The work has more in common with residential real estate than most people realize. A company has an opening to fill, much like a homeowner has a property to sell. A candidate is evaluating an opportunity, much like a buyer is evaluating a home. There are expectations, competing interests, confidential information and a negotiation that can change someone's future.
But there is one major structural difference.
In a typical real estate transaction, the seller and buyer can each have their own representative. In third party recruiting, one recruiter often sits in the middle while managing both relationships.
The recruiter may know the highest salary the company is willing to pay. At the same time, that recruiter may know the lowest salary the candidate would accept.
The real estate industry had its reckoning
The real estate industry has spent years confronting questions about commissions, representation, transparency and conflicts of interest. Practice changes implemented following the 2024 National Association of Realtors settlement now require many agents working with buyers to establish written agreements before touring a home. Those agreements must clearly address services and compensation. Offers of compensation also can no longer appear on REALTOR affiliated multiple listing services.
The larger principle is simple: people should understand who represents them, what that person is being paid and where competing incentives may exist.
Recruiting deserves the same level of clarity.
The recruiter is not a neutral party
This is where the industry needs to be more honest.
In a standard contingency search, the company engages the recruiting firm and pays the fee. The recruiter is therefore representing the employer in the search. The candidate is not the recruiter's client in the contractual sense, even when the recruiter has built a strong and trusted relationship with that person.
Pretending otherwise creates confusion.
However, representing the company does not give a recruiter permission to manipulate the candidate, misuse confidential information or pressure someone into accepting a deal that does not serve them.
The recruiter owes the client advocacy. The recruiter owes the candidate honesty, discretion and informed choice.
Those obligations can coexist.
Where the conflict becomes dangerous
Imagine a company has approved a salary up to $180,000. The candidate privately tells the recruiter they would accept $160,000.
What happens next reveals a recruiter's ethics.
Using the candidate's private minimum to push the offer down may save the client money, but it can also damage trust, create future pay equity problems and produce an employee who feels undervalued as soon as the real market becomes visible.
The reverse can also happen. Because many recruiting fees are calculated as a percentage of salary, a recruiter could push compensation higher primarily to increase the fee, even when it threatens the deal or exceeds the role's value.
Both behaviors put the recruiter's leverage ahead of the placement.
Confidential information should never become private arbitrage.
The correct approach
The strongest recruiters operate with clear boundaries.
-
State who you represent
Candidates should understand that the company retained the recruiting firm. That disclosure does not weaken the relationship. It makes the relationship credible.
-
Treat compensation information as confidential
A candidate's minimum acceptable salary is not automatically theirs to share. Neither is the employer's maximum budget. Recruiters should obtain clear permission before revealing information that could weaken either party's negotiating position.
-
Advocate with market evidence
The recruiter should not simply split the difference between two private numbers. The recommendation should reflect the candidate's experience, internal equity, market compensation, competing opportunities and the actual scope of the role.
-
Tell both sides the truth
If the company's budget is not competitive, say so. If the candidate's expectations are unrealistic, say that too. Good recruiting is not about telling everyone what they want to hear. It is about giving both sides enough truth to make a sound decision.
-
Optimize for a lasting hire
The goal is not the lowest accepted offer, the highest possible fee or the fastest close. The goal is a fair agreement that still feels fair six months later.
The human part AI cannot replace
AI is changing recruiting quickly. It can identify candidates, compare backgrounds, organize information and make a search dramatically more efficient.
What it cannot replace, at least not yet, is the human understanding required when careers, companies and families are affected by a decision.
AI cannot fully interpret the hesitation in someone's voice when they discuss leaving a stable job. It cannot always recognize when a compensation concern is really about feeling valued, when a hiring manager's objection is masking a different concern or when a candidate needs an honest conversation rather than another automated message.
Those moments require judgment, empathy and trust.
At Abrazo, we value technology because it helps us move faster and reach further. But we believe real human interaction must remain at the center of recruiting. Every resume represents a person making a meaningful career decision. Every job description represents a company, a manager and a team depending on the right outcome.
Technology can improve the process. It should never remove the humanity from it.
So, where should the recruiter's allegiance be?
Contractually, the recruiter is aligned with the client.
Professionally, the recruiter must be aligned with the integrity of the process.
That means protecting the client's interests without treating the candidate as inventory. It means advocating for the candidate without pretending to be their exclusive agent. It means understanding that a placement is not successful merely because an offer was signed.
A successful placement happens when both parties enter the relationship with accurate information, realistic expectations and genuine confidence in the decision.
The best recruiters do not use their position in the middle to gain an advantage over either side. They use it to create clarity between both sides.
That may be the most important responsibility in third party recruiting, and it is one our industry should be willing to debate openly.
So I will ask directly. Should third party recruiting adopt clearer standards around representation, confidentiality and compensation disclosure? I am arguing yes, and I would like to hear the case against it. The discussion is open on LinkedIn.