With recruiters paid by jobseekers instead of companies, HR faces a new type of candidate — but are they qualified?
“The overall job market feels completely dystopian,” says Alison Taylor.
The clinical associate professor at the New York University Stern School of Business is discussing the rise of “reverse recruiting” — where jobseekers can pay thousands of dollars to have someone else run their job search.
This latest trend has made headlines — but what does it mean for HR? Three experts speaking to Canadian HR Reporter highlight the legal considerations, the risks of pay‑to‑play access and the challenge of dealing with “fake” candidates.
In practice, the high fees mean reverse recruiting is likely to benefit those with the most resources, says Taylor.
“It’s just people that can afford it,” she says. “If these AI tools are reading the CVs, then there is some argument to paying someone to make sure you've got the right keywords laid out in the right way, that these algorithms will select your CV.”
But in taking that game theory approach, it’s “hard to think we will wind up with the people with the most potential and the most talent,” says Taylor.
Legal considerations for Canada
In Canada, the basic rule is clear: recruiters are paid by employers, not candidates, says Taylor Nikkel, founder of Prairie Search Co.
“For Alberta, the employment rights act is very specific in its wording that you cannot charge candidates for recruitment services,” she says. “If you act as a recruiter, if you're employed as a recruiter, if you work under an agency, they're all governed by those same legislations, and you cannot charge candidates a fee.”
Under the traditional model, a recruiter signs a contract agreement with the employer client, which then pays them a fee to fill the role, says Nikkel.
“That is to prevent price gouging on candidates,” she says, citing the vulnerability of jobseekers. “We're talking big chunks of change.”
Despite the rules, Nikkel says she has seen a lot of posts by Canadians “just straight up selling reverse recruiting — they’re not even trying to sneak under the radar,” while others may try workarounds, such as branding the service as “career coaching.”
But these people are misrepresenting themselves, she says.
“Recruiters find people for jobs — they don't find jobs for people,” says Nikkel. “They're finding the right person for the job. They already have the job. They know what the job is. They're not trying to find the job for the person.”
Desperate candidates seek solutions
The bigger issue is macroeconomic, according to Nikkel: “We just have more jobseekers than jobs, the market is soft right now,” she says. “There are just more people that need jobs than there are jobs available.”
Much of the demand for reverse recruiting stems from people who are out of work and running out of options, she says: “It’s a vulnerable sector of individuals."
In that scenario, if somebody promises they can find them a job for the fee $5,000, it’s tempting, says Nikkel.
“I don't know how you could, in good conscience or as a professional, take that money from somebody who could be in a bad way,” she says. “You're playing on their emotions; you're playing on the fact that they're getting to the point of desperation.”
No 'hidden connections'
On the website of Ontario-based Top Prospect Careers, reverse recruiting is labelled as its “signature service”:
“We'll help you gain clarity around your career aspirations, abilities, and direction. Then we will develop tailored career documents and manage your job search for you. From application to negotiation, we help you get hired and paid better, faster.” (Founder Dan Reed declined an interview.)
Sarah Johnston, founder of Briefcase Coach, says we're in an incredibly tough labour market, and a lot of people in high-level jobs are uncomfortable with networking so reverse recruiting is an appealing option.
"They're already busy with their work and their families and their lives, [so] taking the time to do what it takes to job search is a lot."
People also are looking for access to jobs that aren't on job boards, she says.
"They want a hidden connection and... they want access that other people can't have. And I think that that's what they think that they're getting is a shortcut or secret access. And the reality is that anybody who's offering reverse recruiting has the same availability for roles that everybody else sees online."
Costly quest for a job
Reverse recruiting also raises questions about what candidates are paying for, and whose interests are really being served.
For Nikkel, there is an inherent conflict when someone calls themselves a recruiter but charges candidates instead of clients.
“You're going to provide [employers with] the candidates that have paid you a fee to find them that job. You're not going out to the market and finding the best possible talent... You're trying to make sure that the person that gave you money to find them a job gets placed.”
She also raises concerns about double-dipping, if a recruiter is paid a fee by both employers and jobseekers for the same job.
A lot of these services aren't very effective and cost a lot of money, agrees Johnston, who says that another big factor is job candidates relinquishing their personal information and private logins to someone they don’t necessarily know.
Impenetrable hiring processes?
Part of the appeal of reverse recruiters could be that HR’s tools and processes are seen as impenetrable. Many students and early‑career professionals feel AI has taken too large a role, in screening, for example, says Taylor.
“They're put on a call with a bot who's kind of taking notes on what they're saying. And it's just dehumanizing.”
Many jobseekers feel it's impossible to get their CV read by a human, she says: “They submit their CV and cover letter, they get an instant rejection… 10 seconds later, like no one's even read it.
“It’s the idea that the system's broken and so [their] only option is to game the system.”
Automation: double-edged sword
Nikkel agrees that candidates are frustrated and there are a lot of shortcomings within the current processes.
Easy‑apply tools by LinkedIn or Indeed have also increased the overall volume of job applications, says Nikkel, while sending in unqualified candidates based on a single keyword.
“They might not even be remotely qualified for the job, but it will apply for them,” she says.
“It's a double-edged sword as well because then… you use AI, you use some sort of automated system so that you can respond to people and then people are angry about that: ‘Oh, it wasn't personalized. I didn't get feedback; I didn't get this.’”
However, there’s also a lot of misinformation about ATS systems, she says.
“It's just a glorified digital filing cabinet. It really can't do anything except for what people want it to do. You as the recruiter are still the person who's doing that — you're telling the system what to do and what to find.”
The positive elements that some people hope to buy through reverse recruiting already exist in less risky forms such as career coaching or tech-enabled options, says Nikkel.
“Whether it is a valuable service or not, I mean, the cost investment obviously is, is much, much lower,” she says, and “they're still not making the promise that they will definitely find you a job.”
Fear of fake candidates
For HR, another challenge — or risk — is that reverse recruiters may be applying and even interacting with employers without disclosing their role, says Nikkel.
“I feel like you definitely should be disclosing if you're applying on somebody's behalf. But obviously that's not happening… we're getting into fake candidate territory.”
That raises questions about where the line is with reverse recruiters: Are they applying for jobs, responding to queries and taking screening calls? Are they interviewing on behalf of the candidate?
“With it being remote work and all of these things, there's so many other ways that it can play out,” says Nikkel. “Where is the line between just ‘I'll help you find a job’ to ‘I'll do everything for you, I'll get you the job.’”
How HR should respond to reverse recruiting
Taylor believes HR should push back on this new trend, while bringing humans back in the loop. She argues that organizations that are prepared to slow down and treat people with dignity and respect will gain “a lot of upside with trust and performance and people wanting to do their best and wanting to work for you.”
At the same time, she acknowledges that people not using AI are seen as some kind of luddite.
“The tone at the top and culture around using these tools and shortcuts is also a really big factor of pressure.”
The challenge, says Taylor, is that speed and cost of recruitment is easier to measure.
“We're eroding trust for efficiency and it's hard to quantify the long-term costs there. But we do need, I think, some HR leaders to say, ‘Hang on a minute, what are we doing?’”
