Temp-to-Hire Program Structure: Building Workforce Flexibility Without Chaos for Growth

You're a CFO, operations director, or business owner managing growth in a competitive Texas market. You need headcount fast, but hiring the wrong person at full-time salary creates months of change and replacement costs you can't afford. Unstructured temporary staffing creates a different problem: workers cycle through without clear conversion criteria, legal compliance slips, and team morale suffers because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. Temp-to-hire works when it functions as a deliberate hiring channel with documented criteria from day one, not as a fallback when direct hiring stalls. The difference between chaos and growth lies in building a framework that protects your budget, reduces hiring risk, and maintains both legal compliance and workplace culture. In our experience, practitioners managing rapid growth consistently report that the moment they document conversion criteria upfront, before a temporary worker's first day, hiring outcomes shift dramatically. Instead of extending placements month-to-month because nobody made a clear decision, or cycling through workers who never understood whether permanent employment was possible, teams using a structured approach see higher conversion rates and faster time-to-productivity. The structure isn't bureaucracy; it's clarity that benefits everyone.

Why Unstructured Workforce Flexibility Falls Apart

Companies that treat temporary staffing as a flexible response to sudden headcount pressure often end up managing three problems at once: inconsistent onboarding creates productivity delays, unclear conversion expectations generate resentment among temporary workers, and the lack of a documented process invites compliance risk when staffing agencies and employment law intersect. The operational noise gets worse when departments run temp placements independently. One team evaluates performance on output metrics; another prioritizes cultural fit; a third simply extends workers month-to-month because nobody formally decided whether conversion was possible. Temporary workers notice the inconsistency and see it as a sign your company doesn't have a real path to permanent employment, which means your best temporary talent leaves before you can evaluate them properly. Structured temp-to-hire reverses this dynamic. When you define conversion criteria before the worker's first day, communicate those benchmarks to both the temporary employee and your staffing partner, and apply those criteria consistently across roles and departments, flexibility becomes a strategic hiring channel rather than operational improvisation.

When Temp-to-Hire Makes Financial Sense Versus Direct Hire

Direct hire suits roles with stable skill requirements, long tenure expectations, and low risk of performance mismatch. You know what success looks like, the role exists in your org chart, and you can commit to a salary without second-guessing the decision. Those conditions are clear for many positions, permanent accounting roles, established sales territories, full-time operations management. Temp-to-hire makes financial sense when one of these conditions is true: performance is difficult to assess in interviews alone (client-facing roles where communication style and emotional intelligence matter more than resume keywords), headcount needs may shift due to growth uncertainty or seasonal volume swings, or you're entering a new market or function and need to stress-test both job design and staffing levels before committing to permanent salaries. Consider TechDist Solutions, a mid-size distribution company in Houston scaling a new fulfillment team. They don't know yet whether they need five permanent operations coordinators or eight, whether the role requires two years of warehouse experience or just strong systems thinking, or how their process will hold up under real volume. Temp-to-hire let them bring in four temporary coordinators for a defined 90-day period, pressure-test both staffing levels and job design, then convert the strongest performers to permanent roles once the model stabilized. That approach cost less than hiring four people at full-time salary, letting two underperform for six months, and then backfilling when the structure failed. The trade-off: temp-to-hire extends your hiring timeline by 60-90 days compared to direct placement. If your role must be filled permanently within 30 days, direct hire is your only option. But if you have a reasonable runway and performance risk is the primary concern, temp-to-hire reduces the cost of a wrong hire while keeping your talent pipeline moving.

Building a Structured Conversion Framework with Clear Benchmarks

The foundation of any reliable temp-to-hire program is defining what conversion actually means before the worker starts. Ambiguous criteria, "see how they fit," "if we like them," "if budget allows", are the primary drivers of legal exposure, worker frustration, and failed placements. Start by documenting conversion benchmarks across four dimensions:

• Performance metrics: How will you measure output? In a customer service role, this might be call handle time and quality scores. In an accounting position, it could be invoice processing volume and error rate. Define the threshold for "acceptable" before the evaluation window begins.
• Attendance and reliability: Set explicit expectations around punctuality, scheduled absences, and communication. This sounds basic, but inconsistent enforcement creates liability if you later claim a worker didn't meet conversion criteria.
• Role-specific competencies: What does success actually require in this position? Document the skills, knowledge, or certifications that differentiate a keeper from a trial placement. Don't rely on gut impressions.
• Cultural and team fit: Note specific observable behaviors that matter, responsiveness to feedback, collaboration on cross-functional projects, communication style. Make this concrete, not vague.

