By Allison McCarthy, MBA
The physician recruitment community has long made the argument that the advantage of in-house functions over search firms is one of cost. In fact, a recent HealthLeader’s Media article shared “Adding a full time employee to manage the process in-house carries a potential savings of anywhere from hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars annually.” Is that the right comparison? As the recruitment market tightens, can we live with the perception that in-house functions saves money? Or is our case better positioned around the value of the in-house role and what it can bring to the organization?
If we look at the role distinctions between in-house recruiters and external firms during the recruitment process, we can identify some potentially more effective distinctions. The tactical elements involve sourcing, internal candidate management and contract negotiations until we (hopefully) achieve a recruited physician.
Sourcing + Internal Candidate Management + Contract Negotiations = Recruited Physician
While both in-house recruiters and external search firms can fulfill the sourcing element, the value differential is in the strategic management of those sourcing efforts. A solid sourcing strategy considers:
- Brand positioning of the organization and its offerings,
- Reach potential/cost effectiveness of various sourcing tools based on the defined candidate criteria (experience, expertise, specialty, etc…),
- Combination of proactive versus reactive sourcing vehicles to ensure the capture of prospect market intelligence, and
- Tracking of activity results – both quantitative and qualitative – to gather insights and implement process improvements.
These strategic insights are only gleaned when someone identified with both the responsibility and capability. While external firms can be retained to conduct all the organization’s searches, an internal representative is still important to manage the overall sourcing strategy and implementation results.
When we look beyond sourcing, internal candidate management also requires significant attention to successfully deliver positive physician recruitment results – and this portion of the process external firms just cannot fulfill. Organizations without an in-house function must rely on the CEO, CMO, Practice Administrator or another team member to carry out this piece – on top of their other abundant responsibilities.
We can’t underestimate the impact of solid internal candidate management on physician recruitment effectiveness. The time and expertise needed to prescreen candidates, coordinate secondary interviews, organize and manage site visits, monitor contract negotiations and facilitate new physician on-boarding effort is significant. With multiple searches across multiple specialties taking place simultaneously, the internal candidate management function can be significant. And if not done well, can send candidates away to other organizations that execute it more effectively.
It’s hard to measure the cost associated with this time and expertise. We could quantify the percentage of time a senior manager or practice administrator devotes to internal candidate management, but how do you put a price tag on the level of attention needed to manage the internal team through candidate interviews . . . the depth of surveillance over the subtle details that make for a quality recruitment experience . . . or the quality of relationship building with the candidates.
External search firms, by their very nature, are too outside the organization to have the investment and internal connections necessary to effectively deliver this portion of the recruitment process. And internal leaders often have too many other responsibilities to oversee this piece – presuming a vigorous physician recruitment agenda is underway. It is the in-house function that makes this managerial contribution to the organization. So is the argument that in-house functions save money or create added value. Isn’t it the latter?