 100% agency to only
a handful of roles. We manage a much better talent pipeline of
people through LinkedIn groups. But there’s a tricky issue there –
how long can you keep someone in a pipeline without having
a job to offer them?
We don’t try to do everything in-house, but we do more than most
in collaboration with our PR and marketing teams – which works
well because I hired almost all of them! One of the key parts of our
success has been to be very public about what we’re doing internally.
Everyone knows what we’re focusing on, and with direct support
from the CEO, recruitment is at the forefront of eyeryone’s agenda.
” Simon Hollowood, Mintel International Group
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 11

12. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
“I’ve been in recruitment for seventeen years, and in-house for the
last twelve of those. I joined Skype four years ago just as we were
acquired by a VC Consortium and starting to prepare for an IPO,
which meant a lot of pressure on Staffing to ramp up hiring really
quickly without compromising on quality, which is easier said than
done! Then just as we were getting ready to IPO, we were acquired
by Microsoft, which was fantastic for Skype but required our team
to completely re-engineer our recruitment model to align it more
closely to Microsoft, again without any loss in quality and quantity.
It’s been a busy few years!
During this time, Skype’s definition of recruitment value has
changed, which has allowed us to evolve the recruitment team
significantly, not just in terms of size but in terms of capability and
competence. We’re successfully shifting the conversation away
from the numbers-only focus of the early days to conversations
about what will also deliver competitive advantage to Skype and
to Microsoft over the medium to long term. We’re still on a journey
and we’re not there yet, but we are changing the way we drive
commercial success within Skype.
” Gavin Russell, Skype
PAGE 12 | HIRE PURPOSE

13. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
“Recruitment used to be a pretty reactive role – waiting for responses
to roll in from job boards. Now it’s hugely pro-active – chasing down
the talent your business needs and calling them directly.
It was interesting discussing the difference between RPO and
in-house, but I’m not sure it necessarily has to be as different as
some people think. I used to run lots of outsourced IT contracts,
for example, and despite the same terms, you’d get very different
behaviour from providers.
At Symantec, having recruitment in-house is part of a wider
strategy to bring functions back in-house – for example IT’s come
back in too. That said, we still have to convince individual hiring
managers to drop agencies and use us instead.
One thing we do which works really well is that the recruitment
team go on secondments, or even on training courses, with client
departments. It gives us a level of insight into the roles that an
external agency couldn’t match, and candidates can tell we know
about the specific team we’re talking about, rather than just the
company in general.
The hardest thing in many ways is getting the parts of the business
to acknowledge when you’ve achieved something good or overcome
a tricky problem. If they’re not paying for your time, they don’t
always realise how much it took!
” Martin Dangerfield, Symantec
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 13

14. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
PAGE 14 | HIRE PURPOSE

15. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
“It’s an exciting time at the John Lewis Partnership, as we’re
launching our new Resourcing Operations Centre in May. It forms
part of our shared service division, Partnership Services. It makes
sense to pull all our services across the Partnership together, and
although there’s a lot to do it feels like a fantastic team effort, with a
defined goal that will deliver a great candidate experience and
service to the business.
The Resourcing team will be structured into three areas: strategy,
delivery and account management. Organising it this way means
the delivery team attract and select top talent into the Partnership,
whilst the account management team work closely with the hiring
managers, planning peak campaigns and feeding back to the
delivery team, and the strategy team deliver the cutting edge
systems and process developments.
We’ve assembled a really well-balanced team with mixed experiences
– we have a wealth of experience from across the business and new
Partners that bring a wide range of skills and experience.
The plan is that this joint service will make it easier to build talent pools
the whole John Lewis Partnership can use, and also help people
who work here move around within the business. We’ve already
made massive investments in systems to help people internally
and externally find the right roles for them.
With only a few weeks to go live now, we’re really looking forward
to seeing it all in action!
” Jenni Workman, John Lewis Partnership
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 15

16. THE INS AND OUTS
OF RESOURCING
BUY EXPERTISE? OR RENT EXPERTISE?
The particular issue for debate was to what extent these should be in-house activities,
and when it was pragmatic to outsource these to a third party – whether a boutique specialist
or an RPO provider.
This is a critical strategic issue for many of our participants, as it dictates what skills they
need to add to their team through training or hiring, and what skills they will never need
enough to have within their function. Ultimately, this is a question of whether you buy
expertise, or rent expertise.
There were some issues where people generally agreed, some where people differed
due to the circumstances and scale of their recruitment, and some where people differed
philosophically and strategically.
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
PAGE 16 | HIRE PURPOSE