Establish a clear evaluation window. Ninety days is common for most professional and administrative roles; light industrial or high-volume positions may run shorter (30-60 days); complex technical roles might require longer (120 days). Communicate this timeline upfront to the temporary worker and to your staffing partner. Ambiguity breeds legal risk and resentment. Build a simple scoring rubric or checkpoint system so hiring managers evaluate candidates on consistent dimensions rather than gut feel. This is especially critical when multiple departments run temp-to-hire simultaneously. A brief evaluation form, scoring performance, attendance, competency, and cultural fit on a simple 1-5 scale with comment fields, creates a defensible paper trail and ensures fairness across placements. One additional non-negotiable: include legal and compliance checkpoints in your framework. Work with your HR or legal counsel to ensure your conversion timelines and criteria don't inadvertently trigger co-employment concerns or violate Texas employment regulations. Staffing agencies manage these boundaries on their side, but your documentation, how you define the evaluation period, how you communicate criteria to the worker, whether you treat temporary workers differently than permanent employees in terms of supervision, matters to regulators and to your own liability profile.

Evaluating Temporary Workers Fairly and Consistently

Evaluation fairness comes down to three practices: measuring the same criteria for every temporary worker in a similar role, documenting observations in real time rather than relying on memory at the end of the trial period, and separating performance evaluation from subjective preference. Weekly check-ins with the temporary worker create accountability and transparency. You're not waiting 12 weeks to deliver feedback; you're giving the worker real-time signals about what's working and what needs adjustment. Those check-ins also protect you. If a temporary worker ultimately doesn't convert, they can't claim they were blindsided, you documented the feedback and gave them opportunities to adjust. For roles with measurable output (customer service, data entry, fulfillment, light manufacturing), pull actual performance data at the midpoint and end of the evaluation window. Call quality scores, invoice accuracy rates, production counts, these are objective. For roles where output is harder to quantify (administrative support, project coordination, sales development), establish observable behaviors that signal competency. For example, in an administrative role: "responds to requests within 24 hours," "identifies potential process problems and brings them to the manager's attention," "maintains organized project files." Consistency across placements is critical. If one department converts a temporary worker who hit 70% of performance targets but another department rejects a worker who hit 75%, you're not running a program, you're making arbitrary decisions. Use the same rubric, same timeline, same evaluation process for similar roles across the company. This protects legal exposure and signals to temporary workers and your staffing partner that conversion decisions are based on criteria, not favoritism.

Managing Relationships with Workers Who Don't Convert

Not every temporary worker converts. That's the point of the trial period. What matters is how you handle the non-conversion in a way that protects your employer brand and preserves your ability to work with that worker or their network in the future. Communicate non-conversion decisions directly and with specificity. Rather than "it didn't work out," explain which criteria weren't met. "Your customer satisfaction scores averaged 78%, and we need consistent performance above 85% for this role." That clarity is respectful and useful to the worker. They understand what they need to improve for the next opportunity, and they can't claim the decision was unfair or personal. Offer constructive feedback. If a temporary worker showed strong reliability and communication but fell short on technical speed, that's useful information. You might recommend they pursue additional training in the technical tool before applying for a similar role at your company in the future. That conversation preserves goodwill and keeps doors open. Avoid the appearance of punishment or retaliation. This is both a legal principle and a cultural one. Temporary workers who don't convert often know people at your company or in your industry. How you treat them shapes your reputation as an employer. If word spreads that non-converted workers were treated poorly, your talent pipeline suffers, temporary workers and staffing partners become hesitant to refer strong candidates to you. Work with your staffing partner to place the non-converted worker in a different role if one exists, either at your company or elsewhere through their network. This continues the professional relationship and signals that you value people even when a particular fit doesn't work.

ROI and Cost-Per-Hire Analysis for CFOs and Operations Leaders

Measuring the ROI of a temp-to-hire program requires tracking several metrics: the cost to hire a temporary worker and evaluate them, the cost of converting to permanent (onboarding adjustments, benefits setup), the cost of a failed direct hire, and the productivity gain from faster placement in roles with high hiring urgency. Cost-per-hire typically runs lower in temp-to-hire than in direct placement because you're paying an agency fee (commonly 15, 25% of first-year salary) while avoiding the broader recruiting costs of job postings, applicant tracking systems, recruiter time, and interview rounds. When you factor in the risk reduction, a failed direct hire can cost 50% of annual salary when accounting for separation, replacement recruiting, and onboarding of a second candidate, temp-to-hire's upfront fee becomes a hedge against costlier failure. Track conversion rates (percentage of temporaries who become permanent), time-to-productivity for converted workers versus new hires, and turnover rates in the first year after conversion. These metrics reveal whether your program is actually reducing hiring risk or simply adding process overhead.

