I don't like the bonus per hire. Bonus at end of year will reflect total recruiting process, not just the quantity of hires. I feel that bonus per hire can breed hire for the bonus, not hire the right person.

I would pose this scenario to you, as I am aware that this does go on:  If you are an in-house recruiter, and you have a monthly quota to fill in order to reach your bonus, and you have access to many different sources to find your candidates - ATS, Job Boards, Social Networks, In-house referrals, and TPR's-and you get credit for all placements that you make with your internal clients EXCEPT for the placements that come as a result from using TPR's, WOULD YOU IGNORE A STELLAR CANDIDATE FROM A TPR only because it would not count toward your quota?  I've seen it happen, and it is too bad that they let their own greed come in the way of the company good.  I've seen great candidates brushed aside or hidden, only to be hired by the competition, but in the eyes of that corporate recruiter that is okay, because it would not have counted toward their monthly goal. 

Hopefully this does not happen too often, but it is a real issue.  WHAT IF THE HIRING MANAGERS found out about this practice?  If, as a TPR I know this is going on, is it my duty to address this with the company brass?

I have to agree with Corp recruiter.  I think the recruiters job is truly one focused on "selling" the right candidates into the roles.  We had a per hire bonus when I was at a large A/E firm and it worked well.  It has evolved since I've left but still a bonus program.  I'll also say that firm has some exceptional recruiters.  I would like to see them bonused whether the candidate was sourced internal or with an external recruiter.

If the recruiter has no wins, are they really doing their job well?

So how involved is a corporate recruiter normally in the closing process?  The recruiter is responsible for sourcing candidates and bringing them to the table, but it will be the hiring managers and their supporting staff who does much of the closing, correct?  As I think while I type, I suspect that the recruiter may actually have a decent role in the closing process - as engineers are traditionally not closers.  The engineers I suppose can sell the candidates on the projects and the technology, etc, but it is the recruiter who should be trained to deal more with the emotional side of the process.  Maybe I am way off base here never have worked that side of the fence, but the reality is the closing of a candidates is a team process, so by rewarding just the corporate recruiter would be alienating the other folks that participated in the hiring process that also assisted.   Please share some insight into the process for me

The way I see it, "Bonus" AND "In House Recruiters" should not be used in the same sentence.  Maybe this should go in ventilation station, but myself, and many of my split partners are amazed at how misguided and misled the in-house recruiters of our clients are.  Please, don't get me wrong, there are many decent and talented in house recruiters, but for each one, there are three or four knuckleheads.  Truth be told, this is a two way street and their are a bunch of knucklehead third party recruiters as well, but I'll leave that topic for someone else.  My issues are that so many in-house recruiters do not have the backbone, or "intestinal fortitude," as my football coach used to call it, to stand up the hiring managers, grab them by their shoulders and shake some sense into them (figuratively speaking, of course).  I know some in house recruiters who have done this, who have trained the hiring managers and really shipped them into shape by teaching them to make interviewing and hiring decisions promptly...these decisions can be made promptly still with a high level of intelligence.  Engineers are engineers, so they need to be schooled on the art of recruiting...THOSE are the in house recruiters that deserve a bonus, because those are the ones that see the most results.

Holla back if you like