When a growth-stage company decides it needs recruiting help, the first call usually goes to a staffing agency. It is the default. It is familiar. And for certain situations, it works. But it is not the only option, and for companies hiring across multiple roles over months or quarters, it is often not the best one.
This is a side-by-side look at two fundamentally different models for scaling your hiring: traditional agency recruiting and embedded recruiting. The goal here is not to argue that one is universally better. It is to help you understand what you are actually getting with each approach so you can make the right call for your situation.
How traditional agencies work
A staffing agency operates on a contingency or retained model. You pay a fee, typically 15 to 25 percent of the new hire's first-year salary, per successful placement. The agency sources candidates, screens them against your job description, and presents a shortlist for you to interview.
The relationship is transactional by design. The agency works externally, using their own tools and databases. Communication happens through scheduled check-ins and email updates. Once the placement is made and the guarantee period passes, the engagement ends.
Agency recruiters typically manage 15 to 25 open roles across multiple clients simultaneously. This means your roles are competing for attention with every other search on their desk.
How embedded recruiting works
An embedded recruiting team joins your company directly. They work inside your tools, attend your meetings, learn your culture through daily immersion, and own the full hiring cycle from sourcing through close.
The cost structure is fundamentally different: a flat monthly fee regardless of how many roles you fill. This means the incentive shifts from filling seats quickly to filling them correctly.
During the first two to three weeks, the embedded team ramps by learning your company the same way a new employee would. They sit in standups, talk to hiring managers, review past hires, and build an understanding of what success looks like in each role. By week three, they understand your culture well enough to screen candidates with the same judgment as someone who has been on your team for months.
The comparison
| Dimension | Traditional Agency | Embedded Recruiting |
|---|---|---|
| Cost structure | 15-25% of salary per placement | Flat monthly fee, unlimited roles |
| Cultural understanding | Surface-level, based on job descriptions | Deep immersion through daily presence |
| Incentive alignment | Speed to placement | Quality of outcome |
| Transparency | External tools, periodic updates | Inside your ATS, Slack, and systems |
| Flexibility | Per-role contracts | Month-to-month, scale up or down |
| Time to impact | Immediate resume flow | 2-week ramp, then compounding value |
| Long-term value | Transactional, resets each search | Process improves with every hire |
| Candidate quality | Keyword-matched from external database | Sourced and screened with cultural context |
When an agency might be the right choice
Agencies work well in specific scenarios. If you need to fill a single executive role in a niche market where you have no presence, a retained search firm with deep industry connections can be worth the fee. If you have a truly urgent, one-time hire and no ongoing recruiting needs, the speed of an established agency network can help.
The agency model is built for discrete, transactional searches. If that matches your situation, it can be a reasonable investment.
When embedded recruiting makes more sense
If any of the following describe your situation, the embedded model is likely a better fit:
- You are hiring across multiple roles simultaneously or in sequence
- Culture fit is a critical factor in your hiring decisions
- You want full visibility into the recruiting process
- You need ongoing recruiting capacity, not a one-time fix
- You want someone who learns and improves with each hire
- Predictable monthly costs matter more than variable per-placement fees
- You value having a recruiter who understands your team as well as your team does
The embedded model compounds over time. Every hire teaches the recruiter more about your company, which makes the next hire faster and more accurate. With an agency, each new search essentially starts from zero.
The cost math
Consider a company making four hires in a quarter, each at a $120,000 salary. With a traditional agency at 20 percent, that is $96,000 in placement fees. If one of those hires does not work out within six months, you are back to square one on that role, often with another fee on top.
An embedded recruiting team at a flat monthly rate covers all four hires, plus any additional roles that come up, plus the ongoing process improvements that make future hiring faster. The cost per hire drops significantly with each additional placement, and the quality tends to increase because the recruiter's understanding of your company deepens with time.
Making the choice
The right model depends on what you need. If hiring is a one-time event, an agency is a reasonable tool. If hiring is becoming a constant part of running your company, an embedded team scales with you in a way that transactional relationships cannot.
The question worth asking is not just "how do we fill this role?" It is "how do we build a recruiting function that keeps pace with our growth?" The answer to that second question usually points toward a model that stays, learns, and improves alongside your team.