How We Run Recruitment at SST: The Ownership Model Behind Every Placement

TL;DR: The internal ownership model of your recruiting partner — who "owns" the client, who "owns" the candidate — determines whether you see three qualified candidates or thirteen, whether the firm's best people actually work on your search, and whether candidates feel represented or commoditized. Six Sigma Talent runs a hybrid client-candidate ownership model with explicit activity rules and 90-day expiration on candidate ownership. This article explains why, and what it means for clients.

The question clients never ask (but should)

When a client evaluates a search firm, they almost always ask about fees, timelines, guarantees, and references. They rarely ask: "How do your recruiters split the work internally?"

But this is arguably the most important question. The firm's ownership model — the internal rules for who owns the client relationship, who owns candidate relationships, and how fees split between recruiters — shapes almost every tangible outcome:

• How many qualified candidates you actually see
• Whether the firm's best recruiter is motivated to work on your search
• Whether candidates feel like humans or CVs
• Whether the process is collaborative or political
• Whether good candidates stay "owned" by one recruiter who hasn't touched them in eight months

This article explains the three models in common use, why the first two break in Japan specifically, and the hybrid model Six Sigma Talent uses — with the rules that make it work.

Model 1: Client-only ownership

How it works: One recruiter "owns" the client. They handle intake, search, coordination, delivery — and they take the full fee on placements.

Where it works: Large enterprise accounts in the US and Europe where candidates are abundant and the constraint is client-relationship quality. The consistency of a single dedicated point of contact outweighs the fragmentation cost on the candidate side. This is the EnWorld / Michael Page model.

Where it breaks in Japan: Two failure modes, both sharp.

Failure 1 — Relationship burning

Recruiter A opens an Accounting Manager role at Manufacturing Client 3. They source 13 candidates from the firm's database and send them job pitches. Some of those candidates told other recruiters at the firm — months ago — that they don't want to work in manufacturing, or they've moved out of accounting entirely. Without shared candidate ownership, Recruiter A has no visibility into that. The candidates receive irrelevant pitches, get annoyed, and the firm burns relationships with exactly the kind of passive, senior talent that's hardest to replace.

In a market where the qualified bilingual CFO pool is ~500 people total, burning 13 relationships on a single sloppy outreach is expensive and slow to undo.

Failure 2 — Withheld candidates

Recruiter A is running an Accounting Manager search for Client 1. Recruiter B is running a similar search for Client 2. Recruiter A finds Candidate X who'd be perfect for both. Under client-only ownership, Recruiter A gets no fee if Recruiter B places the candidate at Client 2 — so Recruiter A is incentivized not to share. Both clients lose optionality; the candidate loses a better match.

In Japan, where strong bilingual candidates are already scarce, this misalignment is costly.

Model 2: Candidate-only ownership

How it works: One recruiter "owns" the candidate. They handle career consultation, representation, and earn the full fee when that candidate is placed. This is closer to the Robert Half model.

Where it works: Specialist firms building deep niche networks over years, where candidate relationships are the core asset.

Where it breaks: Candidate hoarding.

Recruiter A "owns" Candidate X but hasn't spoken to them in six or twelve months. Recruiter B sees Candidate X is a strong fit for an active role — but under candidate-only ownership, they can't engage without going through Recruiter A. Recruiter A defends the ownership (often by backfilling ATS notes suggesting "active conversation" when there isn't one), and the candidate sits idle.

From the candidate's perspective: they're represented by someone they haven't heard from in a year, and a relevant role goes to someone else. From the client's perspective: the best candidate isn't in the pipeline.

Why this breaks especially hard in Japan: Strong passive candidates here take months of relationship-building to convert. Idle ownership defended by one person for six months isn't just wasteful — it's actively damaging, because by the time the ownership releases, the candidate has lost momentum or taken another role.

Model 3: Client-candidate hybrid (what we use)

How it works: Both sides are owned, by potentially different recruiters. A placement combines both efforts, and the fee is split accordingly. One recruiter can own both sides and take the full fee — but the model doesn't require it.

What it optimizes for: Specialization (recruiters work where they're strongest), collaboration (sharing candidates is rewarded), and scalability (the best candidate for a client reaches that client regardless of which recruiter first found them).

Why it fits Japan: In Japan, candidate-pool scarcity means every senior candidate is high-value inventory. Hybrid ownership means candidates reach the right client fast, without internal politics. The recruiter who originally found them is rewarded even if they don't manage the deal.

The rules that make the hybrid model work

Hybrid ownership only works if the operational rules are explicit. Ours:

What counts as "active" ownership

Ownership is maintained through meaningful engagement, not system clicks.