17. Social media
Role design
Channel strategy
Executive search
Application screening
Telephone interviewing
Assessment delivery
Website management
Employer brand
Exit interviews
Strategic workforce planning
Succession planning
Process management
Onboarding
Compensation and benefits
Offer management
Hiring manager training
INSOURCE
MIDDLE-ISH
OUTSOURCE
ATS management
Market insight
Website creation
Job board/media management
Comms/ad creation
Application handling
Assessment design
Psychometric assessment
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 17

18. MOSTLY INSOURCE
Strategic workforce planning
Given that our earlier discussions had identified that alignment
with strategy is critical to the case for in-house recruitment, it’s
not surprising that this was seen by the overwhelming majority of
participants as a function that must be fulfilled in-house. Some
suggested that it can be worth engaging external consultants
to assist in this process, but only in an advisory capacity.
Succession planning
Although most participants were agreed this should take place
in-house as part of the workforce planning, many felt that in
reality they didn’t have sufficient resources to be fulfilling this
function. One commented that this isn’t something that would be
outsourced, but if there isn’t capacity for it to be done in house,
it generally isn’t done at all.
Process management
Possibly related to the fact that people were relatively positive
about outsourcing many other components of the process, there
was a strong consensus that the overall process needed to be
controlled in-house. Where opinions differed, it was largely an
issue of resource, rather than philosophy on this issue.
Onboarding
Many participants didn’t actually have control of this process
– as it’s often fulfilled by other HR or L&D professionals within
the business. That said, there was a clear majority in favour of
delivering this in-house, even if parts of the communications
and materials might be created by an external partner.
Compensation and benefits
At least one group felt that this shouldn’t fall within the
recruitment function, but most felt that this should be held
internally. From discussions, this is often a critical negotiating
point with senior hires, and many felt it was critical they were
able to influence what’s on offer to these high-worth individuals.
Offer management
Most participants are already undertaking the offer management
function (although some commented there are administrative
elements that might be done by a third party). Again, it was felt
that this is a critical stage for the success of the recruitment
function, and most would prefer to have it within their direct control.
Hiring manager training
Although a few participants did use external parties, the vast
majority felt this was a critical opportunity to engage with the line
managers who are ultimately their customer base. It offers
another opportunity for recruiters to gain further insight into the
priorities and preferences of these stakeholders, but it also
ensures that those stakeholders are conducting interviews in
a manner that is consistent with the employer brand.
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
PAGE 18 | HIRE PURPOSE

19. MOSTLY OUTSOURCE
ATS management
Most groups placed this one as an external activity relatively
rapidly. Few felt they had the expertise in-house to select,
customise or manage the ATS systems available, although
clearly this is a process they would need to participate in
heavily to ensure it is fit for purpose.
Market insight
Although a few participants have some capabilities in this area,
most agreed that a specialist third party will generally have
access to information sources not available to an in-house
market researcher. Opinion was split as to whether the analysis
should be done in-house or externally, as there are advantages
to knowing the business context, but conversely advantages to
a dispassionate analysis of the data. At very large organisations,
however, there may be a case for bringing this into the
recruitment function.
Website creation and Comms/job ad creation
Almost all participants were using a third party to create
communications materials, whether ads or websites. In some
cases, participants were unsure if their external partner
sub-contracted this out further to another company. There was
little enthusiasm for bringing this in-house, with some people
commenting that specialist agencies offer a creative
environment which would be hard to replicate in-house,
even if the relevant skillsets could be hired.
Job board/media management
A clear majority felt that external specialist media buyers would
have stronger relationships with the relevant media, and volumes
of purchasing which would enable them to get a better deal than
by going direct. One commented that digital media in particular
often involves negotiating complex packages of different
inventory, and that this requires specialist knowledge to
purchase effectively. That said, many participants have existing
direct relationships with one or two critical media providers,
such as LinkedIn.
Application handling
Few felt they had the capacity in their team to deal with any kind
of high-volume application handling, and for those running
annual campaigns, access to the flexible resources available
from an external party was seen as critical.
Assessment design and
Psychometric assessment
Few participants had any Chartered Occupational Psychologists
on their team, and therefore most felt it was appropriate to
outsource technical activities like this to specialist providers.
In some cases, this is done through hiring a specialist on a
fixed-term contract or project basis, however in most cases
people are using an external company which can not only
provide this service, but also quality check the resulting work.
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 19

