How a committed recruitment model helped a growing healthcare business make a critical commercial hire with greater speed, confidence and candidate quality
Chief Commercial Officer | Small, fast-growing medical product business operating in the infection control market.
For a small, fast-moving healthcare business, a vacant Territory Manager role can create problems very quickly.
When a member of the team left unexpectedly for personal reasons, the business suddenly found itself needing to recruit an important commercial position at a time when there were already significant projects in progress.
The hire needed to be made quickly.
But it also needed to be right.
The company operates in a niche, competitive market and had previously found that recruitment for similar positions could be difficult. Finding somebody with the right experience was only part of the challenge. They also needed the right personality, commercial approach and motivation to work within a small, lean organisation.
Having previously relied on more traditional contingent recruitment approaches, the leadership team initially had reservations about committing to a different recruitment model which required some financial commitment from them at the start of the recruitment project.
What followed changed their view of recruitment completely.
The business challenge: an unexpected vacancy with commercial consequences
The client is a small organisation with a lean team, meaning every individual has a significant impact on the business.
Their Chief Commercial Officer explained:
“We are quite a small company, so I would say that our team has always been pretty lean.”
The vacancy arose unexpectedly after the previous employee left for personal reasons.
That created more than simply a gap in headcount.
There were already important commercial opportunities being worked on, and the company was conscious that leaving the position open for too long could affect those deals.
“There were some really key deals that we’ve been working on as a result of that, and just because things are quite fast-paced, if we’d have left it vacant and hadn’t moved nice and quickly, it could have jeopardised quite a lot of those deals.”
That made speed important.
But the company had no intention of compromising on quality simply to fill the role.
A very particular candidate profile
The organisation had recruited similar positions before and knew from experience that finding the right combination of skills and fit would not necessarily be easy.
Their requirements went beyond a checklist on a job description.
“We have historically gone for a very specific mix of education and experience and personality traits.”
Previous recruitment exercises had sometimes reached the end of the process without producing somebody the company felt confident appointing.
“We have launched recruitment for similar positions in the company before and come out the other end of it and haven’t really found anyone that we are confident would be a good fit.”
There was also another complication.
The previous person in the position had been highly regarded, which inevitably created a high benchmark for their replacement.
“The person who we hired for this role previously was so wonderful and we thought would do so well, we were always a bit worried that we weren’t going to find the right person again so quickly.”
The client described the question as:
“Are we going to strike lucky two times in a row?”
And because the market itself was niche, even identifying somebody who looked right on paper was not necessarily enough.
The opportunity also needed to be right for the candidate.
“You’re needing to satisfy what you want in the right candidate, but also making sure that you’re communicating the right expectations… so that they know it’s right for them as well.”
This two-way fit would become a major part of the committed recruitment approach.
Why the committed model initially felt like a risk
One of the biggest differences between this search and the company’s previous recruitment activity was the commercial model itself.
Advance Recruitment proposed a committed service which required exclusivity and an initial financial commitment paid at the start of the project with the balance paid on successful completion.
For a small business, that naturally prompted questions.
The client had previously worked with recruiters on a more conventional contingent basis, where no fee was payable unless a successful hire was made.
That could initially feel lower risk.
“As a small company, I think we always have to be kind of on the ball with what return are we going to get at the other end of the process.”
With traditional contingent recruitment, if the process did not produce the right candidate, the business may not have spent money.
The downside, however, was that the service they experienced often reflected the lack of commitment on both sides.
“With previous recruiters that we’d worked with where there wasn’t a financial commitment, we had sometimes come to the end of those processes whereby we hadn’t felt that what we were looking for had been fully satisfied.”
Financially, there might have been less perceived risk.
But commercially, the process could still be expensive.
The missing cost was time.
The hidden cost of contingent recruitment: management time
This became one of the biggest reasons the client ultimately chose the committed route.
The leadership team considered what the alternatives actually involved.
They could advertise the role themselves.
They could search LinkedIn.
They could instruct multiple contingent recruiters.
None required the same upfront commitment.
But all had another cost attached.
“Yes, you haven’t got that financial commitment, but you’re wasting one of the other biggest resources in a small company, which is time.”
That distinction became critical.
The Chief Commercial Officer already had a business to run.
She did not have hours available to screen applicants, proactively source people, chase responses or repeatedly assess speculative CVs.
“With job ads and even just kind of proactively looking for people on LinkedIn yourself… it just takes so much time, and I didn’t really have that on my plate to give.”
Previous experiences with recruiters had not necessarily solved that problem either.
The model might have outsourced candidate sourcing, but much of the actual recruitment workload still remained with the client.
“Other recruiters… would just send me a bunch of CVs and then you wouldn’t really talk to them until you were maybe ready to offer the role to the right person.”
In practice, that meant the hiring manager was still responsible for much of the assessment and decision-making process.
“You kind of dealt with all of that on your own.”
That was one of the clearest differences between the traditional contingent approach and the committed model.
The committed model was not simply designed to provide CVs.
It was designed to take responsibility for the process.
Understanding what the commitment actually paid for
The client’s reservations began to change once the team understood how much work sat behind the committed service.
“Once we understood the effort involved in the service, it just became clear that we weren’t going to be left with no suitable candidates at the other end.”
Instead of seeing the fee as payment for a successful introduction, they began to see it as an investment in a defined search process.
That meant:
- Detailed briefing and role definition
- Market and salary advice
- Development of candidate-facing information
- Proactive search
- Candidate screening
- Candidate assessment
- Shortlist preparation
- Candidate presentation
- Joint shortlisting
- Ongoing market feedback
- Interview support
- Regular communication
- Decision-making support
- Candidate management throughout the process
The client could see where the work was going from the beginning.
“You get return on your commitment from day one.”
That visibility proved important.
Rather than paying a fee and then waiting to see whether a recruiter eventually produced somebody, the client could see the activity and expertise being invested throughout the search.
“You see everything that goes into it and there’s a lot of work that goes into it.”
A more consultative briefing process
The difference became apparent at the very beginning of the search.
The initial briefing went significantly further than taking a job description and asking for salary, location and required experience.
The client was able to use the conversation to work through what the organisation genuinely needed.
This was particularly valuable because they knew instinctively what a good candidate would look like, but found it harder to articulate.
“I found it quite hard in the initial conversations to put into words exactly what we were after. I could see it in my head, the type of person that I wanted.”
Through conversations about previous employees, the business, the team and what had worked well historically, that profile became much clearer.
The client later reflected:
“Following just even a couple of conversations over the phone about who’s worked for us in the past, you just got it spot on.”
Market knowledge also played an important role.
Because the company was not recruiting continuously, it could be difficult to know whether salary expectations, candidate expectations or recruitment-market conditions had changed.
“It’s very hard to keep on top of market and salary expectations when you aren’t recruiting all the time.”
The briefing therefore became part search strategy, part market consultancy.
“Having the briefing calls with yourself just really helped us to pull together a candidate pack that was interesting, attractive to candidates, but without abandoning our core processes and beliefs and ethos.”
For the client, that meant they were not making hiring decisions in isolation.
They had access to current market context at every stage.
“We were able to move forward with your support and your market knowledge, knowing that we had confidence every step of the way.”
The candidate pack changed the candidate experience
Another major difference from previous recruitment processes was how much candidates understood before they ever sat in front of the hiring manager.
Historically, candidates might enter an initial interview knowing relatively little about the organisation beyond what they could find online.
“Quite often you would have screening calls with them and they wouldn’t even fully understand what we do”
The candidate pack created for the search helped address that from the beginning.
It provided context around the business, the role and the opportunity, helping candidates decide whether they genuinely wanted to progress.
“The candidate pack that you guys pulled together… gives them that foundation knowing that they want to move into that process before actually moving into it.”
This created earlier buy-in and better-prepared candidates.
It also meant that when the client met them for interview, valuable interview time did not have to be spent covering basic information that could have been communicated much earlier.
The moment the client realised this was very different from contingent recruitment
Aside from the regular communication, perhaps the clearest turning point came at shortlist stage.
Rather than an inbox containing CV attachments, she was taken through the candidates in detail.
“You had so many different candidates listed out and recommended each one for different reasons.”
That immediately felt different.
“I’m not just being sent a CV and making my own mind up on how they are as people.”
The contrast with previous recruitment processes was significant.
Under a traditional contingent model, a recruiter might send a CV and leave the client to decide what they thought.
Here, the candidates had already been screened and explored in much greater depth.
The shortlist discussion allowed the recruiter to explain:
- Why each candidate had been selected
- Where they aligned strongly with the brief
- Potential concerns
- Relevant personality or behavioural observations
- Market context
- Areas the hiring manager might want to explore further
That made the shortlisting process more informed.
“Having your professional recommendation on what their strengths and weaknesses are based on the market… helped me digest the information a lot easier rather than do it on my own.”
It also created room for discussion.
