Some recruiters believe retention isn’t part of their job.
Zack Emmerson, Managing Director
Some recruiters believe retention isn’t part of their job.
I, and we at E-Haus Tec, vehemently disagree.
I’ve been doing some engaged reading on the ever glorious platform that is LinkedIn. And honestly, it’s becoming harder by the day to tell what’s written by a person and what’s been spat out by a prompt. Not because AI is some bad inherently. More because it’s just… saturated LinkedIn. It’s made the platform become more required reading than in the past.
You know the posts: “Saying the quiet part out loud.” “No fluff.” “Unfiltered.” Yet somehow they all end up sounding the same. And half the time it’s recruiters talking to other recruiters. Content for content sake.
I digress. But it’s relevant.
Because the post that caught my attention was around rebate.
Fairly standard topic. But the angle wasn’t.
And the consensus from a lot of recruiters was this. Our job is to attract, negotiate and recruit. The client hires, manages and retains.
Now, parts of that are fair. Managing? Of course. Imagine recruiters trying to manage internally as well. It would be chaos. Hiring is more of a shared thing, if we’re being honest. Not just a handover. But fine.
Retention though…
This is where it falls apart for me.
Because to say recruiters have no impact on retention is just incorrect. Not theoretically, in practicality. In the day to day. Retention doesn’t suddenly start on day one. It starts in the conversations we have (or don't have). The proper ones.
Clients can offer x at y. They can build environments. They can appease.
But recruiters… we sit in the middle. We've got candidate motivations, client expectations, the positives, the BS and everything in between. It all paints a picture. Good or bad.
Research backs this up:
Around 36% of new hires leave within the first 90 days because of mismatched expectations set during recruitment (a problem recruiters directly influence).
Realistic job previews and honest conversations during hiring have been shown to reduce voluntary turnover by up to 10-13%.
That’s not just transactional. Sorry.
And this is the part I don’t quite get.
Because we as recruiters, we have a complete and whole toolkit at our disposal. And shock horror, it’s nothing to do with AI. No. It’s quite traditional. And like most people in recruitment, they really value themselves as traditionalists. The old school. Pick up the phone. One desk. Relationship driven. All of that.
Now, I am definitely one of those. Yet, I also sit in the newer side too. You know, working remotely, Personal branding. AI doing some some work here and there where it makes sense. But if we’re going to lean on being “traditionalists” then act like it.
Because none of this is new. The toolkit is simple.
Said toolkit:
Sound out real attitudes and intentions early
Prod & ask smarter questions.
Challenge someone when their reason for moving doesn’t add up.
Tell a client what they need to hear, not just what helps close.
tay close after placement (without being pushy)
It’s not revolutionary. It’s just being actively involved at the far end of your deal cycle, even post. It still matters.
For some recruiters,
it’s easier to say “retention isn’t my job” than it is to accept you probably could have influenced it.
But once you accept that, the job changes. It takes more time, more conversations, and sometimes means you don’t place someone because it’s not quite right. That doesn’t always look good on a monthly report, but it does over time.
So no, we don’t own retention.
But we influence it far more than people like to admit. It's not a detached item.
And if you’re serious about this industry, about building something that lasts, you don’t ignore that part.
You lean into it.
That’s how I practise recruitment. That’s how we practise it at E-Haus Tec.
And as Roy Keane would say…
That’s his job.
Source(s): Gallup Workplace Study (2022-2023) & BambooHR State of the Workplace Report (2023). Premack & Wanous (1985) meta-analysis, confirmed in Phillips (1998) and later SHRM research reviews.
