Retained vs Contingency: Which One Actually Works for M&E Businesses?

I get asked about this a lot. And fair enough. On the surface, the two models look pretty similar. You give a recruiter a job brief, they find you people. The difference is in the how, and that difference matters more than most businesses realise until they've been on the wrong end of it.

Here's my honest take on both, without the sales pitch.

How contingency works

Contingency is the traditional model. You brief one or more agencies, they go and search, and you only pay if someone you hire came from them. No placement, no fee. On the face of it, that sounds like the low-risk option.

And for some roles, it is. A straightforward hire, a role that's relatively easy to fill, a one-off requirement. Contingency is perfectly fine and often the right call.

The problem comes when businesses use contingency as a default for every role, including the ones that genuinely need dedicated attention. When an agency is working on a contingency basis, they're essentially gambling their time. If they don't fill it, they don't get paid. So the temptation (and I've seen this across the industry) is to send CVs quickly rather than carefully, to hedge their bets by briefing the same few candidates across multiple clients, and to move on if the role looks difficult. You end up with volume rather than quality, and a lot of wasted time on your side filtering through CVs that aren't actually right.

How retained works

Retained means you pay a portion of the fee upfront, and in return you get a recruiter who is fully committed to filling your role. One person, dedicated to one brief, with a proper financial stake in getting it right rather than just getting it done.

The difference in the quality of the search is significant. With retained, there's time to properly map the market, approach people who aren't actively looking, and really understand your brief before anyone gets in front of you. You're not getting the first available people. You're getting the right ones.

When contingency makes sense

• You have a well-defined, straightforward role with a competitive salary and package
• It's a one-off hire and you're not planning to recruit again in the near future
• The role is relatively easy to fill from the active candidate pool
• You have time to manage multiple agencies and sift through a higher volume of CVs

When retained makes more sense

• You're hiring regularly and want a consistent, reliable pipeline rather than starting from scratch every time
• The role is senior, specialist or hard to fill. Contract Manager, Senior Project Manager, Estimator at a certain level
• Previous contingency attempts have stalled or the role has been open for a while
• You don't have the capacity to manage multiple agencies, handle high CV volume or deal with the back and forth
• You want quality shortlists with a guarantee, rather than a pile of CVs and a hope

What I'd actually recommend

For most M&E and FM businesses hiring more than two or three people a year, retained is the better model on balance. Not because it's better for me (it clearly is) but because the businesses I work with on a retained basis fill roles faster, with less disruption to their day, and with better retention at the other end.

That said, I don't think one model fits all. I've had conversations where a client was clearly a better fit for contingency and I've said so. There's not much point in either of us committing to something that doesn't work for the situation.

If you're unsure which model is right for what you've got on right now, give me a call. Ten minutes and we'll have a pretty clear answer.