Hiring top-quality talent management professionals has never been more competitive.
Talent management salaries have increased by somewhere in the region of 20-25% over the past three years. At Director and Head of Talent levels the increase has been even more significant, driven in part by a genuine and persistent skills shortage at the senior end of the market.
What actually constitutes a Director or Head of Talent in terms of experience is a debate in itself. Eight to ten years, perhaps. But that’s probably a conversation for another day.
What is clear is that we’re seeing a noticeable shift in how talent agencies are approaching hiring.
Here’s what we’re seeing:
Experience vs Revenue
Ask any agency owner what they would prefer right now and the answers are more divided than they used to be.
Would they choose a talent professional with three years of experience who arrives with a profitable, portable roster? Or a seasoned operator with eight years in the industry, broader knowledge and stronger instincts, but who may generate less revenue initially?
The reality is rarely that binary. But the market’s growing preference for the former is real, and it’s something we’re seeing consistently across our client base.
Whether that’s being driven by commercial pressure, a shortage of senior talent or simply changing priorities is difficult to say. In truth, it’s probably a combination of all three.
What’s particularly interesting is what’s happening at mid-level.
Talent professionals with three to five years of experience, strong industry relationships and the ability to bring talent with them are now creating genuine bidding wars. Multiple offers for the same candidate. Counter-offers. Competing packages.
Historically, this was exceptionally rare in talent management. Today, it’s becoming increasingly common.
Which raises an obvious question – when a candidate has three or four agencies competing for them, what actually makes them choose?
What Candidates Are Choosing On
- Reputation
The talent management industry is small and people have long memories.
Agencies that are known for developing their staff, treating talent well and operating with integrity consistently attract stronger candidates. Conversely, agencies with less favourable reputations often underestimate how difficult those perceptions can be to overcome, regardless of what the offer looks like on paper.
Candidates talk. Managers talk. Talent talks.
Reputation travels faster than most agencies realise.
- Salary
The most fundamental factor (unsurprisingly!)
A strong reputation and a compelling interview process count for very little if the offer ultimately disappoints. If the basic salary doesn’t represent a meaningful step forward from a candidate’s current package, most will decline.
We tell clients this directly and will always flag when we believe an offer is likely to fall short before it’s made.
The market has moved quickly. Some agencies have adjusted to that reality faster than others.
- Commission
This is where the market varies enormously.
A strong commission structure should typically deliver somewhere between 15-25% on top of basic salary, based on performance or revenue generation.
Schemes that are overly complex, difficult to understand or heavily-weighted in the agency’s favour are often viewed with suspicion by candidates.
By contrast, clear, transparent and generous commission structures remain one of the most effective recruitment tools available.
Candidates want to understand exactly how success is rewarded. The simpler that answer is, the better.
- Benefits
What was once a secondary consideration has become, for many candidates, a deciding factor.
Enhanced maternity and paternity leave matters. Holiday entitlement above the statutory minimum is increasingly expected. Flexible working remains important and agencies insisting on five days a week in the office are inevitably limiting their candidate pool, whether they acknowledge it or not.
The agencies winning on benefits aren’t necessarily offering the most extravagant packages. They’re simply taking the subject seriously.
- Onboarding
This remains one of the most underestimated parts of the hiring process.
The period between offer acceptance and a candidate’s first day is often where agencies either reinforce their decision or create doubt.
The best agencies make candidates feel valued from the moment they accept. A personal call from a senior leader. A message checking in before they start. Genuine enthusiasm that demonstrates they’re excited about the hire.
Others send a contract and disappear.
In a market where candidates may still be receiving approaches from competing agencies after accepting an offer, that silence carries more risk than many realise.
The Broader Picture
Rising salaries, increased competition and candidates with genuine leverage is still a relatively new dynamic for much of the talent management industry.
For agency owners, the instinct is often to focus on the offer itself. But the agencies consistently attracting the strongest candidates tend to think more holistically.
They consider what it feels like to be recruited by them. They understand what their commission structure communicates about how they value performance. They recognise that their reputation in the market matters just as much as what they say in an interview.
In a market this competitive, the details matter more than they used to.
And increasingly, those details are what separate the agencies that attract the best people from those that continually wonder why they missed out.
