A Two-Way Look at the Client–Agency Relationship
When to walk away
Most conversations about the client–agency relationship in recruitment are written from one side of the table. This one isn't. A search partnership is exactly that - a partnership, and like any partnership, it only works when both sides are getting value from it. Here's a balanced look at when it's reasonable for a hiring organisation to end an agency relationship, when it's reasonable for an agency to end a client relationship, and (perhaps more interestingly) some thoughts on why so many companies stay in supplier relationships that aren't working long after they should have moved on.
When it's time to fire your recruitment agency
1. Generic, unqualified shortlists. If every candidate submitted reads like a keyword match to the job title rather than a genuine assessment of skills, motivation, and cultural fit, the agency isn't doing the deep-dive work that justifies its fee. A shortlist that could have been generated by scrolling LinkedIn for twenty minutes isn't a search but an expensive filter.
2. Poor or non-existent communication. An agency that goes quiet between submissions, doesn't proactively update you on progress, or can't clearly explain why a search is taking longer than expected is failing at the one thing a search partner is supposed to do better than an in-house team: manage the relationship. If you're chasing your recruiter for updates rather than the other way round, the partnership has inverted.
3. No evidence of a genuine network. If every candidate they present is someone actively browsing job boards - the same pool you could reach yourself through direct advertising - the agency isn't bringing you anything you couldn't get in-house. The entire value of a specialist search partner is access to the passive candidates who aren't applying anywhere.
4. Pushing volume over fit. An agency more focused on getting bodies in front of you than on genuine suitability - submitting off-brief candidates, or pressuring you to move fast on a hire that doesn't feel right - is optimizing for its own placement fee, not your outcome. A good partner tells you when the brief needs adjusting, even when that's not what you want to hear.
5. Damaging candidate experience on your behalf. If candidates report being poorly briefed, chased aggressively, given inconsistent information, or left without feedback, the agency is doing lasting damage to your employer brand under your name — and you're the one who lives with that cost after the invoice is paid.
Why so many hiring leaders stay anyway
Given how common these frustrations are, the more interesting question is why so few companies act on them. The data suggests this isn't really a recruitment problem but a broader pattern in how organisations manage supplier relationships generally.
A survey of 158 HR and resourcing professionals managing roughly 200,000 hires a year found that almost one in two were unable to fill their roles through their preferred supplier list at all - yet 64% admitted they had still rejected a suitable candidate from a non-preferred agency rather than go outside the list. Separately, a survey of UK employers found nearly 75% struggling to find quality agency providers and 90% believing hiring processes were too lengthy — yet most companies reported limiting, rather than expanding, their pool of agency relationships in response.
That pattern has a name in the wider procurement literature: status quo bias. Organisational buyers, like individual consumers, tend to stick with under-performing vendors not because the vendor is secretly good, but because switching carries its own real and perceived costs. Time spent re-briefing a new partner, the risk that an unfamiliar agency performs even worse, and the sunk cost of the relationship-building already invested. Research on incumbent-system inertia describes this as psychological commitment to an existing course of action, driven by switching-cost calculations and a desire to avoid the disruption of change — even when better alternatives are available. A qualitative study of B2B service relationships found inertia and existing relationship investment among the most frequently cited reasons buyers stay with under-performing providers, right alongside genuine switching costs.
In practice, for recruitment specifically, this shows up as a few familiar patterns: a procurement-approved PSL that's easier to keep using than to formally review; a hiring manager who's built a personal relationship with one consultant and doesn't want the awkwardness of ending it; or simply the assumption that "all agencies are basically the same," so switching feels like effort for no guaranteed upside. None of these are unreasonable instincts — but none of them are good reasons to keep paying for under-performance, either.
When it's time to fire the client
The same logic runs both directions. Agencies are entitled to end engagements too, and for a search partner, walking away from the wrong client is sometimes the most professional decision available.
1. Unreasonable or disrespectful behavior toward the team. If a hiring manager consistently treats an agency's consultants with disrespect or unprofessionalism, that's not a personality clash to manage around — it erodes the team's willingness to prioritize the search, and tends to be a preview of how that manager will treat candidates once they're through the door.
2. Misaligned values or practices. Occasionally it becomes clear that a client's actual hiring practices - how they treat candidates, what they're willing to misrepresent about a role - don't match what was agreed at the outset. For an agency whose entire value rests on trust with candidates, representing a client who undermines that trust isn't sustainable.
3. Scope creep or unrealistic expectations. A brief that keeps shifting, or a hiring manager chasing a candidate who doesn't exist at the price they're offering, puts real strain on a search without any change in fee or timeline.
4. Lack of cooperation or communication. Searches stall when a hiring manager won't give timely feedback or goes dark for weeks. Every delay risks losing exactly the kind of passive, in-demand candidate the whole search was built around reaching.
Before either side walks away
None of this argues for reaching for the exit at the first sign of friction on either side of the table. A frank conversation about what isn't working, and a genuine renegotiation of scope, timeline, brief, or fee, resolves most of these situations without anyone needing to part ways. What the data does suggest is that many organizations wait considerably longer than they should before having that conversation at all. Not because the relationship is working, but because inertia is quietly doing the deciding for them. Recognizing that pattern for what it is may be the first useful step, whichever side of the relationship you sit on.
About the Author
Ian Mael is valued across his HR network for his diligent communications and authentic partnerships. As the leader for interim HR executive hires at Carter Morris, he brings over 15 years of recruitment experience for multi sector hires within demanding deadlines for the full range of specialist roles within the HR profession.