Hiring Models
How many recruitment agencies should a company use?
The short answer
A company should use enough agencies to cover genuinely distinct specialisms without creating duplicated effort or inconsistent representation. For most specialist hiring, a small panel with clear role ownership is stronger than a large uncontrolled supplier list. The correct number depends on geography, function and whether internal or embedded teams already provide core coverage.
Supplier lists usually grow by accident. A new agency is engaged for an urgent role, another for a specialist search, another because a hiring manager already has a relationship. Twelve months later the panel is large, poorly defined and difficult to manage. A deliberate model produces better economics and better candidates.
Define specialisms clearly
Every agency on the panel should exist to solve a distinct problem. Group roles by function and level, then assign one or two agencies to each group that genuinely have a differentiated reach. Duplication across the same specialism produces competition rather than coverage.
Avoid sending every role to every supplier
A wide broadcast rarely improves outcomes. It fragments the candidate experience, generates ownership disputes and dilutes the incentive for any single consultant to invest in the search. Route each role to the supplier best placed to solve it and hold them to a defined standard.
Use one ATS and ownership policy
All supplier activity should flow through the company's own ATS with clear candidate ownership rules. Without this, duplicate submissions become disputes, employer messaging drifts across suppliers, and the company loses the compounding value of the candidate data it has already paid for.
Review supplier quality using outcomes
Judge the panel on the outcomes each supplier is meant to produce: quality of hire, offer acceptance, time to productive contribution and consistency of candidate experience. Suppliers that repeatedly fall below the standard for their specialism should come off the panel; those that outperform should get more work.
What this means in practice
Add an agency only when it provides access or expertise that the existing model cannot deliver. A small, well-defined panel supported by internal or embedded capability usually beats a large uncontrolled list.
The Saiyō view
Saiyō sees panel design as an operating model decision. The right number is whatever gives distinct market coverage without creating duplication or inconsistent representation. For most scale-ups that means a small, deliberate group of specialists working alongside dedicated internal or embedded capability.
Explored in depth
This topic is explored in more depth within Recruitment Agencies at Scale: Where the Model Works and Breaks.
Frequently asked questions
See this in practice
Move from the concept to the way Saiyō delivers it.
Related questions
When should a company stop relying on recruitment agencies?
A company should reduce agency reliance when external support has become the default for recurring roles rather than a selective response to genuine exceptions. Warning signs include rising annual fees, repeated briefing, inconsistent candidate experience and an internal team that remains unable to build proactive capability. The answer is usually to rebalance the model, not eliminate every agency relationship.
Read the answerAnswerWhy do agency costs rise at scale?
Agency costs rise at scale because most fees are charged per successful hire, so total spend increases broadly in line with recruitment volume. There may be negotiated rates, but the commercial model remains transactional. As hiring becomes continuous, a subscription or internal capability can spread cost across a larger annual plan and lower effective cost per hire.
Read the answerAnswerWhen is a recruitment agency still the best option?
A recruitment agency is often the best option for an unexpected vacancy, a genuinely niche requirement, a short-term hiring spike or a market where a specialist consultant has distinctive relationships. It can also be appropriate when annual hiring volume is too low to justify dedicated capability. The flexibility of paying for an individual outcome remains valuable in the right context.
Read the answerRelated guides
Choosing a Hiring Model for a Technology Scale-up
The right hiring model depends on the pattern of hiring, not the company size. Most mature scale-ups run a deliberate portfolio, not a single provider.
Read the guideAuthority GuideThe Economics of Technology Hiring
Cost per hire is only one variable. Real hiring economics balance total annual investment, speed, quality and the business cost of vacancies remaining open.
Read the guide