Written by Dean Connelly, Founder & Recruitment Director, Latte Recruitment
As a recruitment consultancy, we have the opportunity to talk to talent from all types of agencies every week. Big, small, independent and network. In recent years the tide seems to be turning on the age-old assumption that bigger agencies offer more job security. It’s no longer assumed that because of their sheer size employees are protected from the ups and downs of economic cycles. This has become even more prevalent following the merger of H+K and BCW.
Publicly listed companies like WPP are built to optimise profit quarter on quarter. Being a service-based business, the biggest area for profit optimisation is often based on employees. How can we squeeze more out of each employee? Where can we cut the fat? Will a structure change prove more efficient?
Whilst the big agencies recognise the importance of team culture, and many create excellent work environments, the rhetoric coming from talent leaving some of these agencies is that they feel like a number, that their value as a team member is part spreadsheet part actual input.
In a poll we conducted with our PR and Social Media talent community, 41% of respondents felt that job security was stronger in small to mid-sized agencies, 14% said it was stronger in larger agencies and 45% felt there was no difference.
I’ve often found that the big network agencies hire at rapid rates during times of economic growth, only to quickly cut the fat at the slightest signal of market downturns. In some instances, teams that already feel stretched are seeing redundancies made in the name of profit. We regularly hear that promotions and pay rises need to be approved by head office rather than by the Managing Director of the office they work in. These elements all affect culture and the sense of job stability.
Candidates have reported a constant cycle of restructuring at network agencies, occurring every 3-4 years under the guise of a new CEO’s vision. These restructuring efforts are typically driven by profit optimisation, be it through consolidating divisions or aligning with a single profit and loss statement. The upheaval can create a sense of instability and uncertainty among employees, hindering the development of a cohesive and secure work environment.
Whilst no agency can 100% guarantee they won’t make redundancies, in my experience, it’s the independents that fight harder to hold onto their talent. That’s because it’s more personal. The Founder of that agency has invested their own money, time and effort into upskilling team members and driving an agency that executes the vision it was founded on. Losing that talent is more than a change on a spreadsheet. It’s the loss of someone who often had close proximity to the founder and was moulded to the agency’s style of doing business.
Whilst both network and independents exist to create a profit, I’ve found that independents are closer to the impact on what a good hire vs a bad hire has on the bottom line. In general, they tend to be slower to hire and slower to fire based on changes in the market.
It’s important to note that job security does not equal an excellent culture. Both big and small agencies get the culture piece right and many get it horribly wrong.
The belief in better job security at big network agencies is a narrative that doesn’t necessarily align with the experiences of many professionals in the PR industry. Independent agencies, with their personal touch, commitment to their vision, and a closer understanding of the impact of staffing decisions, often provide a more secure and supportive work environment for their teams.
—
Interested in joining a leading small PR agency? Latte Recruitment works with some (really) impressive, award-winning small PR agencies across London, Sydney and Melbourne. Email: [email protected] or browse live roles on our ‘Jobs’ page.