Thursday, 09 February 2012

Lehman Bros collapse began shift to direct resourcing

25-November-2009 | By Vanessa Townsend

Stribbling: seismic shift in confidence

Stribbling: seismic shift in confidence

Just over a year since the collapse of financial services firm Lehman Brothers, a senior RPO head said this event was the catalyst for the investment banks’ shift away from pure vendor management to direct resourcing.

Miles Stribbling, managing director - operations, Resource Solutions, told Recruiter that once Lehman staff knew - or guessed - what was happening and began contacting agencies looking for a move, within 24 hours almost all the investment banks sent out a message to say that there would be no hiring of Lehman candidates through agencies.

“As far as the banks were concerned, it was a seismic shift in confidence in their own capabilities to track, respond and hire applicants, without going through specialist recruitment agencies,” Stribbling explained. “The big banks hadn’t really used their brand in the marketplace before, but now, since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, they are using RPO providers to go directly to the market.

“And we’re carrying out brand optimisation for our clients onsite in a more consultative approach.”

This shift towards more direct resourcing and consultation is borne out by Alexander Mann Solutions’ chief executive Rosaleen Blair. “You can almost describe AMS as a professional consultancy for resourcing,” she told Recruiter. “We’re embedded onsite within our clients’ organisations because you have to live the culture. Our people become the custodians of a client’s brand.”

Readers' comments (2)

  • Tim Latham | Tue, 1 Dec 2009 9:48 am

    I can absolutely see the logic of other banks deciding not to pay 3rd party recruiters for the introduction of ex Lehman Bros staff around the time of Lehman's collapse. Basically that is just saying "We won't pay for low hanging fruit that we can access ourselves" - good common sense.

    I do take issue however, with what one of the RPO providers suggests by saying "Our people become the custodians of a client’s brand.” The statement itself is correct, but the implication (at least to me) is that the RPOs think they are doing a good job at representing their clients' brands. On numerous occassions I have had unsolicited feedback from candidates that their experience has been appalling, that they never hear what the state of play is and that the procedures they are asked to go through are overly lengthy. We try very hard to help them and essentially apologise on behalf of the RPO (not that the RPO themselves normally apologise). The candidates don't normally know that they are dealing with an RPO - they just take away a poor impression of the employer brand.

    And I'm talking about the big RPO players - no names no pack drill! So big name employers might be amazed how their brands are being represented to the outside world by their RPOs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Neil Jones | Mon, 7 Dec 2009 2:01 pm

    The RPO model is flawed due to the calibre of staff facing off to candidates. They are usually paid relatively low basics, which impacts on the service delivered.

    In my experience a genuine direct model with high quality niche recruiters in support provides the best service to candidates and delivers the highest calibre of staff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

Related images

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed