Buyers of contingent workforce are commonly left wondering which hiring service- direct hire or temp-to-hire- will best fit their staffing needs. The Staffing Industry’s 2011 Buyer Survey revealed real buyers reasons why and when each is used.  

The number one reason buyers preferred direct hire services over temp-to-hire was when hiring for skilled and executive positions. Many buyers believed skilled and executive positions were filled more effectively when using the direct hire service. Others reported direct hires as more convenient, to the point, higher quality, and cheaper overall. Cost reductions are reported to come from the time is takes to train new employees and make them comfortable in a new environment; costs would significantly rise if the company had to train a replacement employee for the same position. Buyers assumed that skilled workers would be less willing to take the temp-to-hire route. When hiring directly, buyers believe the candidate to be more serious about the position and therefore less risky. There is a perceived ease in the onboarding process and increased loyalty.  

Of those buyers who preferred using the temp-to-hire process, “try before you buy” was the most cited advantage. Additional buyers cited using temp-to-hire as cheaper and more convenient. Temp-to-hire gives the employer the opportunity to quickly replace an individual if s/he is not the right fit. Cost reductions have reported to come from a time lapse before having to add the hire to payroll and earning back recruiting costs after 90 days of hire.  

When using contingent labor, a buyer must assess his current circumstances. Depending on the position to be filled and how much risk is involved with the hire, there are advantages to both hiring approaches. 

*The Staffing Industry’s 2011 Contingent Buyer Survey reflects the opinions of 236 respondents from 187 large (1,000+ employee) companies. Please visit the Staffing Industry for full report.