Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

Hang on, are you really a headhunter?

It might be wise not to be too rude to a financial headhunter scoping you out for a job in the GCC - it could be the bank itself in disguise.

EFG-Hermes, a Middle Eastern investment bank, has revealed that it has its own in-house team of headhunters, which it claims is both a cheaper and a safer option.

Declan Ball, global head of corporate human resources at EFG-Hermes, says: "Dubai is full of cowboys. People who call themselves headhunters should in fact be selling double glazing."

He claims that since the firm employed an in-house team of three headhunters last year, they have saved the company $908k.

And EFG-Hermes isn't the only one. Dubai Bank, which has re-invented itself as an Islamic bank and expanded rapidly since 2006, also has a team of internal headhunters.

Clearly there are hefty savings to be made. Costa Papadopoulas, human resources manager at Dubai Bank, says that the firm has employed 460 people through its internal headhunting team - in mainly retail roles - and has saved the company some AED2.4m ($653k).

Generally speaking, a headhunter will charge 33% of the candidate's salary at each stage of the recruitment process - taking on the mandate, conducting the search, and making the eventual appointment.

Ball says that the headhunting team at EFG-Hermes is currently looking for 46 roles: "It can be anything from executive committee members to PAs."

But what would sway a headhunter away from the notoriously lucrative exec search sector to work for a bank's HR department?

Ball says: "They want more responsibility on the corporate side. You can make a lot of money at a headhunter, but with our roles they have total control of management of talent, recruitment policy, requisition process, and they address the executive committee too. It's much more responsibility."

author-card-avatar
AUTHORPaul Clarke
  • Le
    Leonie Ellis
    3 May 2008

    I dont believe in in house recruiters for the following reasons:
    1.Reputational risk - how is the bank/firm perceived if they are poaching from their competitors directly?

    2.Candidate management: in house roles are one dimensional - will candidates give the client feedback on poor interview processes/no feedback from their staff? Will they let the in house rectuiter know they are interivewing else where?

    3.Market feedback - external recruiters have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening re: trends, salary surveys, mergers.

    4.Market volitality - what happens to the inhouse team in down times? If the organisation stops recruiting - they will be the first to go as they then become a cost centre.

    5Culture: Recruiters are trail blazers, they are pursasive, ambitious and driven by the deal - this is not the nature of HR teams where recruitment is 15% of their function - which generally is not their fav ourite part of their job.
    Companies should be looking at their core business and how to unleash staff potential once they are employed so that recruiters can assist in the companies growth and have less work in filling roles disgruntled staff have left.

  • An
    Anti HR
    1 May 2008

    "Trustworthy" and "Efficient" in-house recruiter? Ha ha ha.

    HR is the biggest 'cost to company'. Get rid of 'em as soon as you can and you'll see not only the right candidates being selected (since the line guys understand a candidate's CV better than the plebs in HR) but also being retained longer.

  • Fr
    Frustrated!!
    23 April 2008

    What kind of a business language do you guys speak??

    It's pretty obvious that you do not know much about how recruitment agencies are ripping off firms and banks especially in the gulf region, starting from labour recruitment up to senior executive recruitment.

    I work for a company with over 40,000 employees at a director level and I was told by its HR staff that they could make together with recruiting agencies and headhunters a total of $10 million per year if they wanted to!!

    The issue is, if you get a trustworthy, experienced and efficient in house recruiter, you are definitely the winner over the long term.

    I believe that if you support headhunters, you are also benefiting from it, sorry to say.

  • He
    HeadHunter
    11 April 2008

    The relationship between a headhunter and candidate is of love and hate. I have worked with candidates for years, some are now friends and some are now clients.

    A good recruiter saves money to the client. I work with a few clients and in theory their in-house recruiter. Their are various pros and cons to in-house recruitment. One being that a good recruiter will not go in-house. Recruiter is a sales job and a sales man working in HR? I don;t think so!

    If a client can find and work with a good head hunter then that will save them money in Long term. hence, the key is to find a good recruitment firm to work with.

  • Tr
    Truth Be Heard
    8 April 2008

    What rubbish!! You dont save million dollars by having recruiters working in your HR. This article stinks and is irrelevant.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.