By Kelli Hrivnak, founder of Knak Digital. 18+ years recruiting software engineering and marketing talent for companies under 200 employees.
Companies ask me all the time whether they need an embedded recruiter or a project-based search.
I run both models, and the answer usually comes down to one question: are you buying a recruiting outcome, or are you buying recruiting capacity?
The better question is whether you need recruiting capacity or recruiting support for a defined search.
For a single difficult hire, project search will often just make more sense. For sustained hiring across multiple roles, typically 3-12+, embedded recruiting can be both more economical and effective. There isn’t a universal “X hires per year” breakeven point. A company hiring six people over twelve months may have a very different need from one hiring six people in 90 days. Embedded recruiting becomes compelling when the company needs sustained or concentrated recruiting capacity, not simply when it crosses an arbitrary number of hires.
What each model actually is
Project search is recruiting support around a defined piece of work. You have a role, or a defined group of roles, that needs to be filled, and the engagement is scoped around that work. Depending on the situation, that might be contingency, a project fee, hourly recruiting support, or a combination.
Example: you might have a Director of Business Development role that’s been open for two months and you’re struggling to find the right candidates. Or maybe you’re launching a new product team and need to hire a Senior Product Manager, and an AI Engineer. Those are defined searches. We can agree on what needs to be done, work the roles through the process, and wrap up the engagement when the work is complete.
Embedded recruiting is different because you’re buying recruiting capacity for a defined period. Let’s say you won an award as a government contractor and need to hire 40 people over the duration of 6 months. Some roles will close, new ones will open, and priorities will change. Instead of engaging a recruiter separately for each search, the company is essentially adding recruiting capacity for that six-month period.
That’s why hiring volume alone isn’t the deciding factor. Six hires spread across a year can be a very different recruiting need from six hires that all need to happen in the next 90 days.
What each model costs
The economics are different because you’re paying for different things.
With project search, the cost is tied to a specific search, ranging from a hard-to-find skill set, executive, or even confidential replacement. In a traditional contingency model, for example, the fee is typically a percentage of the candidate’s first-year compensation. Other project engagements may be structured as a flat project fee, hourly recruiting support, or a combination.
Embedded recruiting is scoped differently. Rather than pricing every role as a separate transaction, I scope the engagement around the company’s hiring needs and the level of recruiting support required. The scope can vary considerably depending on how many requisitions are active, how difficult they are to fill, and how much of the recruiting process you need the recruiter to own.
Because of that, I don’t use a one-size-fits-all embedded fee, and I don’t think there’s a magic number of hires where one model automatically becomes more economical than the other.
The other advantage is flexibility. An embedded engagement doesn’t necessarily have to mean a year-long commitment. If a client’s hiring needs slow down, we can adjust the scope or pause and resume when hiring picks back up.
I can’t give a universal formula, as the right option depends on the actual hiring plan and the amount of support the company needs.
When project search makes sense
Project search tends to work well when the hiring need can be clearly defined. You know which roles you need help with, you can scope the work, and you don’t necessarily need recruiting support available across changing priorities.
That could be a single difficult search. Like a company has been slammed with hundreds of inbound applicants but none of them are the right fit. It might also mean you need to find a replacement for an underperformer.
It’s also useful when you need a particular recruiting specialty that a generalist internal team doesn’t have the bandwidth to source or identify. In my case, that’s tech, sales, and marketing. A company may have general recruiting capacity internally but need someone who knows how to find a very specific technical profile, understands a niche market, or has experience recruiting for a particular type of role.
And sometimes, project work is simply a good way to evaluate the partnership between a company and talent advisor. You get to see how they work, communicate with hiring managers, and what kind of candidates they bring forward before deciding whether you need something broader.
When embedded recruiting makes sense
Embedded recruiting becomes more compelling when recruiting itself has become a capacity problem.
What do I mean by capacity? Multiple open requisitions, the hiring managers need support, internal HR is stretched thin, and there is a hiring surge. Maybe the company is entering a growth period and expects to hire consistently for the next several months.
For a smaller company, that can be an awkward gap. You may not need a full-time recruiter permanently, but you need more recruiting expertise and capacity than your existing team can provide during a concentrated period of growth.