A reservation that may have caused a candidate to be rejected based on a CV alone could be explored in real time.
That made recruitment feel like a joint decision-making process rather than an exchange of documents.
“That in particular was so much more hands-on.”
Thoroughness rather than CV volume
Asked how the process differed from recruitment she had experienced previously, the client’s immediate response was:
“Just so much more thorough.”
That thoroughness ran through every stage.
“A lot of other recruiters would just send a CV and you wouldn’t really hear from them again throughout the whole process.”
By contrast, this search involved screening calls, detailed candidate profiles, psychometric testing, candidate discussions and ongoing consultation around strengths, weaknesses and suitability.
The difference was particularly important within a smaller organisation where employees often need to operate beyond a narrowly defined remit.
The client explained:
“Working for a small company where you do get your fingers in a lot of pies, there’s a lot to look for in the right candidate.”
A CV alone could not adequately answer that.
The process therefore looked beyond simple experience requirements.
“It was all the psychometric testing and all the screening calls and things like that that you had, candidate files that were put together.”
And importantly, advice was not presented without context.
“All of your recommendations and the considerations that you brought to the table with us were genuinely backed by years and years of experience.”
The client contrasted that with a much more transactional style of recruitment where information is simply passed between candidate and company.
“It wasn’t just that, ‘Oh, this candidate says that they want this much, so therefore we should just give them it.’”
Instead, conversations included market comparisons, previous experience and practical recommendations.
Her description of the experience was simple:
“I felt like I had my hand held through the process.”
Candidate quality was noticeably higher
The quality of the shortlist was another of the biggest differences.
The client felt candidates came into interview with a much stronger understanding of both the business and the opportunity.
“You really helped to set the tone and the expectations for the position and the company from the offset.”
Because Advance Recruitment had already carried out the initial screening and candidate engagement, the hiring manager did not need to conduct those early conversations herself.
And when candidates arrived for interview, they appeared more confident and prepared.
“They all came in with that layer of confidence that other candidates haven’t previously had.”
That translated directly into candidate quality at interview.
The strongest evidence came from how difficult the decisions became.
“I think I said to you on each round of interviews, it’s really hard to choose, they’re all so good.”
For a business that had previously completed recruitment processes without finding anybody it felt confident hiring, having multiple appointable candidates represented a major change.
“You could tell that the quality of the candidates was so much better than previous recruitment processes for us.”
Time was still invested, but it was higher-quality time
One of the most important distinctions the client made was that the committed service did not remove the need for their involvement.
Good recruitment still required briefing conversations.
It still required interviews.
It still required decisions.
What changed was the quality of the time being spent.
With advertising, LinkedIn sourcing or less involved recruitment suppliers, the client had historically spent significant amounts of time on lower-value recruitment activity.
Screening.
Searching.
Chasing.
Filtering.
Reviewing unsuitable profiles.
With the committed model, the majority of the hiring manager’s time was concentrated around important conversations and decisions.
“Yes, there was obviously the time investment for interviews and briefing calls with yourself, but it genuinely felt every single minute that was spent on it was worthwhile.”
She summarised the difference as:
“I was getting return on the time that I’d invested essentially.”
For a small business, that mattered just as much as financial return.
Ongoing check-ins created confidence throughout the search
The structured recruitment stages were important, but one of the things the client valued most was something less formal: regular communication.
“You’ve just been so wonderful in keeping in touch.”
She highlighted the difference between proactive and reactive recruitment support.
“It can be so, so hard to find someone who’s proactive rather than reactive.”
Rather than the client needing to ask for updates or chase progress, regular check-ins provided visibility throughout the search.
Those conversations also created a space to talk through hiring decisions.
“You’ve almost been like a sounding board for me.”
That was particularly valuable because recruitment was not something the client dealt with every day.
There were naturally points where the team wanted reassurance around whether a decision was appropriate or how the market might respond.
Instead of being left to make those decisions alone, they could discuss them openly.
“It’s just been wonderful to have someone with experience that you can share that insight with.”
And critically:
“Without genuinely any ounce of judgement as to why we’ve made certain decisions.”
That consultative support helped the team keep moving without feeling uncertain about every stage.
Choosing the successful candidate
By the time the process reached its later stages, the client had several candidates they could genuinely see joining the organisation.
The eventual successful candidate initially met the core requirements through her experience and educational background.
But those factors alone did not secure the role.
The client was particularly impressed by her interview performance, confidence and ability to build rapport.
“The first interview, she was wonderful. She did her presentation for me so, so well and confidently.”
