Average Recruiter Salaries - I Was Expecting More, Weren't You?

Nothing more fun to talk about than pay.  Everyone knows that HR pros are underpaid (make sure you spell my name correctly in the ranting emails - that's Kris with a "K"), but what about recruiters?  Are they driving a Lexus or an Escort?

As usual, Jim Stroud has the numbers, from Indeed.com via The Recruiter's Lounge:

Anyone else surprised at the pay levels?  I played around with the tools at Indeed and clicked through to the Salary.com data and was surprised to learn that Base+Bonus didn't make a big difference in these levels (less than 5% jump for the most part)....

The takeaway for me is this - If recruiters desire the security that comes with working for a corporation, then the trade-off is money.  For the 3rd party recruiters (I would think this is who falls in the Executive Recruiter bucket), the upside is greater, but you'll feel all the pressures that go with being on your own.

I'm not feeling the love from these numbers - click over to Jim's post for his analysis....

Comments

[Kelly Dingee]

I'm all for the money up front but I'd really love a peek into the bene's associated with these salaries......you can always sell me with fab bene's......I tend to put more stock in how incredible is the health insurance, are you matching 401K, what are the perks? I was told a long time ago in anti-union personnel training (like I said - a LONG time ago....) that salary bumps are merely a kick in the ass, but a well rounded package will get your employees to stay.......

But I'm also fortunate that I'm married - so only one of us needs to locate the fab bene's.....probably gives me more flexibility.

K

[Jessica Lee]

gut reaction, without yet reading the analysis...

could this be related to the fact that there are a lot of crummy HR pros and recruiters out there? i mean, for those who bring shame to the HR name, it's not as if they are setting the bar high and so i'm kinda of the mindset that they don't deserve greater comp than what is captured in the charts above. but for those of us who fall into that rockstar category, i'm pretty sure we're all above those averages and we've risen above for good reason. is this one of those you get what you pay for things?

[laurie ruettimann]

I think recruiting is undervalued at most organizations and seen as an entryway to a greater HR generalist role. It's almost as if you have to pay your dues in recruiting to justify a jump to a generalist role in most corporations.

Also, the dirty secret in recruiting: the best recruiters are former business professionals with strong contacts who milk their networks, get on retainer, and place people at former organizations. Regular chump recruiters like you & me? We never see that kind of coin.

[Michael Homula]

I agree with Jessica here. I believe it is a reflection of how poorly deficient the recruiting profession is in terms of talent level. Corporations have de-valued the recruiting engine because of it's lack of business sense and lack of results. This leads to less pay. Third party recruiting is full of people who aren't willing to work hard and want a quick buck. Recruiting isn't rocket science, it's just hard. That is why you see these low salaries. Jessica is spot on, you get what you pay for.

[Michael Wolfe]

Completely agree with the above comments...

Jessica - too true...the best recruiters rise to the top and are definitely well above the averages.

Can you believe that a physician recruiter just makes $38K..no way!!!

Also - I'm sure these numbers are just base comp - with no bonuses or incentives included. In a previous life as a corporate recruiter we had targets that included some generous incentives...didn't last long but it was nice in a heavy recruiting environment

[J]

Hmmm...
Just a thought here, folks, but do corporations really want low-paid, poorly motivated staff bringing the talent in the front door? If this job is not taken seriously by either the company or the employee (say, someone just doing time until they can move up into a better paid and better respected position like a generalist), then how much effort is truly being put into attracting the best talent to the corporation? I suspect the "you get what you pay for" adage applies. Consider the long term effects!

[Mike]

Experience dictates that (MOST) people recruit at or below their talent/ability/skill level.

Exceptions do occur- but don't they always?

So...Below average people recruit below average employees.

And...Above average people recruit above average employees.

Pay peanuts = Get monkeys

[Tim Ruef]

Its unfortunate that most corporate leaders, or even line managers don't yet understand how challenging effective recruiting can be. And more importantly, how critical it is to the bottom line to get "A candidates" who can make a signifcant long term contribution. Agree with Kelly that you get what you pay for. There needs to be paradigm shift about the value of corporate recruiters though to motivate and train people currently in place and attract new top talent. Recruiting should not be the entry level position into HR - just the reverse.