Enter, the embedded model. You can add recruiting capacity for the period when you need it without adding permanent headcount or paying a separate recruiting fee for every search. And if the hiring forecast changes, the engagement can be adjusted.
There’s also a compounding benefit. When I’m embedded with a client, I gain a better understanding of the day-to-day culture, how the org operates, and how teams work together. That context spills over in how I represent the company to prospects PLUS advise on the recruiting operation itself.
I’m seeing the org structure, the personalities involved in hiring, where the process works well, and where it creates friction. I can identify where a job description doesn’t reflect the actual role, where a hiring manager’s expectations aren’t aligned with the market, or where the candidate experience doesn’t match the employer brand.
That advisory can happen in project search too, especially with a long-term client. The difference with embedded is the depth and consistency of the exposure. I’m seeing the patterns across the hiring process, which can make it easier to recommend changes to recruiting ops/strategy and employer branding.
Real Case Study
A recent client is a good example of why I don’t think there’s a universal formula for choosing between project and embedded recruiting.
They had just won a government contract and needed to make four hires. Also,they anticipated additional contingent hiring over the following six months, but the timing and volume weren’t yet certain.
We chose an embedded model because they needed recruiting support for the initial hiring push, while also having someone who could stay close to the business as the hiring picture developed. Rather than treating each role as a completely separate search, I could work across the hiring priorities as they evolved.
Then the forecast changed. There was a month when the next round of hiring wasn’t ready to move forward, so we agreed to pause the engagement rather than have them continue paying for recruiting support they didn’t need at that moment. When the hiring picked back up, we could resume.
We also had the option to keep the engagement active during the pause and use that time to build a pipeline for anticipated hiring. That wasn’t the right choice for them at the time, so we didn’t do it.
Takeaway? Not just the outcome of filling 4 positions. It was having recruiting expertise available during a fixed hiring period, with the flexibility to adjust when the business’s hiring needs changed.
Why this decision matters more now
The recruiting funnel has changed over the last year+, specific to inbound applications and volume. More applications doesn’t translate to more qualified candidates. I’ve seen this particularly with technology roles, like software engineering, AI/ML, and cyber. Some resumes are so closely tailored to the job description, like a 90% match, that it raises an eyebrow. Recruiters now have to spend more time validating experience, researching backgrounds, and ultimately screening applicants to determine if the talk matches the walk.
That hasn’t made sourcing and referrals less important, but it does have internal teams relying more on these channels. A strong recruiting strategy still includes outbound sourcing, referrals, and networks, particularly when the inbound funnel gets noisy.
For companies without dedicated recruiting capacity, that extra layer of validation matters. Recruiting isn’t just about getting candidates into the funnel. It’s about knowing where to look and having the time to determine who’s actually worth the chase.
FAQ
When does embedded recruiting make more sense than project recruiting?
Embedded recruiting can make sense when the hiring need extends beyond a defined set of searches. If priorities are changing, multiple roles are likely to open, or the company needs recruiting support across a concentrated hiring period, having ongoing recruiting capacity can be more practical than engaging a recruiter separately for each search.
What’s the difference between embedded recruiting and RPO?
The biggest difference is usually scale. RPO, or recruitment process outsourcing, is typically built for bigger hiring programs. It can come with its own technology, reporting, and a full process built around it.
My embedded model is smaller and simpler. I’m one person adding recruiting capacity to your team for a defined period. No new systems, no reporting layer, just more hands on the hiring work you already have.
Can I switch from project search to embedded recruiting later?
Yes. If a defined search turns into a broader hiring need, we can shift into an embedded arrangement. And if hiring slows down or becomes more predictable, moving back to project-based recruiting can make more sense too.
Final Word
There isn’t one recruiting model that’s cheapest or best for every company. If your hiring need can be clearly defined and scoped, project recruiting may be the right answer. If your organization needs recruiting capacity across changing priorities, embedded recruiting may make more sense. The important thing is to understand what you’re actually buying before you choose the model.
A defined search, or recruiting capacity? That’s where I’d start.
If you’re trying to work out which one fits where you are right now, reach out through client intake and I can walk through the numbers with you directly.
Kelli Hrivnak is the founder of Knak Digital, an embedded and project-based recruiting practice for companies under 200 employees. She specializes in software engineering, product, digital marketing, and GTM recruiting.