Contingency is free until it isn't.
No placement, no fee - a fair deal on its face, and for some mid-level roles with broad candidate markets, it works. Here's what the model structurally can't do, and what that costs you.
A contingency recruiter is paid for speed, in competition with other firms. Every economic incentive says: submit fast, submit many, get a body accepted before the other firm does. Quality screens slow submissions down - so under pressure, they get skipped. That's not a character flaw. It's the model.
Standards drift under quota. With a 6-Step process, standards are the product.
| Contingency firm | Qualigence | |
|---|---|---|
| Fee trigger | Placement only | Structured per engagement |
| Incentive alignment | Speed and volume | Decision quality and outcome |
| Screening depth | Narrows under quota pressure | Structured regardless of timeline |
| Who owns decision quality | The hiring manager | Shared - we run the process |
| Post-hire accountability | Replacement period only | 30/60/90-day integration check |
Where contingency wins - the honest answer.
Broad-market mid-level roles where access is the whole problem, and you have internal discipline to run the decision yourself. In those cases, the contingency model is a fair trade.
We take contingent engagements too - with the same screen. Even on contingent, we don't lower the standard. If that makes us slower to submit, that's the point.
You keep the speed. You stop paying for it with the standard - and the hires stay.
