A friend said to me recently: “I recruited for the role directly and saved money on an agency.” Different sector to mine, but I pushed back with a few questions.
How long were you recruiting for?
14 months.
What would your company’s agency have charged?
£9,000.
How much time did you spend reviewing CVs, emailing candidates, holding initial calls, arranging interviews?
Only about two hours a week.
How much time are you or your team currently spending covering the missing person’s workload?
Roughly two hours a day.
So we did the maths.
Assuming an £80,000 salary (approx. £38.46/hour):
2 hours/week for 14 months → 122 hours → £4,692.12
2 hours/day for 14 months (minus 5 weeks holiday) → 558 hours → £21,460.68
Total internal cost: £26,152.80
And that’s before considering:
Other staff time reviewing CVs and interviewing
Other staff time covering duties
Advertising costs
Lost revenue (this role was fee‑earning)
Delayed projects, slower delivery, reduced capacity
The opportunity cost of not having the right person in place sooner
Better believe he told his directors he’d “saved £9,000”. In reality, the business spent far more than that recruiting directly.
Not every direct hire takes 14 months, but this example stuck with me.
In Medical Devices, Biotech and DeepTech, I often hear smaller companies say they’ll “use their own network”. If that works quickly, fantastic. But if it doesn’t, what is the cost of the missing person? And what is the cost of not accessing the wider market?
Your network may be limited. The best person for the role may not be in it. If the best person adds more success than the person you already know, what is that worth?
Just a thought sparked by a conversation over a pint.
Interested in others’ views.