RPO vs. internal recruitment: when to choose one over the other?

Choosing between RPO and internal recruitment: a strategic decision

The recruitment model adopted by a company is far from trivial. Between an in-house recruitment team and outsourcing via an RPO (Recruitment Process Outsourcing) partner, each option reflects a distinct strategic logic, influenced by the company's priorities and structure.

These models don't just differ in cost or organization. Internal recruitment relies on "in-house" expertise, often combined with a long-term vision. Conversely, RPO is an agile alternative, adapted to fluctuating or complex needs.

But how do you determine which one best suits your needs? If you're wondering, don't panic: you've come to the right place.

An internal recruiter: a local, stable solution

Internal recruitment is often seen as a natural extension of HR functions. This model is based on the creation of a dedicated team, integrated into the heart of the company's activities. It guarantees total control of the process, from the definition of needs to the integration of candidates, including every stage of assessment.

One of the main advantages of this approach is its proximity to the corporate culture. An in-house team has a deep understanding of the values, vision and specifics of the organization. It is therefore able to identify and select candidates not only on the basis of their technical skills, but also on their ability to integrate harmoniously into a given environment.

This direct link also fosters constant communication with operational managers, enabling priorities to be quickly adjusted according to needs.

However, this control comes at a cost. Recruiting in-house involves substantial fixed costs, particularly in terms of salaries, social security contributions and HR tools. These costs do not vary according to business volumes, which can pose a problem during periods of reduced recruitment. Similarly, an in-house team can quickly become overwhelmed during hiring peaks, lengthening lead times and risking compromising process quality.

Technological capacity is another challenge. Innovations in automated sourcing and predictive candidate analysis often require heavy investment. Not all companies, especially SMEs, have the resources to adopt these tools, which can limit their competitiveness in markets where speed and precision are essential.

Despite these constraints, internal recruitment remains a solid solution for organizations with ongoing needs and a strong desire to build lasting talent management expertise.

RPO: flexibility, expertise, scalability and processes

While in-house recruitment offers stability and control, RPO stands out for its ability to adapt rapidly to varied and unpredictable needs. This model is based on partial or total outsourcing of recruitment processes, enabling companies to mobilize external resources without burdening their internal structure.

The main advantage of RPO is its flexibility. Unlike in-house teams, RPO service providers can adjust their level of intervention according to fluctuations in activity. Whether responding to a temporary peak or managing a massive recruitment campaign, RPO offers immediate scalability (unlike a more "traditional" recruitment agency).

👉 RPO vs recruitment agency...we talk about it in this article!

RPO service providers also provide invaluable sector expertise. Thanks to their advanced methodologies and high-performance tools - such as ATS, artificial intelligence algorithms or automated sourcing platforms - they identify candidates with unrivalled precision. This not only cuts recruitment times, but also enables us to better target rare or penurious profiles.

However, outsourcing does entail risks. One of the major challenges is to ensure consistency between the processes driven by the service provider and the company's internal values. Poor communication or insufficient monitoring can result in recruitment that is misaligned with the organization's cultural expectations. What's more, although the model is flexible, the cost of RPO can be high for highly technical requirements or international campaigns.

In short, RPO is a solution that is particularly well-suited to companies facing volume, deadline or specialization challenges. Its success, however, depends on the quality of the collaboration between the company and its partner.

Key criteria for choosing between RPO and internal recruitment

Making an informed choice between internal recruitment and RPO requires a thorough analysis of the priorities and constraints specific to each organization. Four criteria help guide this decision:

1. Frequency and volume of recruitment
   A company with constant, predictable needs can capitalize on a well-honed in-house team. On the other hand, an RPO service provider is more appropriate for managing fluctuating volumes or one-off campaigns.
2. Type of positions to be filled
   Strategic candidates or those who are strongly integrated into the corporate culture often require personalized treatment by an in-house team. Conversely, the RPO excels in the search for specialized or penurious talent, thanks to its access to extended networks and technological tools.
3. Available resources
   Building and maintaining an in-house team requires a substantial fixed budget, whereas an RPO enables you to transform these fixed costs into variable expenses tailored to your needs. This is a significant disadvantage, particularly for SMEs.
4. Strategic alignment
   The model chosen must reflect the overall HR vision. A company focused on retaining talent will often prefer a dedicated team, while a structure seeking to adapt quickly to market demands will benefit from the flexibility of the RPO.

Practical scenarios: which model for which need?

Some situations clearly call for one model rather than another. A growing SME with unpredictable needs will benefit from the flexibility and speed of an RPO. On the other hand, a large company with constant recruitment for similar functions can optimize its costs by relying on an in-house team.

👉 What about your employer brand?

Hot sectors - technology, healthcare, engineering - often require sourcing expertise that only an RPO can offer effectively. But in organizations where corporate culture is a key factor, in-house recruitment remains the option of choice to ensure consistent hiring.

Mistakes to avoid when choosing a recruitment process

Making the wrong choice can have costly consequences. One of the most common mistakes is to focus exclusively on immediate cost, to the detriment of strategic added value. A poorly adapted model, whether in-house or outsourced, risks undermining the company's overall performance.

Similarly, failure to anticipate future needs can lead to operational disruptions. Companies need to plan their recruitment over several years, to avoid making decisions that are too short-sighted. Finally, a rigid approach that excludes all hybrid solutions can limit adaptability in the face of unforeseen developments.

Striking a balance between RPO and internal recruitment?

The choice between RPO and internal recruitment is not a binary opposition. Both approaches have advantages that often complement each other. Companies with a wide range of needs would do well to consider a hybrid solution: an in-house team for strategic recruitment and an RPO provider for one-off or complex campaigns.

I'm discussing it with the Skeelz teams