• Valid activity: real conversations, submissions, interview prep, feedback sessions, offer discussions, intake calls, pipeline reviews.
• Invalid activity: ATS-only updates, internal notes, forwarded generic job ads, one-way mass emails.

This distinction matters because it prevents "ATS hoarding" — the failure mode where a recruiter claims active ownership by adding notes without any real candidate interaction.

90-day expiration on candidate ownership

Candidate ownership lasts 90 days from the last meaningful interaction. If no qualifying activity occurs, ownership automatically expires. Other recruiters can then engage the candidate — after a courtesy check with the previous owner, who has right of first refusal to re-engage.

No penalty for expiration. This is important. The goal is momentum, not protection of stale ownership.

Fee splits

In standard hybrid placements, the fee splits 50/50 between the client owner and the candidate owner. If one recruiter owns both sides, they take 100%. For referral-style introductions (e.g., bringing in a new client outside one's core specialty), a 25% referral fee is typical.

Splits are discussed before placements, never after. This eliminates post-deal politics.

Conflict resolution

When ownership questions arise, the first question is always: what maximizes outcomes for the client and the candidate? Not "who gets the fee." Client owner + candidate owner = the placement team.

Two real cases

Case 1 — TheSea (cross-specialization handoff)

Kanako Masukura (Senior Partner) gets introduced to TheSea through a VC relationship. The roles are engineering-heavy — not her core specialty. Josh Parks (Partner, tech recruitment) becomes the active client owner and fills multiple engineering and product roles. Josh pays Kanako a 25% referral fee on the first placement.

Over time, Josh is the clear client owner. When TheSea later hires a Head of Sales, Josh has the option to work the role himself or re-introduce Kanako. He picks whichever maximizes outcomes for the client. When he's overloaded with engineering searches, he hands off sales candidate work to Kanako so the client doesn't wait.

The point: ownership follows active engagement, not historical introduction. The client never waits for the "right" recruiter to be free. See the TheSea case study →

Case 2 — Caddi (language-driven handoff)

Kana Yamazaki (Senior Associate) brings in Caddi, a Japanese client, and owns the relationship. As Caddi starts hiring English-only engineers, Kana introduces Akio Namioka (Senior Consultant), who specializes in English-speaking tech candidates. Akio becomes a secondary client owner and pays Kana a 25% referral fee on the first English-only placement.

Each recruiter works in their language strength. The client gets bilingual + English-only coverage seamlessly.

What this means for clients

Three concrete things clients get from this model that they don't in firms with client-only or candidate-only ownership:

1. Wider candidate shortlists. Every SST consultant is incentivized to share candidates across searches. You see candidates sourced by every consultant who might have touched them — not just the one assigned to your account.
2. Specialist depth where it matters. The consultant with the strongest network for your specific role works on your search, even if a different consultant owns the account relationship. Language, function, and industry alignment happen automatically.
3. No stale ownership blocking good candidates. The 90-day rule means idle ownership releases. A candidate who'd be perfect for your role doesn't sit locked to a consultant who stopped engaging them nine months ago.

Key takeaways

• Ownership models inside your search firm directly affect the candidate depth and quality clients actually see
• Client-only ownership works in the US and EU but burns relationships in Japan's scarce, trust-fragile market
• Candidate-only ownership creates hoarding and stale ownership
• The hybrid model — client and candidate both owned, potentially by different recruiters — optimizes for outcomes when paired with explicit rules
• The rules that matter: meaningful engagement defines activity, 90-day ownership expiration, 50/50 baseline fee splits, outcome-first conflict resolution

FAQ

Why should a client care how recruiters split fees internally?

Because the internal split shapes recruiter behavior — which determines the quality and breadth of candidates you actually see. Firms that don't publish their model have usually never thought about it. That's a signal.

Does the hybrid model slow down searches?

No — it usually speeds them up. When any recruiter can share a candidate with any active search, good candidates reach the right client faster than in models where they're locked to one recruiter.

What happens if two SST recruiters disagree about ownership on a specific deal?

The memo specifies the default test: what maximizes outcomes for the client and the candidate? Then: who originated the opportunity, who actively managed the relationship, who did the work that closed the deal. When in doubt, we err toward fairness and long-term trust.

Do other search firms publish their ownership rules?

Almost never. That's why we do — transparency is a differentiator in an industry that often isn't.

Can clients ask to work with a specific consultant?

Yes. Client preferences are respected. The ownership model governs how fees split internally; it doesn't override client-directed assignments.

Evaluating search firms? Ask them how they split work internally between recruiters. The answer tells you a lot. Talk to us about your search →