2014
A Numbers Game
North American Staffing
and Recruiting Trends Report

2
Contents
3 Introduction & Key Findings
4 Revenue and Growth
• Revenue Expectations
• Actual Revenue
• Headcount
• Branch Expansion
6 Agency Health
• Revenue from Repeat Client Business
• Reliance on Large Clients
7 Performance Benchmarks
• Most Important Metrics
• Total Number of Placements Growth
• Average Fill Rate
• Average Hit Rate
• Average Time-to-Fill
• Average Submissions Per Hire
• Average Applications Per Job Posting
• Percentage of Placements from ATS
• Fee Per Perm Placement
14 Compensation
• Compensation Performance
• Real Compensation
16 Trends
• Greatest Opportunity and Biggest Threat
• Skills Shortage
17 Insights
• Candidate Sourcing Strategies
• ATS Importance to Firm Success
• Greatest Quality of a Successful Recruiter
20 Demographics

Growth:
• 77% of respondents met or
exceeded their revenue goals
in 2013, more than 2012,
2011, or 2010.
• 75% of firms plan to
grow headcount in 2014,
compared to 82% in 2013.
• Growth in investment
is slowing: only 23% of
respondents’ firms plan to
launch new offices in 2014,
compared to 48% last year.
Firms that consider recruiting
technology important are
more than twice as likely to
open new branch locations
in 2014.
Metrics:
• For the third year in a row,
total number of placements
was the most important
metric for recruiting agencies.
• The average fill rate across all
respondents was 46%.
• Average hit rate increased for
respondents, from 33% in
2012 to 40% in 2013.
• The average time-to-fill in
2013 was 6 days for temp,
8 days for contract, and 32
days for perm.
• Respondents made 49% of
their total placements using
candidates from their internal
databases.
Candidates:
• 71% of respondents admit to
having a shortage of skilled
candidates in their respective
sectors for 2014 versus 76%
for 2013.
• The best source of qualified
candidates for 2013 was
existing candidates from
respondents’ applicant
tracking systems, followed
by referrals and social media.
Key Findings
Introduction
In December of 2013, Bullhorn conducted its fourth annual Staffing and Recruiting Trends
survey of 1,337 agency recruiting professionals. Comprised of performance benchmarks, metrics,
and revenue and compensation figures, this report analyzes industry insights by firm size, recruitment
type, industry, role recruited, and role of respondent. It is a compendium of useful statistics designed
to help recruiting professionals determine where they stand in relation to their peers.
For the purposes of the analyses in this report, we segmented staffing and recruiting agencies into four
sizes, based on their number of salespeople and recruiters: 1-10 (small), 11-25 (lower-midsize),
26-74 (upper-midsize), and 75+ (large).
2013 was by almost all accounts a very good year for the staffing and recruiting industry. Overall
revenue, as well as total number of placements – the most important metric for firms across the board
– increased over the past year. However, there are signs of a slowdown for 2014. Agencies are more
conservative about their growth plans, and some firms are overly reliant on a single large client for
revenue. Meanwhile, contract and temp firms are gaining momentum for 2014, as the popularity of
recruiting technology underscores a need for speed and performance.
3

4
Revenue and Growth
Revenue Expectations:
77% of respondents met or exceeded their revenue goals in 2013, more than 2012, 2011, or 2010.
In terms of revenue expectations for the coming year, recruiting professionals are optimistic. 88%
expect some sort of increase and only 3% anticipate a decline; 92% of respondents
expected to increase revenue for 2013. Large firms are most bullish on growth in general.
Actual Revenue:
We asked respondents to disclose their firms’ actual revenues for 2013. We expressed these figures as
revenue per recruiter/salesperson by firm size and recruitment type.
Firms That Met Or Exceeded Revenue Goals
2010 71%
2011
2012
2013
70%
73%
77%
60%
70%
80%
By recruitment type, large temporary firms and large contract firms had the highest revenue per
recruiter/salesperson ($604,000 and $549,000, respectively). RPO firms in general were on the lower
end; small RPO firms had revenue per recruiter/salesperson of $171,000.
Revenue Per Recruiter/Salesperson By Firm Size and Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive Search
- Retained
$0 $300,000 $700,000
Executive Search
- Contingent
RPO*
1-10
11-25
26-74
75+
N/A 75+
*Note: Due to limited sample size we did not calculate large RPO firm revenue.
Revenue Per Recruiter/Salesperson By Firm Size
1-10 $266,000
11-25
26-74
75+
$339,000
$336,000
$528,000
$0 $300,000 $600,000

5
Headcount:
Hiring plans for 2014 are healthy, with only 2% of respondents disclosing that their firms plan to
reduce headcount, and 75% planning to grow it. However, this is less aggressive than last year,
when 82% planned to add staff.
2014 Headcount Plan By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0% 50%
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
Add Employees
Reduce Employees
Keep Employee Count the Same
100%
86%
13%
1%
77%
22%
2%
68%
29%
2%
69%
31%
0%
63%
37%
1%
64%
33%
3%
Branch Expansion:
We asked respondents if their firms planned to expand into new branch or office locations in 2014.
Given the positive news about revenue growth, we expected aggressive expansion plans. This was
far from the case.
Only 23% of respondents’ firms plan to launch new offices in 2014.
49% have no intention of doing so, and 28% are unsure.
For 2013, more than double the number of respondents’ firms planned to expand. And 2013 wasn’t
an isolated case. While the percentage of firms meeting or exceeding revenue goals is growing, their
investment in headcount and physical expansion is shrinking.
Interestingly, firms that consider recruiting
technology important are more than twice as
likely to open new branch locations in 2014.
Among those respondents who consider recruiting
technology such as applicant tracking systems
to be important to success, 26% plan to expand
branch locations in 2014. For those who are neutral
or consider recruiting technology unimportant,
only 12% plan to expand branch locations.
By primary recruitment type, contingent
executive search firms are most conservative
in terms of headcount plans, whereas
contract and temp firms are primed for
headcount growth. Interestingly, RPO firms’
growth plans are comparatively modest.
Given the tremendous growth RPO has
seen in the past several years this finding
was surprising.
Firms Planning Branch Expansion
2011 56%
2012
2013
2014
39%
48%
23%
0%
70%
30%

6
Agency Health
Revenue from Repeat Client Business:
Firms that generate a high percentage of their revenue from repeat client business demonstrate the
value of nurturing strong customer relationships and delivering sustainable results. It appears as
though staffing and recruiting firms understand the importance of customer relationships and key
metrics (as we’ll see later): 72% of respondents generate 50% or more of their revenue from repeat
client business.
Results were relatively similar across recruitment types, ranging from 57% of revenue from repeat
business for perm firms to 64% for temp firms.
% of Firms That Can Stay in Business
if Largest Client Was Lost
1-10 93%
11-25
26-74
75+
95%
100%
98%
FirmSize
70%
85%
100%
Reliance on Large Clients:
While revenue from repeat client business is a sign
of strong agency health, relying too heavily on a
single client can be risky. The next question we
asked in the survey – “what percentage of your
total revenue does your largest client represent?”
– aimed to determine the number of firms hedging
their bets on a dangerous proposition.
By size, the findings were fairly tame, with
one definite exception. 48% of upper-midsize
respondents get 70% or more of their revenue
from their largest client.
We also asked respondents if they could stay in
business if they lost their largest client. Only 6%
of respondents admit that they’d close if this were
the case. However, 22% of respondents reported
that 50% or more of their revenue comes from
their largest client.
Percentage of Revenue from Repeat Client Business
PercentageofRespondents
Percentage of Revenue
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
5%
0-10%
8%
5%
11-20%
8%
21-30%
9%
31-40%
13%
41-50%
8%
51-60%
9%
61-70%
22%
71-80%
16%
81-90%
6%
91-100%
While several respondents at small,
lower-midsize, and large firms felt at risk
of shutting down if they lost their largest
client, no respondents from upper-midsize
firms (26-74) felt vulnerable. Upper-midsize
firms are most reliant on a single client,
but are the least afraid of going under if
they lose that client.

