If you want recruiters to laugh behind your back and your own colleagues to wonder what you are doing, go ahead and multi-list your job vacancies.
Hiring/HR/TA managers often think they are being smart by giving the same vacancy to several recruitment agencies.
Want faster hiring? Stop giving the same job to five recruiters
The logic seems simple: more recruiters mean faster results.
On paper, it sounds efficient.
In practice, it usually backfires.
Let me explain by looking at both sides. It’s the unspoken truth that only I will tell you.
The rare upside
There are a few cases where using several contingency recruiters works:
- When speed matters more than quality. If you need ten junior sales reps next week, competition can drive fast sourcing.
- When the role is standard and easy to fill. For common jobs, extra hands might bring more candidate flow.
- When your company name attracts strong candidates. Well-known brands sometimes get results no matter who’s searching.
But that’s where the positives end.
The unspoken truth recruiters don’t tell you
Why smart hiring managers choose one recruiter, not five
Recruiters know what happens the moment you spread a role around.
It changes how they work, and not for the better.
- Recruiters are all browsing LinkedIn. All recruiters are searching the same LinkedIn database. None can honestly claim to have exclusive candidates. When the industry shifted from paper files to online sourcing 25 years ago, every recruiter began fishing in the same ponds on the internet.
- No commitment, no focus. Contingency recruiters only earn if their candidate is hired. When they know two or five other firms are chasing the same role, the chance of winning drops sharply. Most will stop trying after a few days. They move to another job where they can actually close a deal.
- Speed kills quality. In multi-agency races, it’s all about being first, not best. Recruiters push resumes quickly, often without proper screening. The goal is to get their candidate “ownership” before someone else does. You end up reviewing rushed submissions, often with mismatched candidates.
Shallow search, not headhunting. True headhunting takes time: mapping competitors, calling passive talent, and persuading them to talk. That’s hard to justify when there’s a 10% chance of payment. So, instead of a tailored search, you get database mining and recycled CVs.
- Damaged employer brand. Candidates start receiving calls from several recruiters about the same job. It looks messy and desperate. Senior professionals notice. They question how serious your company is about hiring.
- Chaos over candidate ownership. Recruiters race to register names in your inbox first. You’ll see disputes like, “We introduced that candidate first.” It wastes everyone’s time and can even delay the hire.
Why recruiters quietly step back
Most recruiters won’t say this, but once they realize they are in a multi-agency shootout, they re-prioritize.
Their time is better spent on exclusive searches where the client is serious and loyal.
In those cases, they invest the effort to find, assess, and persuade top candidates who are not actively looking.
The multi-agency hiring trap: Why more recruiters means worse results
If you want your recruiter’s full attention, give exclusivity for at least two to four weeks.
You will get commitment, a proper search, and candidates that fit the job, not just the description.
Competing agencies might make you feel in control.
In reality, it signals to every recruiter that your job vacancy is not worth their best work.
