Don't get me wrong, I definitely see the value proposition of third party recruiting services. I spent three years in a leadership role at Futurestep and not only drank the kool-aide, I served it up. But the whole concept of outsourcing sort of cheapens it. Relegates it to the procurement department, like we are looking for the best supplier of pencil erasers.
It seems that the market likes buzzwords, and since we already had BPO, and HRO, why not RPO?
Click here for my take on the history of the RPO industry
Over the course of my 25 year career in the Human Resources field, as a practitioner, consultant and business leader, the vast majority of my work has been in Recruiting. I always viewed the recruiting and hiring process as the most important function of HR, after all isn't it the first stage of the talent management life cycle?
So why is everyone dumping this critical role off to the lowest bidder?
The fact is they are not. I think the most successful RPO deals are those that are not really outsourcing at all. Most companies are not looking to unload the entire recruiting function, they are looking to fill some gaps:
- Adding resources to cover peak volumes
- Bring sourcing depth for a specific hard to find role
- To supplement the team with some great recruiters
- Supporting infrastructure, process and/or technology
- Administrative support
The best RPO companies are flexible and will create complimentary solutions that best fit their client's needs. And one size most definitely does not fit all.
Unfortunately the industry needed a name and RPO seems to have stuck.
Before I left Futurestep, I was involved in the pursuit of a very large global RPO deal. The sales cycle lasted almost a full year and when we won the deal I attended the kick off meeting. The executive sponsor for the client was presenting the story and one of the first things he said was something like this:
"We are not Outsourcing recruiting. RPO stands for Recruitment Process Optimization."
Now that is something I can buy into.
