When a senior mining engineer hands in their resignation, the clock starts to tick. Their line manager starts calling HR daily within the first week to ask about replacements. By week three, the remaining crew pulls double shifts. By month two, production targets slip and the true cost of that empty position becomes painfully clear.
This common scenario creates pressure to fill essential roles as quickly and cheaply as possible. Despite this, many positions sit vacant for months as HR teams struggle with competing priorities and limited resources.
Contingent recruitment often looks like the best and least risky option in this situation: work with multiple recruiters, no upfront fees, pay only on placement. In practice, this recruitment model often creates compound problems that the company would rather avoid.
Retained recruitment is the alternative model. Its reputation for being “more expensive” comes from timing, not total cost. In this article, we look at how in practice, it can be the faster, more dependable route to get those roles filled.
Why retained recruitment looks more expensive (but isn’t)
At first glance, the math seems simple. Contingent recruitment promotes a straightforward value proposition: no hire, no fee. Retained requires an initial payment to begin the search, which can look like extra cost.
This perception, however, doesn’t tell the full story. The total fees are comparable between both models.
“In both cases, contingent and retained, we’re looking at 15–25%. It’s just one of them you pay on completion, the other you spread over time. It’s not actually more expensive,” says Agata Sobolewska, Recruitment Delivery Manager – North America at Globe 24-7.
The real difference lies not in the total cost, but in when you pay, and what that early investment makes possible.
What your upfront investment actually buys
Understanding where that initial payment goes reveals why retained searches often outperform their contingent counterparts.
In a retained search, fees are typically split into thirds:
- ⅓ at project start to secure a dedicated search
- ⅓ at shortlist stage to reflect progress
- ⅓ on successful placement once the role is filled
That first payment represents a financial commitment. It funds the groundwork that contingent models rarely have capacity for: mapping the current market and salary ranges, engaging passive candidates who aren’t actively applying, collecting market feedback on the employer’s reputation, and refining the value proposition to appeal to the right talent.
The aim is to put the client’s role at the front of the queue and deliver a shortlist faster.
Why ‘no upfront fee’ doesn’t mean lower cost
The appeal of contingent recruitment is understandable when budgets are tight. The model does have its place e.g. for junior roles, high-volume hiring, or when timing flexibility exists. But for critical positions where speed matters, the absence of upfront fees often comes at the expense of focus.
Without a guaranteed outcome, agencies may shift resources to more active searches if early leads don’t convert. This creates a cascade of problems for HR teams: the same candidate gets approached by different recruiters, duplicate profiles flood inboxes, and interviews become harder to coordinate with multiple points of contact.
Agata describes the reality for hiring managers: “When I ask my clients, when do you need that position filled? 90 percent answer ‘yesterday’.”
But with a contingent model, if you are the hiring manager, you will get a few candidates from one recruiter, and then a few candidates from another recruitment agency, and few more from another. At the same time, you will have candidates coming from internal recruiters, too.
“That’s a lot to go through. Very often, you also have the advertisement placed on online job boards, so you have to go through those applications as well. And then the whole process on who interviews what candidates, or what company candidates are from. The process just gets messy,” she explains.
The longer the process drags on, the more expensive the vacancy becomes.
How speed changes the total cost equation
The retained model creates a different dynamic. With commitment on both sides, recruiters can dedicate time and resources to a single search, which typically means a faster shortlist and valuable market intelligence.
“With retained, in 10 days you may have five solid candidates and a comprehensive market feedback report – what candidates say about the role, the company, why they would be interested in working for you or why not, and what’s the opinion about your company in the market,” she says. “With contingent, you’re still juggling profiles from different agencies and trying to coordinate interviews.”
This market intelligence component is particularly valuable because companies often don’t know what’s being said about their operations in the talent market. Without this feedback, they can’t address underlying issues that may be hindering their ability to attract top talent.
This dedicated focus becomes even more important for specialised roles. “Internal teams don’t have one whole week to focus on one or two roles and that’s why we come in really handy in these hard-to-fill or time consuming roles,” she explains.
This dual advantage of speed plus market intelligence translates directly to operational wins. Shorter time-to-fill reduces vacancy costs, minimises disruption to site operations, and avoids the compounding pressure on crews. Meanwhile, the market feedback helps companies understand and address reputation issues that could be affecting their recruitment success. In mining, these combined benefits represent substantial value.
Why retained delivers better results
The structural differences between the two models extend beyond speed to overall quality of service. Retained recruitment directs your budget into a more focused process, deeper market engagement, and stronger candidate experience.
“We work until the position is filled,” says Agata.
This sustained effort becomes particularly valuable for HR teams under pressure to keep production running. Retained recruitment can prevent the operational and financial risks that come with prolonged vacancies, offering a more predictable path to resolution.
When retained makes financial sense
For senior positions, specialised roles, or when production depends on filling the vacancy quickly, retained recruitment should be the preferred option.
In mining, where vacancy costs rise rapidly and operational pressure mounts daily, the models that appear cheaper at the outset often prove more expensive over time. The question becomes: which approach reduces risk, maintains production, and delivers the right person on site sooner?
Retained recruitment changes the cost equation because it prioritises the search from day one. For HR teams balancing operational demands and tight timelines, that upfront investment can mean the difference between a smooth handover and months of costly disruption.
