From Multi-Listing to Meaningful Partnerships

When employers are looking for hiring support, many instinctively think “Let’s give the role to a few different agencies, and see who and what comes back first”. On the surface, this feels like common sense – more agencies mean more activity, which should mean better results, and faster. But is this ‘multi-listing’ approach really the most effective way to hire? Spoiler alert: not always!

Let’s explore how multi-listing became the default in recruitment, where it can work well, and when working with one agency exclusively can deliver better outcomes.

How Multi-Listing Became Common

The logic behind multi-listing is straightforward: engaging multiple recruiters seems like a good way to widen the candidate search pool and fill roles faster. But if you think about it, this approach is actually quite uncommon in most other professional services.

I haven’t found the perfect analogy yet, but for example, you wouldn’t hire multiple lawyers to take on the same case, or engage several financial advisers to manage the same assets. In both situations, the overlapping responsibility would likely create confusion, duplication of work, and miscommunication.

In most industries, exclusivity is standard for a reason – because it works. So how did recruitment take a different path? From my experience in the industry, I’d say it’s due to a mix of market pressure and competition during times of talent shortage.

Employers struggling to find the right talent in a tight market would have wanted to maximise their chances by hiring multiple agencies. With agencies also offering “no win, no fee” arrangements, over time the multi-list approach became the norm rather than a strategic decision.

When Multi-Listing Works (and When It Doesn’t)

There are times when multi-listing can be effective. When there’s plenty of available talent in the market and you’re hiring a high volume of roles, or filling entry-level roles where speed generally outweighs the need for deep candidate engagement, then having several agencies working at once can produce results quickly.

However, in today’s market, where unemployment is high but specialist skills remain in short supply, multi-listing can have unintended consequences. New Zealand’s talent pool is relatively small, and when the same candidate is contacted multiple times about the same job, it can create a poor experience that puts them off from the outset. The result is that you could miss out on skilled talent, or damage your brand reputation in the market, which can be difficult and time-consuming to repair.

It’s also inevitable that recruiters working in competition will tend to prioritise speed over depth. They might be excellent recruiters who know that finding the perfect fit the first time is important, but in multi-listing, there’s a natural pressure to get results for the employer as fast as possible.

Another key consideration is accountability. When no single agency feels fully responsible, the result is duplication, mixed messaging, and more work for you to manage. What may appear efficient at first often ends up costing more time. Briefing multiple agencies, maintaining separate lines of communication, reviewing several shortlists, and coordinating feedback all add up. That’s time and effort that could be better spent working efficiently with one trusted partner who understands your needs and owns the process from start to finish.

When to Work with a Single Recruitment Partner

Choosing to work exclusively with a single recruitment agency is a strategic decision. For specialist, senior, or business-critical roles where the stakes are higher, or roles where cultural fit is just as important as technical skill, it can make a huge difference.

When you partner with a trusted recruiter, they can fully represent your brand, invest their time where it matters most, and move beyond the surface. Instead of racing to send CVs, they have the time to be thorough: to seek out passive candidates, test alignment carefully, and invest in understanding your culture and long-term goals.

They can also put weight behind tailored marketing activity, things like targeted campaigns, creative job advertising, and proactive promotion of your employer brand. It allows them to promote your opportunity confidently and consistently, without the pressure of competing submissions.

For the employer, it streamlines the process. You’re dealing with one point of contact, clear accountability, and a single shortlist that reflects quality over quantity, which often results in hires that stay long-term. For candidates, it provides a smoother and more professional experience – one voice representing your brand, not multiple.

No Right or Wrong Approach

There’s no single “right” or “wrong” way to recruit – it’s about choosing what works best in your specific scenario. Multi-listing still has its place when speed and volume are the priority, while in a market where attracting skilled, engaged professionals is increasingly difficult, working exclusively with a recruitment partner offers a strategic alternative.

At Madison, the general pattern is that employers who work with us exclusively see the benefits quickly and it becomes their preferred way of working. Most start by trialling it with one role – a low-risk way to experience what a genuine recruitment partnership can deliver: focus, clarity, and better long-term hires.

If you’re interested in learning more about either of these approaches, or want advice about which might work best for you, I’d be more than happy to help!