why advertising first is the wrong move
many employers follow a familiar sequence when a critical role opens up: write the brief, post the advertisement, wait for applications, and — if the response disappoints — eventually engage a recruitment partner. it is a process that feels logical but produces poor outcomes, particularly when the role in question requires genuine specialist expertise
the problem begins with timing. when an employer advertises first and approaches an agency second, the agency inherits a compressed brief alongside candidates who have already self-selected through a public channel. the real search work — proactive identification, relationship building, and genuine candidate engagement — has been bypassed in favour of something faster and less effective
in industrial automation and robotics, where the strongest candidates in australia and new zealand are typically passive and not responding to job advertisements, this approach is particularly costly
where multiple agencies are then briefed simultaneously, the situation worsens. rather than conducting targeted searches, agencies are incentivised to respond to the time pressure by posting advertisements to the same job boards that have already failed to produce results. the process becomes a race rather than a search, with quality the inevitable casualty
a more effective model works in reverse
engaging a recruitment partner before a vacancy becomes urgent — and providing forward visibility on likely requirements — creates the conditions for real talent identification. candidates can be approached, relationships developed, and genuine interest assessed before any formal process begins. by the time the role is confirmed, the groundwork has been laid
it's not always possible to do this when the vacancy is unplanned, but the difference between these approaches is not marginal. one produces a shortlist of the “available and looking”
the other produces a shortlist of the best
