Why Accountability Is Missing in Recruitment Services in India?
Author:
Date: 23-01-2026
Businesses often ask one frustrated question. “Why is hiring so unpredictable even after paying a recruitment vendor?” The reality is simple: accountability in recruitment breaks when ownership is unclear, incentives are misaligned, and performance is not measured like a business function.
Recruitment is not just “sending CVs.” It’s a delivery system. When that delivery lacks governance, businesses pay in delays, offer dropouts, wrong hiring, and brand damage.
Accountability fails when hiring ownership is split across too many people without measurable outcomes. In India, Recruitment Services in India are growing fast, but service quality varies widely, because most agencies operate without enforceable standards.
Recruitment Is Treated Like a Transaction, Not a Responsibility
Accountability is missing because recruitment vendors are paid for activity, not for outcomes.
Most businesses evaluate agencies on “how many resumes shared” instead of “how many candidates joined and stayed.” This creates an activity trap. Agencies optimise for speed. Companies assume speed means quality. Then joining fails.
Most companies think agencies don’t care. In reality, the contract structure trains them to behave that way.
- Input metrics (wrong): CV count, call count, profile submissions
- Outcome metrics (right): shortlist-to-interview %, offer-to-join %, 30/60/90-day retention
- A “3-layer SLA model” reduces disputes: Process SLA + Output SLA + Retention SLA
In companies like Infosys and TCS, hiring performance is tracked as a system, not as a vendor favour.
The Market Rewards Fast Closures, Not Right Closures
Recruitment accountability fails because incentives reward quick placement, not long-term fit. Many agencies operate on thin margins. Therefore, they push the fastest available candidate. Meanwhile, hiring managers change JDs mid-way. HR wants cost-saving. Founders want speed. Nobody “owns the outcome.”
This is where Executive Search Services become fundamentally different. Executive hiring forces accountability because leadership roles cannot afford failure. Experts consider this a turning point because 2026 hiring trends are shifting from “cost-per-hire” to “quality-of-hire.”
- Accountability rises when you define: Role scorecard + Competency map + Culture filter.
- Most firms skip this and expect “magic candidates” from agencies.
- Executive search typically uses calibrated intake (structured requirement alignment).
McKinsey-style talent operating models focus on quality-of-hire as a measurable business KPI.
Too Many Stakeholders and Too Few Decision Makers
Accountability collapses when decision making is distributed but responsibility is not.
In India, one hiring need often passes through: Founder → HR → Department Head → Agency → Coordinator → Recruiter.
The result is a blame loop. The agency blames HR. HR blames the candidate. The business blames the agency. Nobody tries to fix the system. Most companies overlook that recruitment is a supply chain. If the chain lacks checkpoints, quality will always fall.
- Use a single “Hiring Owner” per role
- Add weekly pipeline reviews (15 minutes) like sales reviews
- Maintain a hiring dashboard: Time-to-fill, drop-off rate, joining ratio
Naukri’s Hiring Outlook survey indicates hiring optimism in H1 2026, but highlights skill alignment as the biggest challenge.
Accountability Dies in Unstructured Practices
A lack of structured compliance kills trust and accountability in recruitment. Unethical practices include: fake offers, misrepresented CTC, hidden moonlighting, and candidates being “double-submitted” across vendors. This escalates in contract hiring too.
That’s why Temporary Staffing Services in India face more accountability stress. Payroll compliance, ESIC/PF, attendance, replacements, and attrition all become part of delivery. Yet many vendors sell staffing without having systems.
According to 2026 reports India’s hiring activity remains strong, but skill mismatch continues to slow down quality recruitment outcomes.
- Mandatory controls: BGC policy, documentation SOP, offer verification
- Use 2-step validation: candidate intent check + offer accept proof
- Implement “no-surprise hiring”: everything written, tracked, timestamped
Conclusion
Accountability is missing in recruitment because the ecosystem measures activity, not delivery. Businesses want speed. Agencies want closures. Candidates want the best offer. In between, no one owns the final outcome clearly. Fixing this requires structured ownership, outcome-based SLAs, and stronger governance, especially in high-volume and contract hiring. Most importantly, recruitment must be treated like a business-critical system, not a vendor dependency.
FAQs
Q1. Why do recruitment agencies lack accountability in India?
Because contracts reward resume volume and closures, not joining ratio or retention outcomes.
Q2. How can companies improve accountability in recruitment services?
By introducing SLAs, outcome KPIs, and role ownership with weekly hiring reviews.
Q3. What KPI best measures recruitment accountability?
Offer-to-joining ratio is the single most revealing accountability KPI.
Q4. How is executive search more accountable than normal recruitment?
Executive search uses calibrated intake, research-driven sourcing, and outcome ownership.
Q5. Why is accountability harder in temporary staffing?
Because staffing includes compliance, attendance, payroll governance, and replacement delivery.