Next Steps: Starting Your Structured Temp-to-Hire Program

Building a program that reduces hiring risk while maintaining legal compliance and team morale doesn't require a lengthy redesign. Start with these concrete steps this week:

• Schedule a brief meeting with HR and your staffing partner to document one role you currently hire for repeatedly (customer service, data entry, warehouse operations, administrative support). Define the four conversion benchmarks, performance metrics, attendance, competencies, and team fit, on a single one-page form.
• Set your evaluation window based on the role's complexity and your hiring urgency. Communicate that timeline to your staffing partner in writing so they align temporary candidates with your expectations.
• Train hiring managers on the evaluation rubric before your next temp placement arrives. Make it clear that conversion decisions are based on the rubric, not on budget constraints, manager preference, or延续 placements for convenience.
• Complete a cost-per-hire calculation for your highest-turnover role, comparing the direct hire cost (recruiting, interviewing, onboarding, failed hires) to temp-to-hire cost (agency fee, internal evaluation time, permanent onboarding). This gives you the business case to justify the program to leadership.

Temp-to-hire only works when it's structured. The framework itself, clear criteria, documented evaluation, consistent application, is what transforms casual temporary staffing into a hiring channel that protects your budget and gives you better visibility into who will succeed before you commit to a permanent salary. Contact us today

Why Your Best Summer Hires Don't Last Past Labor Day: The 90-Day Turnover Problem

You've just brought on a cohort of strong candidates in June. They interviewed well, accepted offers, and seemed genuinely excited about the role. By late August, half of them are gone, some with proper notice, others quietly job hunting. If you're an HR director or hiring manager at a mid-size Texas company managing seasonal or high-volume hiring cycles, this pattern probably feels familiar. The problem isn't that you hired the wrong people. The problem is what happens, or doesn't happen, after they accept the offer. Summer hiring creates a unique pressure: you need bodies in seats quickly, onboarding gets compressed into checklists, and new employees land during your busiest season when manager attention is fractured. Those conditions set up a collision between candidate expectations and workplace reality that becomes visible around the 90-day mark. By then, you've already spent recruiting fees, training time, and internal time. And now you're recruiting again.

The Summer Hiring Paradox

In our experience working with mid-size operations across logistics, customer service, and energy sectors, the 90-day departure pattern is consistent enough that hiring managers now expect it. They budget for it, even. But the pattern isn't inevitable, it's the result of specific onboarding choices that compound during peak season. Organizations invest significant resources to identify quality candidates - phone screens, interviews, assessments, and reference checks. The screening process feels rigorous. The final hire looks strong on paper and performs well in conversation. Yet many summer hires are gone before Labor Day weekend, leaving hiring managers frustrated and wondering what went wrong. This isn't a one-off problem. It's a cycle that repeats annually for companies with recurring or high-volume hiring needs, especially in logistics, professional services scaling for project seasons, customer service operations, and energy support sectors. The tension is real: you need to fill seats quickly, but the speed of hiring often inverse-correlates with the depth of onboarding. The root cause typically isn't the candidate's capability or the hiring team's judgment. It's the gap between how the job was presented during recruiting and how the job actually feels in weeks two through eight. When that mismatch becomes clear, disengagement accelerates, and exit conversations often reveal that candidates felt unprepared, unsupported, or misaligned with team culture.

Why Summer Hires Leave Within 90 Days

Three primary drivers cause early departure in seasonal hiring cycles: unclear role expectations set during rushed hiring, lack of belonging because summer hires are implicitly treated as temporary, and minimal manager attention during peak business months when existing staff is stretched thin. Consider a hypothetical scenario. A mid-size Houston-area logistics firm brings on eight customer service reps in June to handle peak season volume. Orientation happens in one compressed day - benefits paperwork, a facility tour, system logins, and basic policies. The reps are assigned to managers who are also managing vacation schedules and month-end reporting. By week three, nobody has clarified what success looks like in the first 90 days, how performance will be evaluated, or what career pathways exist beyond the summer. By mid-August, four of the eight have started interviewing elsewhere. The firm is back to square one, and the institutional knowledge those departing employees were starting to build walks out the door. The psychological contract, what the employee understands they're being hired to do, who will support them, and what they can expect in return, breaks down under those conditions. When the lived experience doesn't match the promised role, candidates don't stick around hoping things improve. They move on. There's also a compounding effect. Each person who leaves before 90 days reduces team morale for those who stay. Departing employees often take knowledge about informal processes, client relationships, and team dynamics. The remaining cohort feels the workload spike when backfill is needed, reinforcing their own doubts about whether this was the right move.