The second interview cemented the decision.
“She just came in so confidently, she had such a lovely presence about her.”
Seeing how naturally she interacted with other members of the team proved especially important.
“Watching her interaction with other people on the team and seeing how instantly she clicked with them and could just hold those conversations…”
At that point, the decision was made.
“For me, the point where I was like, yeah, my decision was made.”
The client had seen many commercial employees join the business over the years and felt particularly confident about this appointment.
“Out of so many different people we’ve had through the doors in the six years that I’ve worked here, she’s probably one of the ones that I’m like, ‘Oh my God, I think she’ll be a really, really good fit.’”
From hesitant about the fee to recommending the model
Perhaps the most powerful outcome was the client's change in attitude towards the committed recruitment model itself.
At the start, the upfront financial commitment had been one of their biggest concerns.
At the end, it was something they actively recommended.
Asked what she would say to another hiring manager who had similar reservations, the Chief Commercial Officer said:
“I would just say go for it. It’s so worth it.”
She acknowledged that the model could initially feel unfamiliar.
“It may seem like a big commitment or it may seem odd for some people to ask for that upfront because others don’t.”
But after experiencing both contingent recruitment and the committed process, she no longer saw them as equivalent services.
“The level of service is just worlds apart.”
Her comparison was even stronger:
“It’s genuinely comparing like apples and pears.”
The reason was not simply that one resulted in a successful hire.
It was the difference in the entire journey.
“It’s just gone so much more smoothly than processes in the past.”
The financial commitment became worthwhile because it created commitment in return.
“If we can give you that promise that we’re invested, then you’re only going to do this in return.”
That mutual commitment became one of the defining differences.
In a contingent model, several agencies may be working on the same vacancy without certainty that any of them will ultimately be paid.
In a committed model, both parties make a decision to invest in the same outcome from the beginning.
The client recognised the effect that had on the service.
“If you had someone that was committed from the offset and was just coming to you looking for the best result, you’re going to give them the best result because they’ve chosen you.”
Her conclusion:
“That commitment on both sides is so important.”
Supplier versus recruitment partner
Ultimately, the client felt the biggest difference was the relationship itself.
Traditional recruitment had often felt transactional.
A vacancy was briefed.
CVs arrived.
The client reviewed them.
The recruiter reappeared when there was something to progress.
This felt different.
The Chief Commercial Officer identified two things she valued most:
“Your knowledge and your support.”
And when asked to describe the relationship, she made the distinction very clearly:
“It felt like a service rather than just a bit of a, ‘Okay, I’m going to send you a bunch of documents, let me know when you’re ready to move on.’”
Then came perhaps the clearest summary of the entire case study:
“It’s not just like a supplier; you genuinely have been like a partner to us.”
The outcome
The company began the process with:
- An unexpected and commercially important vacancy
- A niche candidate market
- A demanding candidate profile
- Concerns about how quickly the role could be filled
- Previous experiences of recruitment processes that had not always delivered
- Reservations about paying a portion of the fee at the start of the process.
They finished it with:
- A strong shortlist presented within three weeks
- Several candidates the client genuinely rated
- Better-prepared candidates
- Greater confidence at interview
- Professional support throughout the decision-making process
- Less time spent on lower-value recruitment activity
- Clear visibility over the work being done
- A successful appointment
- Significantly greater confidence in the eventual hire
- A completely different view of committed recruitment
The client was asked to describe the overall process.
One of the words they chose was:
“Worthwhile.”
Why?
Because the concern they had at the beginning had been answered by the result.
“We started this off and yes there was hesitance around the financial commitment and what would we really get at the end of it, but we’ve got someone who is lined up ready to start in just a couple of weeks, and the team couldn’t be more excited.”
And compared with the recruitment processes the business had experienced before:
“I feel so much more confident about what we’ve got out of this process than several others that I’ve worked on over the past six years.”
The committed model is not contingent recruitment with an upfront fee.
That is the real distinction.
The client did not simply pay differently.
They experienced recruitment differently.
Instead of receiving CVs, they received a researched and assessed shortlist.
Instead of managing screening themselves, they met candidates who were already informed and engaged.
Instead of making decisions in isolation, they had a recruitment partner alongside them.
Instead of wondering what the recruiter was doing, they had regular visibility and proactive communication.
Instead of saving money at the expense of management time, they invested in a process designed to protect both.
And instead of reaching the end hoping they had made the right decision, they reached it with genuine confidence in the person they had appointed.
For this client, that was the difference between using a recruiter and having a recruitment partner.