7
Performance Benchmarks
For the 2014 Staffing and Recruiting Trends Report, we collected performance benchmark data from
the more than 1,300 recruiting professionals who took our survey. Use the data in this section to see
how you compared to your peers in 2013.
Most Important Metrics:
We asked respondents to rank their key metrics in order of most important (#1) to least important (#6).
To keep measurement consistent with previous years, we charted the percentage of respondents who
considered each of the six metrics we measured as MOST important in the graph below.
For the third year in a row, total number of placements was most important. Interestingly, this metric
has increased in importance every year. Hit rate (defined as starts divided by sendouts), on the other
hand, has declined heavily year-over-year. And time-to-fill has become increasingly important, though
it’s still at the bottom of the list.
While fill rate was the second most important metric overall, this was influenced by small firms.
For lower-midsize, upper-midsize, and large firms, average gross margin of placement fee was
actually the second most important metric in 2013.
Total number of placements was the top metric for all recruitment types except for RPO firms,
which considered total number of placements and time-to-fill to both be most important.
How Successful Were Firms in 2013?
Most Important Key Performance Metric
2013
44%
2012
2011
0%
50%
25%
Total Number
of Placements
Fill Rate
Average Gross
Margin of
Placement Fee
Total Number
of Job Orders
Hit Rate
Time-to-Fill
38%
31%

8
Total Number of Placements Growth:
Given that total number of placements was again the top metric for recruiting firms, we asked whether
respondents’ total number of placements grew over the past year.
71% of respondents said their total placements grew, 20% said they
didn’t, and 9% were unsure.
By role recruited, finance and accounting, legal, and sales proved to be hot functional areas.
% of Firms Exhibiting Total Placement Growth in 2013
— By Role Recruited
Finance &
Accounting
Legal
Sales
Clinical/Scientific
IT/Technical
Professional/Specialty
Healthcare-General
Engineering/Design
Healthcare-Locum
Tenens
Office/Clerical/Admin
All/Generalist
Healthcare-Per Diem
Nurse
Light Industrial
Healthcare-Travel Nurse
Marketing/Creative
0% 50%
100%
78%
76%
76%
74%
73%
73%
70%
70%
67%
65%
67%
55%
55%
50%
50%
Average Fill Rate in 2013:
The average fill rate across all respondents was 46%. For this report, we defined fill rate as the total
number of job orders filled divided by the number of job orders received, multiplied by 100.
Respondents filling jobs for the shipping industry had the highest fill
rate (67%), while those in entertainment had the lowest (36%).
For primary recruitment type, retained executive search firms had the highest average fill rate. Contingent
executive search firms had the lowest fill rate and contract was close behind. This suggests that if
contingent jobs aren’t filled quickly, they might not end up filled at all.

9
Average Fill Rate By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0%
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
70%
41%
59%
44%
66%
39%
55%
30%
Average Hit Rate in 2013:
Average hit rate increased for respondents
from 33% in 2012 to 40% in 2013. We defined
hit rate as the number of successful placements
(starts) divided by the total number of client
submissions (sendouts), multiplied by 100.
Hit rate varied considerably between industries,
with packaging/warehouse/transport having the
highest hit rate and the restaurant/hospitality
industry having the lowest.
Average Fill Rate By Industry
Shipping
Packaging/Transport/Warehouse
Industrial
Construction
Transportation
Manufacturing
Consumer Products
Retail
Business Services
Telecommunications
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Automotive
Energy/Chemical
Pharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Restaurant/Hospitality
Healthcare
Technology
Finance/Insurance
Utilities
Government
Entertainment
0% 40%
80%
67%
60%
55%
51%
51%
50%
48%
48%
47%
47%
47%
46%
46%
44%
43%
42%
41%
40%
40%
39%
36%
Average Hit Rate By Industry
Packaging/Transport/Warehouse
Shipping
Transportation
Industrial
Construction
Manufacturing
Automotive
Energy/Chemical
Telecommunications
Business Services
Retail
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Pharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Healthcare
Technology
Utilities
Finance/Insurance
Government
Entertainment
Consumer Products
Restaurant/Hospitality
0% 30%
60%
50%
50%
50%
46%
44%
43%
42%
42%
41%
39%
38%
38%
38%
38%
37%
36%
36%
35%
34%
34%
31%

10
Similar to the fill rate pattern, contingent executive search and contract firms had the lowest average hit
rate by recruitment type.
Average Time-to-Fill in 2013:
For the report, we defined time-to-fill as the number
of days or hours required to fill a new job opening.
Despite the fact that time-to-fill was deemed the least
important metric of the six we evaluated, analyzing it
yielded some valuable findings, mainly – what types of
respondents and firms are obsessed with speed? The
answer is, as we’ve seen throughout the report, temp
and contract firms.
Broken out by recruitment type, the average
time-to-fill in 2013 was 6 days for temporary,
8 days for contract, and 32 days for permanent.
Because time-to-fill varied drastically between
recruiting types, we split out the industry view by
contract, temporary, and permanent recruitment.
Interestingly, time-to-fill at contract recruiting firms
was lowest for the entertainment and auto industries
(2 days), but as mentioned earlier, entertainment also
had the lowest overall fill rate (36%). What’s the point of
filling jobs quickly if you don’t also fill the majority
of them?
Average Time-to-Fill by Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
Executive
Search -
Contingent
6
37
68
Days
8
32
Average Hit Rate By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0%
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
60%
37%
47%
39%
48%
37%
51%
30%

11
Average Time-to-Fill By Industry — Contract
Automotive
Entertainment
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Packaging/Transport/Warehouse
Telecommunications
Construction
Manufacturing
Industrial
Healthcare
Shipping
Technology
Pharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Finance/Insurance
Transportation
Government
Retail
Utilities
Consumer Products
Business Services
Energy/Chemical
Restaurant/Hospitality
Days
2
2
5
5
6
8
8
9
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
16
17
Average Time-to-Fill By Industry — Temporary
4
3
0.9
0.1Restaurant/Hospitality
Construction
Packaging/Transport/Warehouse
Shipping
Energy/Chemical
Utilities
Healthcare
Business Services
Telecommunications
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Finance/Insurance
Entertainment
Transportation
Government
Pharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Retail
Manufacturing
Consumer Products
Industrial
Technology
Automotive
Days
0.2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
11
12
12
15
5
15
30
Average Time-to-Fill By Industry — Permanent
12Transportation
Entertainment
Packaging/Transport/Warehouse
Business Services
Finance/Insurance
Automotive
Utilities
Manufacturing
Telecommunications
Technology
Government
Pharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Construction
Retail
Industrial
Restaurant/Hospitality
Consumer Products
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Energy/Chemical
Healthcare
Shipping
Days
21
21
22
23
25
26
27
27
27
28
29
30
31
31
31
34
34
N/A (limited sample size)
36
39
For 50% of respondents overall, average
time-to-fill improved in 2013; it worsened
for only 13%. We asked respondents
whose time-to-fill worsened to explain why
this happened. The most common reasons
included stricter corporate HR processes
from clients, a lack of qualified candidates
(also the biggest overall challenge for 2014),
and a lack of urgency from clients.

12
Average Number of Submissions Per Hire:
On average, respondents needed to submit 6 candidates to the client for every hire.
The average number of candidate submissions to the client for every one hire varied by type of
recruitment, with firms specializing in permanent placement requiring 7 submitted candidates for every
hire compared to just 4 candidates for temp agencies.
By role recruited, most healthcare roles required
the highest average number of submissions
per hire, with 11 for travel nurses, 10 for per
diem nurses, and 6 for general healthcare
positions. The exception was locum tenens
healthcare positions, which required the fewest
submissions (4), as did legal.
Average Number of
Applications Per Job Posting:
Respondents received an average of 28
applications per job posting. Contract firms
received much fewer applications – 17 – versus
an average of 49 for temp firms. Temp firms’ high
number of applications contrasted with their low
submissions per hire, indicating that while quantity
of candidates isn’t a problem, quality may be.
Submissions Per Hire By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
8
5
4
7
6
4
5
4
Overall 6
Applications Per Job By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
60
18
49
35
47
17
42
Overall 28
30

13
Per diem nursing jobs received the most
applications per posting, followed by
office/clerical/admin jobs. Interestingly,
office/clerical positions, despite drawing a
high number of applications, have a skills
shortage problem which we’ll discuss later.
Percentage of Firms’ Placements Made from Candidates in ATS:
Overall, respondents made 49% of their total placements using
candidates from their applicant tracking databases.
Contract firms made the highest percentage
of placements using existing candidates from
their databases, whereas retained executive
search firms were more likely to turn to new
candidates. We also know that contract firms
that deal with a high-volume business are more
likely to use VMS, where speed is critical, and
consider “existing candidates from the ATS”
to be their most effective high-quality sourcing
method (discussed later).
A low-volume, long-lead business like retained
executive search would rely less on existing
candidates who may not be an exact fit for
a senior position and more on relationship-
centric sourcing strategies like social media,
the number one candidate sourcing strategy for
retained exec search firms.
Fee Per Perm Placement:
We asked respondents at firms specializing primarily in permanent placement to disclose their firm’s
average fee per placement in 2013. The average fee per permanent placement was $16,602.
Applications Per Job Post By Role Recruited
Healthcare-Per Diem Nurse
Office/Clerical/Admin
All/Generalist
Marketing/Creative
Finance & Accounting
Healthcare-Travel Nurse
Sales
Professional/Specialty
Legal
Light Industrial
Healthcare-General
Engineering/Design
Clinical/Scientific
IT/Technical
Healthcare-Locum Tenens
0 60
50
30
47
41
39
37
36
33
32
32
31
24
23
19
18
6
Average % of Placements Made From
Existing Candidates — By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0%
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
60%
55%
51%
46%
45%
47%
51%
30%

14
Compensation
Compensation Performance:
Respondents are optimistic about their total compensation for this year (defined as salary plus bonus),
with more expecting an increase (84%) in 2014 than for 2013 (81%) or 2012 (77%).
In terms of realized compensation overall, 2013 was slightly less lucrative than 2012. 61% of
respondents saw a year-over-year compensation increase in 2013, versus 63% who saw one in 2012.
Real Compensation in 2013:
Now let’s talk actual numbers. CEOs unsurprisingly made the most money in 2013 ($154,000), but
salespeople and account managers made much more than recruiters ($92,000 versus $74,000).
Actual Compensation Performance Compared to Previous Year
Increase Decrease Stay the Same
2010
24%
22%
54% 2011
29%
11%
60% 2012
13%
25%
63%
2013
25%
14%
61%
Average Compensation By Role
CEO/Owner/Managing Director
Sales VP
VP of Operations
Recruiting Manager
Salesperson/Account Manager
HR
IT Manager/CTO/CIO
Recruiter
Social Media/Marketing Manager
$0 $90,000 $180,000
$154,000
$145,000
$123,000
$109,000
$92,000
$81,000
$75,000
$74,000
$73,000

15
We also broke out compensation by firm size and three roles. Small firm CEOs made an average
of $149,000, whereas CEOs of lower-midsize firms topped the charts with average compensation
of $215,000. And while CEOs at large firms made the second-highest amount among their peers,
recruiters at large firms made the least — with average compensation of $62,000.
Analyzing compensation by recruitment type, it’s clear that retained executive search is where the
money is. CEOs for firms specializing in retained executive search pulled in a comparatively massive
$230,000 in average compensation.
Average Compensation By Firm Size
CEO/Owner/Partner
Recruiter
Salesperson/Account Manager
$0 $250,000
1-10
11-25
26-74
75+
$149,000
$100,000
$215,000
$190,000
$200,000
$78,000
$79,000
$63,000
$62,000
$83,000
$97,000
$92,000
$119,000
Average Compensation By Recruitment Type
CEO/Owner/Partner
Recruiter
Salesperson/Account Manager
$0 $250,000
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive Search - Retained
Executive Search - Contingent
$146,000
$100,000
$159,000
$139,000
$230,000
$149,000
$71,000
$53,000
$77,000
$84,000
$96,000
$95,000
$74,000
$93,000
$95,000
$105,000

16
Trends for 2014
We examined several key trends for 2014 based on our 2013 findings.
Greatest Opportunity and Biggest Threat:
In 2014, according to write-in responses, the greatest opportunity for recruiting firms is social
media. In 2013, the greatest opportunity for recruiting firms was the very similar “access to passive
candidates via social media.” “Mobile recruiting” is a distant second for 2014, followed by
“Big Data.”
For 2014, based on open-ended responses, the greatest obstacle or threat to success is a lack of
qualified candidates. This is closely followed by economic concerns and increased competition.
In 2013 the greatest challenge was “a lack of skilled candidates,” followed by “unrealistic client
expectations.”
Percentage of Respondents with Shortage of Skilled Candidates — By Industry
Transportation
Utilities
Pharma/Biotech/Medical Equipment
Entertainment
Energy/Chemical
Industrial
Technology
Healthcare
Telecommunications
Automotive
Manufacturing
Finance/Insurance
Construction
Government
Restaurant/Hospitality
Business Services
Retail
Marketing/PR/Media/Advertising
Packaging/Transport/Warehouse
Consumer Products
Shipping
0% 50%
100%
84%
78%
77%
76%
73%
73%
72%
72%
71%
71%
70%
70%
70%
70%
68%
64%
64%
64%
61%
61%
54%
Skills Shortage:
The good news is that the
skills shortage, while being
the biggest challenge two
years running, is slightly less
pervasive this year. 71%
of respondents admit to
having a shortage of skilled
candidates in their respective
sectors for 2014 versus 76%
for 2013.
By industry, the findings
are somewhat peculiar.
Technology – which in
previous years had a critical
shortage of qualified talent –
is running in the middle of the
pack this year. Transportation
(84%), pharma/biotech (77%),
and utilities (78%) all saw
higher reported shortages
than technology (72%).

17
Insights
What Makes a Successful Recruiting Firm?
For this year’s report we sought to learn more about some of the elements of recruiter success,
starting with best practices for sourcing candidates.
Candidate Sourcing Strategies:
We asked respondents to rank their most successful candidate sourcing strategies for 2013 from best
(1) to worst (7). The most successful source of qualified candidates for 2013 was existing candidates
from respondents’ own applicant tracking systems (3.3), followed by referrals from previous
successful placements (3.4) and social media (3.5).
Job boards – often discussed and
debated in the recruiting media –
were in the middle with a rank of 3.6.
Aggregator sites (4.6), re-hires (4.8),
and cold calling (4.8) did poorly.
Segmented by firm size, the findings
vary significantly. For large firms, the
most successful source of qualified
candidates was job boards, followed by
referrals. The least successful source
was cold calling.
Meanwhile, lower-midsize firms fared
best using existing candidates from
their ATS, followed by referrals and
job boards, but did poorly with cold
calling. Upper-midsize firms were most
successful with existing candidates from
their ATS as well, and also saw strong
results with job boards and referrals, but
did terribly with re-hires.
Average Rank of Candidate Sourcing Strategies
Existing Candidates from ATS
Referrals
Social Media
Job Boards
Aggregator Sites
Re-hires
Cold Calling
1 7
3.3
Best Worst
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.6
4.8
4.8
Average Rank of Candidate Sourcing Strategies By Firm Size
1-10
11-25
26-74
75+
Job Boards
Referrals from
Placements
Existing Candidates
from ATS
Social Media
Aggregator Sites
Re-hires
Cold Calling
3.1
1 7
Best Worst
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.4
3.8
3.4
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.5
4.8
5.1
4.4
4.8
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.8

18
Social media was the most successful
source of quality candidates for permanent
staffing firms – a major evolution since our
2011 Trends Report found social media to
be the least successful sourcing method.
But for contract firms, where speedy
placements are crucial, existing candidates
from applicant tracking systems were the
best source of quality candidates. For temp
firms, referrals from previous placements
proved to be the best source.
Retained and contingent executive search
firms, not shown in the graph, had common
results. For retained exec search, the
number one sourcing strategy – like perm
– was social media (2.4 ranking). Referrals
were a distant second (3.3), and re-hires
were the least effective (5.4). For contingent
executive search, the top candidate
sourcing strategy was also social media
(3.0), followed closely by referrals (3.0).
Last was, again, re-hires (5.4).
How Important Is
Recruiting Technology
to Agency Success?
Applicant tracking systems (ATS) are no
longer a luxury – they’re an integral part of
agency success. 89% of respondents consider
recruiting technology such as applicant
tracking systems to be important or very
important to their firms’ success for 2014,
a higher percentage than 2013 or 2012.
Firms across all sizes consider recruiting technology important to success, but small firm are on the lower
end of the findings, at 86%, versus 93% for lower-midsize firms, 94% for upper-midsize firms, and 93%
for large firms. 75% of respondents from large firms considered recruiting technology very important.
By recruitment type, the findings are very different. It appears that the shorter the placement cycle,
the more respondents consider recruiting technology important to success. For a high-volume
placements business like RPO, contract staffing, and temp staffing, recruiting technology such as
applicant tracking systems is crucial. A whopping 86% of RPO respondents think recruiting
technology is not just important, but very important. For a longer-lead or lower-volume business
like executive search, recruiting technology is perceived as less important. In other words, the firms
that rely most on recruiting technology have a need for speed and automation.
Respondents Who Consider Recruiting Technology Important
or Very Important to Firm Success
2011
84%
2012
87%
2013
89%
Average Rank of Candidate Sourcing Strategies
By Primary Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Social Media
Referrals from
Placements
Existing Candidates
from ATS
Job Boards
Aggregator Sites
Cold Calling
Re-hires
1 7
Best Worst
3.2
4.3
3.9
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.0
3.8
3.3
3.1
4.4
4.1
4.8
4.5
5.6
5.4
5.3
4.0
4.2

19
Respondents Who Consider Recruiting Technology
Important or Very Important to Firm Success
— By Recruitment Type
Contract
Temporary
Permanent
Executive
Search -
Retained
0%
Executive
Search -
Contingent
RPO
100%
92%
92%
86%
86%
79%
96%
50%
The Greatest Quality
of a Successful Recruiter:
We wanted to conclude the 2014 Trends
Report on a qualitative note. We’ve presented
numerous benchmarks that demonstrate
what success looks like for recruiting firms.
But what makes a successful recruiter? What
character traits separate someone who’s just
in it for personal gain from a real professional
who cares about people – a master of
appreciating human potential? What is
the single greatest quality of a successful
recruiter?
We asked respondents to write in their
ideas, and the most dominant answer
was “persistence.” This was followed by
“the ability to listen” and, supporting the
importance of holding on against all odds,
“tenacity.” One highly optimistic individual
wrote “good looks.” Greatest Quality of a Recruiter
Persistence
Ability to Listen
Tenacity
Ability to Follow Up
Communication
Sourcing
Networking
Relationship Building
Perseverance
Drive
Determination
0 80 160
141
51
50
48
48
37
31
31
28
26
23

Demographics
About the Trends Report
In December of 2013, Bullhorn conducted its annual trends survey of 1,337 North American
recruiting agency professionals. Below is a breakdown of respondents by:
Firm Size (total number of salespeople and recruiters)
• 1-10: 58%
• 11-25: 17%
• 26-74: 13%
• 75+: 12%
Primary Type of Recruitment
• Permanent and/or RPO: 41%
• Temporary: 12%
• Contract: 33%
• Executive Search-Contingent and/or Executive Search-Retained: 13%
Geographic Locations
• United States: 91%
• Canada: 9%
Bullhorn®
creates software and services that help recruiters put the world to work. For over fourteen
years our innovations have powered the recruiting and staffing operations of fast-growing start-ups
up through the world’s largest employment brands. Headquartered in Boston, with offices in St. Louis,
Vancouver, London and Sydney, Bullhorn’s recruiting CRM, back office, and social recruiting products
serve more than 10,000 clients representing nearly 300,000 users across 150 countries.
For more information: Please visit www.bullhorn.com or call +1(888) GoLive8.
Bullhorn is a registered trademark of Bullhorn, Inc. All other trademarks contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
1.888.GoLive8 • sales@bullhorn.com • @bullhorn
About Bullhorn
20

21