Organizational Integration Gaps in High-Volume Onboarding

Most compressed summer hiring programs confuse orientation with onboarding. Orientation handles the mechanics: paperwork, system access, policy review, building tour, etc. Onboarding is integration, helping a new hire understand team culture, unwritten norms, how success is actually measured, and where they fit into the broader organization. High-volume hiring cycles typically skip onboarding and focus entirely on orientation. Specific integration gaps appear repeatedly:

• No assigned mentor or buddy to answer questions and model behavior beyond day one
• No structured check-ins at 30 and 60 days to assess how the hire is actually settling in
• No clarity on what success looks like in the first quarter, making it impossible for a new hire to self-assess whether they're on track
• Minimal communication about team goals, departmental priorities, or career context for the role
• No intentional introduction to the informal culture, where decisions actually get made, who influences what, or how problems get solved outside of official channels

The "temporary mindset" trap compounds these gaps. When organizations internally treat summer hires as short-term resources rather than potential long-term contributors, that attitude bleeds into daily management. Those employees receive fewer development conversations, less priority in mentor availability, and less candid feedback. They feel it. And they respond by disengaging or leaving. For mid-size Texas companies with recurring hiring cycles, this becomes a structural problem rather than an isolated mistake. You're repeating the same onboarding pattern every year, watching the same early attrition happen, and then wondering why retention improves so little year-over-year.

The Hidden Cost of Early Attrition

The direct cost is obvious: recruiting fees, interview time, paperwork processing, and the salary paid before departure. But the hidden costs extend much deeper. When a summer hire leaves before 90 days, you lose the productivity ramp they were beginning to achieve. A customer service rep who quits in week eight has barely reached competency in your systems, client base, and escalation procedures. The replacement hire has to restart that learning curve. Over a cohort of departures, this drag on productivity compounds across the summer and into fall, exactly when you're trying to capitalize on seasonal demand. There's also the cost to team morale. Colleagues who stayed wonder why the new person left. If departures become routine, the message internal teams receive is that your organization doesn't retain talent well, which makes recruiting the next cohort harder, because word travels. People talk about whether they'd recommend a company to others. Finally, there's the cost of repeated recruiting cycles. If you lose half your summer cohort in the first 90 days, you're recruiting and onboarding throughout August and September when you should be consolidating your summer team and preparing for the transition to slower seasons. This perpetual recruitment mode strains HR capacity and diverts attention from strategic hiring for permanent roles.

What Effective Seasonal Onboarding Actually Looks Like

Contrast the compressed scenario with a deliberate onboarding approach. The same logistics firm that struggled with eight summer hires takes a structured path instead:

• Week One: Orientation covers basics, but a designated mentor is assigned to each new hire before day one. That mentor spends two hours with the new employee, not just showing systems, but explaining team dynamics, sharing stories about how decisions actually get made, and creating immediate belonging.
• Weeks Two and Three: The new hire receives a written "first 90 days" roadmap that clarifies what success looks like, what skills they'll build, and how their manager will assess progress. Manager check-ins happen twice per week, not sporadic conversations when there's a problem.
• Day 30: A structured check-in covers not just performance metrics but psychological fit, is the role what was promised? Are there any surprises? What support is missing? The conversation signals that the organization is invested in the new hire's success, not just monitoring whether they're keeping up.
• Day 60: A second formal check-in includes feedback from the mentor and peers, gives the new hire a chance to ask questions about career pathways or role flexibility, and reinforces belonging by introducing them to broader teams or leadership.

This approach sounds like more work upfront. It is, but it also prevents the downstream cost of re-recruiting, re-onboarding, and team attrition. Most importantly, it keeps people from leaving.

