Size,  what an interesting word.  Depending on topic and relevance, size (or lack of) can be critical.  In an age of ?Super Size Me!!!? it is no wonder why most fortune 500 companies believe that their staffing agency must be of equal size in order to service their account.  Coverage and leverage on pricing are valid points.  But in today?s world are those points as valid as they once were?  Moreover, is this philosophy of "bigger is better" actually hurting companies today?

I recently moved to a new home and transferred my phone line to my new residence.  This simple transaction was a real commitment of time as I was prompted several times and finally serviced by a very nice customer service person.  After about 35 minutes of my time, this huge telephone company was able to make the necessary arrangements and my transaction was complete.  Or, so I thought.  Several weeks later I received a collections bill in the mail for the amount of $26.15 from my current telephone company.  How could this be?  I contacted the company and they insisted that I owed the money.  I was baffled considering that this company, who I am still doing business with, had waited 8 months before notifying me and assured me that when I transferred my account, the old account would be settled.  Nevertheless after a short debate and another 20 minutes of my time, I paid the bill.  Only one week later, I receive a $26.15 check in the mail from the telephone company.  I am afraid to cash it for obvious reasons, but I put it up on my wall today to remind myself that bigger is not always better.     

More and more I hear from my fortune 500 HR executive colleagues on why the "bigger is better" philosophy is failing regional recruitment efforts.  Long delays on request, sub-par quality of personnel and a lack of flexibility are all the common gripes regarding larger national staffing firms. The assumption is made that because a staffing company has national coverage it can provide a higher quality service.  Does that hold true in staffing?  I contend, that unless the larger staffing companies become entrepreneurial regional settings with a global yet flexible model, eventually they will fail. 

This argument also holds true with the policies of fortune 500 diversity supplier strategies.  Diversity suppliers are asked by large corporations to fill out an application, prove your minority status (certification), and ask the same old question: ?Are you ?BIG? enough to service our needs??  Most minority owned firms would be viewed as ?to small? by the same companies that are ?supposedly? seeking out to improve their diversity supplier spending.  This is most evident for staffing firms.  In essence, these Fortune 500 companies are doing themselves a dis-service by basing their decisions on size.

I am not contesting that there can be some true advantages to being bigger, just ask Shaquille O?Neal.  What I am debating is whether it holds true in staffing.  In today?s technological world of the internet, teleconference technology and video conferencing, the playing field between large and small has evened out.  The bottom line for large corporations regarding their staffing solutions should not only be quality, expedience, and flexibility, but additionally, identifying a firm that has a true understanding of their company?s unique culture. This can only be found within Staffing companies that have a fundamental understanding of their clients local demographics, flexibility of policy based on the clients unique environment and a true entrepreneurial spirit that is committed to their client?s success.

Well then, maybe size does matter.  Maybe ?smaller? is better.  Maybe Fortune 500 should look for diamonds in their own backyard.