Internal recruiters and agency recruiters both recruit. That's where the similarity ends.

They operate in different worlds, have different incentives, and generally view each other with suspicion ranging from mild disdain to active contempt.

Here's what each side thinks about the other (and why they're mostly right).

What Internal Recruiters Think About Agency Recruiters

"They spam everyone with irrelevant opportunities"

The stereotype: Agency recruiters send mass InMails to anyone with a pulse, regardless of whether the role is relevant.

Is it true? Mostly yes. Volume is the game. Agency recruiters are incentivized to contact as many people as possible, not to be perfectly targeted.

Agency recruiter defense: "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Also, my commission is based on placements, not targeted outreach metrics."

Internal recruiter counter: "So you're admitting you waste everyone's time?"

---

"They don't actually understand the roles they're recruiting for"

The stereotype: Agency recruiters read a job description once, learn three buzzwords, and start sourcing.

Is it true? Sometimes. Agency recruiters often juggle 20+ searches simultaneously. They can't become experts in every role.

Agency recruiter defense: "We understand the roles well enough to find great candidates. That's literally our job and we're good at it."

Internal recruiter counter: "You asked me if our Java developer role requires JavaScript experience. Those are different things."

---

"They only care about commission"

The stereotype: Agency recruiters will say anything to close a deal because they're paid on placement.

Is it true? Commission-based comp absolutely influences behavior. Not every agency recruiter is unethical, but the incentive structure doesn't reward long-term thinking.

Agency recruiter defense: "Internal recruiters only care about their bonuses and promotions. Everyone has incentives."

Internal recruiter counter: "Our incentives are aligned with long-term retention. Yours are aligned with making a quick placement."

---

"They overpromise and underdeliver"

The stereotype: "I have the PERFECT candidate for you!" The candidate is barely qualified and already told you they're not interested.

Is it true? Often enough to be a pattern.

Agency recruiter defense: "We're optimistic! Also, you're terrible at evaluating candidates so our 'mediocre' candidate might actually be your best option."

Internal recruiter counter: "You sent us someone who doesn't meet a single requirement listed in the job description."

---

"They ghost candidates after placement"

The stereotype: Agency recruiter is your best friend until you accept the offer. Then they disappear and never check if you're happy.

Is it true? Yes, because their commission is based on placement, not retention. Once you start, they move to the next search.

Agency recruiter defense: "We have 30 other active searches. We can't babysit you forever."

Internal recruiter counter: "So you admit you don't care about long-term success?"

What Agency Recruiters Think About Internal Recruiters

"They're mediocre recruiters who couldn't make it in agency"

The stereotype: Agency recruiting is the proving ground. Internal recruiting is where you go when you can't handle the pressure.

Is it true? Absolutely not. The skill sets are different. Some people thrive in high-pressure, commission-based environments. Others prefer strategic, relationship-driven work.

Internal recruiter defense: "I chose this because I wanted to build hiring strategies, not make cold calls for 10 hours a day."

Agency recruiter counter: "That's exactly what someone who couldn't handle agency recruiting would say."

---

"They're slow and inefficient"

The stereotype: Internal recruiters take weeks to review resumes that agency recruiters screen in hours.

Is it true? Sometimes. Internal recruiters often have bureaucratic processes that slow things down. But they're also juggling 15 different priorities that agency recruiters don't deal with.

Internal recruiter defense: "We can't just send any random candidate to our hiring managers. We have to maintain relationships and credibility."

Agency recruiter counter: "We send great candidates fast. You overthink everything and lose talent."

---

"They don't know how to close candidates"

The stereotype: Internal recruiters can't negotiate or sell offers because they've never had to work on commission.

Is it true? Some internal recruiters are excellent at closing. Others rely on the employer brand to do the work. Agency recruiters, by necessity, become very good at persuasion.

Internal recruiter defense: "Our strong employer brand and good offers close candidates. We don't need to manipulate people."

Agency recruiter counter: "You mean your offers are good enough that you never learned to sell."

---

"They're gatekeepers who don't add value"

The stereotype: Internal recruiters just schedule interviews and forward resumes. They're administrators, not recruiters.

Is it true? Some internal recruiters do operate like coordinators. But many are strategic partners who shape hiring strategy, build employer brand, and improve processes. Agency recruiters often don't see that work.

Internal recruiter defense: "We do a lot more than you see. Talent strategy, employer branding, process optimization, hiring manager coaching..."

Agency recruiter counter: "So... meetings? You go to a lot of meetings?"

---

"They use agencies as a last resort and treat them poorly"

The stereotype: Internal recruiters only call agencies when they've failed, then blame the agency when placements don't work out.

Is it true? Often yes. Many companies treat agencies as a necessary evil, not strategic partners.

Internal recruiter defense: "We'd fill roles ourselves if our headcount wasn't frozen and our budgets weren't cut. Agencies are expensive."

Agency recruiter counter: "Agencies are expensive because we deliver results you can't. Pay for value."

The Things They Agree On

Despite the mutual suspicion, internal and agency recruiters agree on a few things:

Hiring managers are difficult: Both sides deal with unrealistic requirements, slow feedback, and goal-post shifting.

Candidates ghost: Everyone gets ghosted. It's awful. Nobody wins.

ATS platforms mostly suck: Internal recruiters are forced to use bad ATS systems. Agency recruiters build their own tech stacks and complain about those instead.

Salary expectations are disconnected from budgets: Candidates want market rate. Companies want to pay below market. Everyone suffers.

LinkedIn is simultaneously essential and terrible: Can't live with it, can't recruit without it.

The Actual Truth

Internal recruiters and agency recruiters do different jobs with different incentives:

Agency recruiters optimize for speed and volume. They're transaction-focused, commission-driven, and juggle multiple clients. They're excellent at sourcing quickly, closing deals, and operating in high-pressure environments.

Internal recruiters optimize for quality and long-term fit. They're relationship-focused, salary-driven, and embedded in one organization. They're excellent at strategic hiring, employer branding, and building sustainable talent pipelines.

Neither is better. They're just different.

But the stereotypes exist for a reason:

Some agency recruiters DO spam everyone, overpromise, and disappear after placement.

Some internal recruiters ARE slow, risk-averse, and treat agencies poorly.

Not all of them. But enough to perpetuate the stereotypes.

When They Actually Work Well Together

The best outcomes happen when internal and agency recruiters collaborate:

Internal recruiter: "Here's the role, the culture, and what success looks like. I need 5 strong candidates in two weeks."

Agency recruiter: "Got it. I'll source, screen, and send you qualified candidates fast."

Internal recruiter: "I'll provide fast feedback and close candidates quickly."

Agency recruiter: "I'll stay in touch post-placement and source for your next role."

Result: Everyone wins. Roles get filled. Candidates get jobs. Commission gets paid. Hiring manager is happy.

Unfortunately, this collaborative approach is rarer than it should be.

The Bottom Line

Internal and agency recruiters will probably always view each other with some suspicion. The incentives are too different. The work is too different. The stereotypes are too entrenched.

But they're both recruiters dealing with the same frustrating realities: slow hiring managers, ghosting candidates, unrealistic requirements, and tight budgets.

Maybe they should focus less on judging each other and more on judging the hiring managers who make both their lives difficult.

Just a thought.

Sources:

• Every internal-agency recruiter interaction ever
• SHRM: Internal vs Agency Recruiter Dynamics
• Lever: Agency Recruiter Overpromising
• Glassdoor: Recruiter Stereotypes
• Forbes: Agency Recruiting Strengths