Concrete Onboarding Adjustments to use Before Next Summer

You don't need to overhaul your entire hiring process. Start with these specific adjustments that target the three primary causes of early departure: Assign a mentor before day one. Identify an experienced team member who's strong at culture transmission, not just technical skill. Brief that mentor on the new hire's background, goals, and any support they might need. Have them spend focused time in the first week building a relationship and explaining informal norms. This addresses the belonging gap. Create a written 90-day roadmap for each new hire. Document what competencies they'll build, what success looks like at 30, 60, and 90 days, and what support they'll receive. Share it before they start, not after. This eliminates the assumption gap, they know exactly what to expect. Build in manager check-ins at days 14, 30, and 60. Make these non-negotiable calendar blocks, not optional conversations. Use them to assess both performance and fit, and to course-correct early if something's misaligned. These touchpoints prevent managers from deprioritizing new hires when summer pressure spikes. Reduce first-week orientation to essentials, and defer policy deep-dives to week two. New hires absorb almost nothing from eight-hour orientation marathons. Focus day one on systems access, mentor introduction, and team integration. Distribute policy and compliance training across week one and two so it doesn't overwhelm. Create a "30-day peer feedback" ritual. Before the 30-day check-in with the manager, collect informal feedback from teammates on how the new hire is integrating. This gives you signals about culture fit Contact us today

2027 Salary Planning Starts Now: Insights for Houston Hiring Managers

If you are a Houston-based HR Director or CFO, you know the uneasy feeling that arrives every July. Just as the dust settles on mid-year reviews, the looming reality of next year's budget planning begins. You need to secure the talent required for growth without destabilizing your P&L, all while navigating a local labor market that often defies national averages. The challenge isn't just picking a percentage number for raises; it’s crafting a compensation strategy that survives contact with reality. The days of applying a flat "cost of living" increase across the board are effectively over. Modern compensation planning requires a nuanced approach that separates market dynamics from inflation and rewards high performers aggressively. One pattern we see consistently among organizations that successfully retain top talent in competitive Houston sectors is that they stop treating compensation as a Q4 event. Instead, they treat it as a continuous cycle of market analysis, starting right now in Q3 of 2026.

The 2027 Houston Landscape: A Divergent Market

While national headlines in mid-2026 suggest a cooling inflation rate compared to the peaks of the early 2020s, the "cost of labor" in Houston tells a different story. National averages often mask the intense competition in specific local verticals. Houston remains a unique economic engine. The ongoing energy transition, expanded port activity, and the perpetual growth of the Texas Medical Center create localized pressure pockets. For example, demand for specialized technical roles means that companies needing top-tier talent must look beyond general salary surveys and analyze sector-specific data. A specialized engineer in the Energy Corridor faces a very different market reality than a general administrative role in a different suburb. Effective planning for 2027 means acknowledging that your biggest competitor for talent might not be in your industry; it might simply be another Houston company willing to pay a premium for transferable skills.

Critical Distinctions: Cost of Living vs. Cost of Labor

A common mistake in compensation planning is conflating the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with the cost of labor. Your employees experience the cost of living (rent, groceries, gas). Your organization experiences the cost of labor (what the market demands for a specific skill set). While high inflation influences employee expectations, it should not dictate your base salary strategy. If you tie permanent base pay increases solely to transient inflation spikes, you risk creating an unsustainable fixed cost structure when inflation cools. Your 2027 budget must focus on the cost of labor, the competitive market rate required to buy specific skills in the Houston area.

Structuring Your 2027 Salary Budget

For 2027, we project that national merit increase budgets will likely stabilize around the 3.5% to 4% range, based on mid-2026 trend indicators from major compensation research bodies. However, a flat budget allocation is rarely effective. Successful organizations are heavily segmenting their budgets. They are moving money away from average performers to disproportionately reward top performers and critical skill holders.

Types of Increases and Typical Ranges

When building your budget model, it is helpful to categorize different types of pay adjustments.

2027 Budget Planning Scenarios

How you allocate your total salary budget depends on your organization's financial position and talent strategy. Here are three common approaches for Houston employers.

Addressing Pay Compression and Internal Equity

A significant challenge for 2027 planning is the ongoing issue of pay compression. Over the last few years, aggressive hiring offers made to attract new employees have pushed their salaries close to, or even above, the salaries of tenured employees in similar roles. If your 2027 budget only addresses new hires and merit increases without analyzing internal equity, you will create morale issues among your long-term staff. A portion of your budget must be set aside specifically for equity adjustments to rectify these imbalances before they lead to resignation letters. Your HR staffing teams need the resources to conduct these internal audits now, before the new year begins.

Practical Recommendations: Your Q3/Q4 Action Plan

Don't wait until November to start running numbers. Effective planning requires action today. 1. Secure Fresh Market Data: Relying on 2025 salary survey data will leave you behind the curve. Ensure you have access to late-2026 projections specific to the Houston area and your industry verticals. 2. Identify Critical Roles: Not all roles are equal. Identify the positions that would severely impact operations if vacant for three months. These roles require a separate compensation strategy. 3. Model Varied Scenarios: Don't present the CEO with just one number. Present conservative, competitive, and aggressive budget scenarios with the associated risks and benefits for talent retention of each. 4. Communicate the "Why": Perhaps the most important aspect of salary planning is communication. Managers need to be equipped with the talking points to explain to employees how pay decisions were made, connecting rewards clearly to performance and market value, not just inflation. Ready to refine your compensation strategy? The most successful companies view compensation not as an expense to be managed, but as a strategic tool for talent acquisition and retention. Now is the time to audit your current pay structures against real-time Houston market data to ensure your 2027 budget is realistic, competitive, and sustainable. Start the conversation with your leadership team today to define your organizational philosophy before the budgeting crunch begins. Contact us today

"I can’t say enough good things about Patsy! From the start, she made the whole process feel smooth and personal. She got me scheduled for an interview with a company that was genuinely hiring, and thanks to her support, I’m now happily working there. What really stands out is her communication — Patsy consistently follows up and makes sure you’re heard every step of the way. She listens carefully and truly cares about connecting the right people with the right opportunities. Working with her has been an excellent experience, and I’m grateful for her dedication and professionalism."

-Karina A. - Direct-Hire Placement, Bilingual Receptionist

“Everything was perfect! Molly Gutierrez and Loryn Montalvo are the sweetest and absolutely the best at what they do. I loved everything -- from the start, to me getting the job. I absolutely loved how both Loryn and Molly kept in touch and updated me on each step."

-Mariam M. - Direct-Hire Placement, Payroll & HRIS Specialist

"Solid, professional recruiters. Morgan Hayes was amazing. What I respected and appreciated the most was her transparency and professionalism. I truly felt she was working on behalf of the client and the job seeker (me) to ensure that both were a good fit."

-Andrew G. - Temporary Staffing Employee - Senior Communications Specialist

"I truly appreciated the professionalism, transparency, and consistent communication throughout the process. Everything was well organized, and I always felt informed and supported at each step. Working with Krista Clements was a highlight of the experience. She was extremely attentive, responsive, and proactive, and her guidance made the process smooth and reassuring. Her approach reflects a genuine commitment to both the candidate and the client, which I found very impressive. Overall, it was a very positive and well-managed experience with Burnett Specialists."

-Márcia C. - Direct-Hire Placement, Office Manager

"Krista's energy, professionalism, responsiveness, and insight set her apart. She reached out after finding my profile in the database, and within just two and a half weeks, I landed the job. Krista's ability to clearly communicate opportunities, provide timely updates, and offer thoughtful insights made the experience smooth and stress-free. I truly appreciated how well Krista understood my background and aligned me with roles that matched both my skills and goals. Her guidance and preparation were key in helping me put my best foot forward, and I’m grateful for the confidence and clarity she provided at each step."

-Matthew D. - Direct-Hire Placement - CFO

"I worked with Ashley Craddick for my job search, and I would highly recommend her to anyone looking for a new position in the legal field. She was extremely knowledgeable, responsive, and kind through every step of the process. Thank you to Ashley for helping me find my amazing new job!"

-Caitlin Z. - Direct-Hire Placement, Litigation Secretary

"Larissa was personable and just an overall amazing person to work with. She was very knowledgeable about the employer, and coached me through every step of the hiring process. I would encourage anyone to work with her.

-Matthew R. - Direct-Hire Placement - Operations Manager

"I felt that my recruiter added a personal touch to the process. Prompt return calls, always there to answer questions and getting me the optimum offer and package. She really represented me well and promoted my strengths to the client. I can honestly say that I would feel the same even if I didn't land the position."

-Timothy B. - Direct-Hire Placement - Client Relations / Business Development

Molly and Madison were excellent in keeping me in the loop with the process of selection, and that was not always my experience with other placement agents/agencies. They went over and above my expectations.  You guys are awesome!!!

-Denise L. - Direct-Hire Placement - Accounting Management Position