20. 50/50 – DEPENDING
ON CIRCUMSTANCES
Role design/job descriptions
For large-scale, junior level campaigns, such as graduate
recruitment, many felt that this could well be outsourced to a
specialist in the area. But at senior level, many felt that this must
be done in-house, as it would require an extensive
understanding of the business context. It’s worth noting that
some felt this should be done in-house at all levels, but in
businesses with many specialist roles this would be hard to
achieve without a detailed understanding of each of these areas.
Channel strategy
Although earlier we saw that people were happy to outsource
media buying to external parties, channel strategy was seen as
a more nuanced issue. In many cases, large-scale campaigns
like graduates or apprentices would be largely done by external
parties, but for senior level roles it’s more likely that this is
determined in-house in partnership with the hiring manager.
Executive search
Many recruiters are already effectively fulfilling executive search
for many roles, but most tables had a debate about the trickier
issue of highly specialist roles. For roles that are recruited
infrequently (either due to seniority or rarity), it was felt that an
external party might well be able to fulfil this more effectively
than an in-house team. In a few cases, people were using an
executive research company to produce a hybrid solution –
the research and sourcing done externally, but then the contact
and recruitment done internally.
Application screening
Again, this is largely a scale and/or seniority issue. For large
campaigns with clear gross disqualifiers (e.g. graduates and
degree qualifications), this is generally done externally, but for
more senior or specialist recruitment there was far more
nervousness about allowing an external party to undertake this
role. For those with no large-scale hiring programmes, this can
be fulfilled in-house, but it does require an admin function within
the recruitment team if it’s not going to become overwhelmingly
time-consuming for those who should be focused on other tasks.
Telephone interviewing
As with the above, this was largely an issue of scale and
resource. Participants were happy to outsource this activity on
high-volume campaigns, but preferred to keep it in-house for
senior roles. This was also their preference for specialist roles
where even rejected applicants can play a critical role in
building an understanding of the talent landscape.
Assessment delivery
Assessments were generally conducted in-house at senior
level, but at more junior levels many people were using external
providers to at least some extent. A few participants were
also using external consultants right up to senior level – for
example using one external consultant on a panel of three for
assessments to provide expertise and ensure best practice
is followed.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TOPICS ON WHICH EITHER DIFFERENT GROUPS
CAME TO OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS, OR INDEED WITHIN THE GROUP THERE
WAS AN AGREED POSITION OF “IT DEPENDS”. IN MOST CASES, THE CRITICAL
FACTORS ARE THE SENIORITY OR SCALE OF THE ROLES IN QUESTION.
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
PAGE 20 | HIRE PURPOSE

21. 50/50 – WHERE
OPINIONS DIFFERED
Social media
Social media is critical to the recruitment strategies of most
companies, but there were significant differences of opinion
about whether this meant using a specialist external provider,
or managing it entirely in-house. As one participant noted, “we
manage our LinkedIn presence in-house because it’s important,
but I’m not sure we’re getting as much out of it as we should”.
Professor Bones joined the debate on this issue, observing
that if it’s a critical channel, it may no longer be appropriate
to accept a lack of knowledge or expertise on the issue.
There seemed to be even greater complexity when examining
different “social media” channels, with the PR or Customer
Relations teams “owning” presence on networks like Facebook
or Twitter, but Recruitment retaining control of LinkedIn.
The reality is, it can be hard to define whether a channel is
primarily about customers/clients or recruitment.
Some felt very strongly that if content is going to be current and
authentic, it must be generated internally. Others were equally
adamant that the detailed knowledge of the platform in question
that specialist providers offer outweighs this.
Website management
In a closely related issue, most were clear that their recruitment
website, or the careers page of their corporate website,
plays a critical role in their external face to market. Reasons for
preferring an outsourced solution included specialist expertise
again, but in some cases also a faster or more responsive
service than would be available from the internal website team.
Conversely, many felt that it would be utterly unacceptable
to rely on an external party to manage this critical part of the
company’s image, even if they use an external party to design
the careers page.
Employer brand
In probably the most dramatic difference of opinion, some
felt that the employer brand could only possibly be authentic
if it was developed in-house, while others felt that such an
important task should only be undertaken by communications
professionals with extensive experience of developing these
for many different organisations.
Discussions revealed a substantial variety in terms of in-house
expertise in this area, with some confident in their abilities to
develop and manage an employer brand with little or no outside
help, and others equally clear that while they would be involved
in commissioning and briefing a provider, they would not be
confident to undertake the bulk of the task. Interestingly, this
didn’t seem to be related to the size of the recruitment function
or organisation, with large and small organisations on both sides
of the debate.
Exit interviews
Some participants felt that the subject matter of exit interviews
was sufficiently complex or confidential that they could only be
conducted internally, but others felt very strongly that an external
party would bring an objectivity and independence that would
allow interviewees to be more honest.
THERE WERE A FEW TOPICS DISCUSSED WHERE THE DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION WAS NOT ABOUT PRAGMATISM OR CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT ABOUT
A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOW THIS SHOULD
BE DONE.
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 21

22. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
You don’t have to read too many headlines to see that
life is returning to normal: House prices are booming;
there’s parental outcry at the price of overseas holidays
during half term (an unthinkable squeal during The
Crisis) and skills shortages are back in the news. Again.
Of course skills shortages have always been an
endemic feature of the British economy, and one
way or another we’ve managed to muddle through.
But this time the headlines might just be heralding
an altogether new challenge for UK employers:
an unbridgeable talent gap.
It’s all about the big numbers and it’s beginning to
look like something of a perfect storm for recruiters.
Put simply, rising demand for skills could not have
come at a worse time, because on the supply
side the working population is entering a period
of accelerating contraction. And there are three
big drivers behind this:
First, we’ve known about it for years, but the
baby-boomers are reaching retirement age at
record rates. Most still have comfortable pensions
– especially the more highly skilled, and so there is
little temptation to stay on. You may have read about
‘working until you’re 70’ but the ‘working-longer’
generations have yet to hit their fifties. The time has
come when employers must face up to the fact that
the demographic time bomb is beginning to explode.
Second, politicians could not have chosen worse
timing to start choking off the supply of talented and
qualified migrant workers. For decades, skilled
Australians, Kiwis, South Africans, Canadians,
Americans – you name it – have boosted the
poorly qualified (by comparison) output of our own
education system. But that inflow of talented migrants
is now becoming a trickle and it’s already being felt in
the IT, accounting, finance and health sectors, where
temp and contract pay rates are booming. So there’s
no easy fix for the time bomb here.
The third culprit is the employers themselves. During
‘The Crisis’ collectively they, or rather we, have not
been bringing young people into the workforce in
sufficient numbers. Where is the class of ’08 or ’09,
who now have five solid years’ experience behind
them? Answer: they were never hired in the first
place, or at least not in sufficient numbers – and nor
in any year since. Hence employers’ short-term hiring
horizons have only made a bad situation worse.
So there you have it: Demography, politics and short-
termism all conspiring to create an unbridgeable
talent gap. And the next headlines to expect? ‘Wage
inflation threatens growth’ and ‘Uncompetitive UK sees
more jobs go abroad’. And before too long, The FIRM
members will be arguing for increased budgets.
Simon Howard is the Chairman
and a founder of Work Group
WHY A LOOMING TALENT
GAP STRENGTHENS THE
CASE FOR MORE INVESTMENT
IN RESOURCING.
PAGE 22 | HIRE PURPOSE

23. AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
EX INES
8.00am jan 02
EX PLESAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefing
8.00am jan 02
C PUS
AMFORUM
FINAL THOUGHT
FROM THE FIRM
We are delighted to have partnered with Work Group on our inaugural
AM Forum breakfast meeting. The role of in-house recruitment is one that
is continually debated and it will be fascinating to track this conversation
moving forwards as we see trends for insourcing and outsourcing shift
and evolve.
It was great to see the pro-active debate amongst our senior members
and the open conversations were refreshing and insightful.
We would like to thank all at Work for making the session possible and
we hope the AM Forum series will continue to grow and form a key part
of our membership events calendar moving forwards.
Gary Franklin & Emma Mirrington, founders of The FIRM
HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 23

24. AMBriefi
8.00am jan
EX
8.00am ja
EXAMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMforum
AMBriefi
8.00am jan
C
AMFORU
Event designed and report compiled by Work Group
www.workcomms.com
Sinead Tyro / AMEC
Finola Gallagher / Anchura Partners
Jeremy Russon / AXA
Maria McLachlan / Barclays
Claire Darnell / Barclays
Lauren King / Barclays
Daniel Whitehead / BlackRock
Richard Essex / Broadbean
Clair Bush / Broadbean
Melanie Hayes / Care UK
Kate Bugler / Co-operative Group
Sarah Dingwell / Coutts
Ed Kent-Jones / cph
Tim Le Maire / Cushman & Wakefield
Gemma Lockhart / Essence
Mardi Smouha / Eversheds
Kevin Keegan / Fidessa
Heather Mancini /
Hult International Business School
Ruth Loftus /
Hult International Business School
Graham Butler / ISIS Equity Partners
Jessica Leupolz / ITV
Jenni Workman / John Lewis Partnership
Colin Crowley / KCOM
Chris Whitaker / KCOM
Simon Hollowood /
Mintel International Group
Helena Gray / Net-a-Porter
Michael Queally / News Corporation
Glenn Lindley / Pearson
Gillian Ong / Pearson
Elaine Marron / PwC
Sarah Ridley / Qualcomm
Carl du Plessis / Royal Mail
Rachel Taylor / Sally Beauty
Joanne Zadro / Schroders
Harvey Levene / Shell
Gavin Russell / Skype
Martin Dangerfield / Symantec
Chad Horne / TalkTalk
Lewis Turner / Tim Group
Claire Wragg / True North
Brian Dean / Vodafone
Emma Jones / Wipro
Amber Shankland / Wipro
Catherine Schlieben / WorldPay
Andrea Kirby
Krysta Gough
WITH THANKS TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS: