A company is advertising a role on its website. The role is also being advertised by a recruiter.Is there any advantage to using the recruiter or is it better to deal direct with the company?

There is benefit to using the agent if they have a good relationship with the client, in which case they can help position you with the recruiting manager, can explain away any minor concerns on your behalf, and might help negotiate a better package when things go well. If the agent does not have a true inside track to the client then there is more benefit in going direct. On the contrary they can slow things up.My suggestion would be to submit your CV to the agent and explain in your e-mail that you do not wish them to forward your CV to the client until they have confirmed to you that you are a viable candidate. Once they do so, request a ten minute chat on the position, the hiring manager, the firm’s culture, etc, so that you can confirm your interest. If the agent can describe all this (they may not wish to name the hiring manager) and add their own perspective on the firm (ideally referring to previous placements!) then let them represent you.If they are unwilling to invest 10 minutes in a viable candidate then they are volume- mudslinger – drop them. If they do the call but cannot add any insight into the client opp, then they are not going to add value to your application – go direct.

Thanks for this - much appreciated!He knew a lot about the role but failed the 'previous placements' test! All in all, I've asked him to put my application forward.

Go direct! Cost per hire is a serious topic at the moment - not saying that you would not get an interview if your CV was relevant if you came through an agency or that you would get preferential treatment but if you have the choice then apply direct!

Sam - as with most things in life, there are pros and cons to both approaches. As a general rule if you are an absolutely perfect match for a role then applying direct may put you at an advantage as the cost saving the employer would make does play a part in the hiring decision - but only at the margins.Most big firms I know have an average cost-per-hire target they are trying to hit and making a good proportion of direct hires is key to achieving this target. However that's only likely to come into play if an employer has two candidates they are ambivalent about in terms of which of the two to hire. At that point, a significant success fee would be an incentive to take the direct hire over the recruitment agency sourced candidate. But equally it's extremely unlikely that an employer would take the inferior of two candidates because the superior candidate would trigger a success fee being payable - so this does only come into play at the margins.By contrast, as soon as you are a candidate who looks potentially well suited for a role but isn't perfect on paper, then you may well benefit from having an external advocate fighting your corner. If they get you an interview through the strength of their relationship with the client that a direct application might not have secured then clearly this makes the recruitment agency route advantageous.Note that once you have submitted an application direct to an employer, a recruitment agency is unlikely to be able to work with you as your direct application may invalidate any claim for a success fee payment. So applying to all the firms you'd like to join directly and then turning to recruitment firms when things don't work out is not likely to be a viable option.Other major considerations are:- A recruitment consultant should be able to give you insights as to the reasons for the hire being needed and the strengths/ weaknesses of the team you'll be joining.- A recruitment consultant should be in a position to prep you for what you'll face at interview.- A recruitment consultant will be able to mediate in the salary negotiation discussion and potentially secure you a higher starting salary; or indeed stop you blowing your chances by going in with unrealistic salary expectations.- A recruitment consultant is incentivised to chase on the progress of your interviews / assessment / offer decision and so you're likely to have greater visibility of where you stand in the hiring process.- A recruitment consultant will be able to introduce you to alternative firms / practice options that you might not have considered and also to provide the insights necessary to decide between these options.I hope the above helps. At Top-Consultant we clearly work with both direct employers and with recruitment agencies, so this is my take on things based on years of interactions with both.All the best with your applicationsTony RestellTop-Consultant.com

Tony, Forgive me but your version seems quite stilted towards encouraging Sam to go through an agency and I dont think necessarily accurately on a few points. When you apply directly Sam, your not necessarily "on your own" and without advocacy or coaching. Usually the in-house recruiter will coach you through the process - and you will likely get more accurate and valuable insight as they will actually sit with the team you are going into, work strategically with the Partners etc in a way that the agency rarely does.I have not come accross a situation where the selection decision has been based on source ie direct cand vs agency cand, but I dont think this is where the issue is. The issue is that many roles are never opened to agencies in the first place; Where I work its less than 40%, and agencies place less than 25% of hires. As well as the cost imperative, there is a stack of research that shows that employers get better staff from sources other than agencies, usually alumni or staff referrals outperform the guys who fire their CV off to rakesh pabbi, because their about to get the boot or didnt get a decent payrise.....

Nick - it wasn't my intention to come across as favouring one route over the other, but rather to convey that depending on how obvious your suitability is for any role there may be advantages to going via an agency.We seem to be in agreement that the cost difference of hiring a direct hire versus an agency hire is not a factor that usually comes into play when a firm is deciding which of its final-round candidates to make the offer to.You're absolutely right in saying that not all roles are handled by agencies and so if you're only going the agency route you are certainly missing out on a lot of roles that firms would like to fill direct. Indeed some of the directly-advertised roles we have on Top-Consultant would fall into that category. However the scenario posed was what to do if a candidate has seen the same job advertised by both the employer direct and a recruitment agency. That's where I was trying to say with my reply that there isn't a "one size fits all" answer to that question.On a related point you make... for every role that a recruitment agency isn't handling and an employer is sourcing direct, there will be another role that the firm is *only* sourcing via recruitment agencies. When consulting firms know a key figure is leaving and needs replacing; or that they don't have the resources needed to deliver on a specific project win; or that a team is defecting to a competitor - well they're understandably not keen to openly advertise the fact!!Anyway to summarise I'd say candidates are usually best off using both options (direct and via agency) and if my original response didn't convey that then I hope this has clarified things.Tony RestellTop-Consultant.com

Well, I had wished after my interview with a Big4 that I would have gone with the agency. But simply, because they had quite some feedback from candidates who went through the same interview process and even new something about the case studies. I was in touch with them about another role and they knew of my interview with that firm, they even promised to give me some info. But, even after chasing them a few times, nothing happened. Not only that, as soon as my interview was over, they approached me, how it went and asked about the case studies. To my astonishment, they heard it all before, but wouldn't think of helping someone with whom they simply couldn't earn a penny....