What it takes to build an in-house hiring function, and why most businesses end up with half of one

Updated October 2026.

A high-performing hiring function isn’t one recruiter. It’s half a dozen distinct skills working together: designing how you hire, finding people who aren’t applying, knowing the market, assessing people consistently, running a smooth process, and learning from every decision. In Australia a lean team that covers those skills costs around $480,000 a year. It pays off once you hire 25 or more people a year. Below that volume, most businesses hire one person instead, get one skill set, and the role settles into coordinating agencies and admin. It’s arithmetic, not anyone’s fault.

What does a high-performing hiring function actually do?

It does seven things, and does them the same way every time.

• Designs how you hire. Someone senior decides what good looks like for each role, how candidates are assessed, and how decisions are made.
• Finds people who aren’t applying. Most of the right people for a role aren’t looking. Reaching them takes sourcing skill, not just a job ad.
• Knows the market. What the role pays, how many people could do it, and how hard it will really be to fill.
• Assesses consistently. A clear picture of success for the role, and the same structured process for every candidate.
• Runs a smooth process. Scheduling, candidate communication, offers, and keeping people warm while decisions are made.
• Sets the interview standard. Managers know what to ask and what to look for, so a first-time interviewer runs as good an interview as an experienced one.
• Learns. It records why each person was hired, and checks that against how they turned out, so each hire is better than the last.

That’s how the best companies hire. Most businesses, when they bring hiring in-house, get one or two of these things done well.

What does an in-house hiring function cost?

A lean team that covers the skills costs around $480,000 a year. A single mid-level recruiter costs around $160,000 a year once you count everything, not just salary.

Here are two models, built from Australian salary benchmarks and published tool prices.

Salaries are rounded from Robert Half’s 2026 salary guide midpoints. Payroll tax varies by state, from about 4.75% to over 6% once you’re over your state’s threshold, so 5% is used as a representative figure. Tools priced in US dollars are converted at roughly A$1.50 to US$1. Annual leave isn’t added separately, because it’s already paid out of salary.

The people line sits at about 1.3 times salary. That’s in line with industry rules of thumb: Expert360 puts a permanent professional hire at roughly 1.3 to 1.5 times base salary in Australia.

There are also costs in the first year that don’t recur. Hiring your recruiter through an agency at 20% of package is about $23,000. Then there are the months before they’re fully productive.

For comparison, 25 hires through agencies at 15% to 20% of a $112,000 package ($100,000 salary plus super) comes to about $420,000 to $560,000 a year.

How much hiring does it take to justify building a team?

Roughly 25 or more hires a year, steadily. Below that, the numbers don’t add up for a full team, and one person can’t cover the skills.

Recruiters can only carry so much. Ashby’s data has in-house recruiters averaging about 7.3 hires a quarter in early 2026. Industry guidance suggests a first in-house recruiter is usually approved at around 15 or more hires a year, with a strong talent partner filling about two roles a month.

That creates a mismatch:

• Volume pays for headcount. At 20 to 40 hires a year, you can justify one, maybe two people.
• The function needs breadth. Sourcing, assessment, market knowledge, coordination and someone senior enough to design it are different skills. Few people have all of them.

So the cheap option is cheap because it’s incomplete. At 25 hires a year, the one-recruiter model looks like $6,500 per hire. But if the hard or senior roles still go to agencies, say 5 of the 25 at about $20,000 each, the real total is about $262,000, or around $10,500 per hire. And you still have only one skill set.

What do most businesses actually do?

They use agencies as roles come up, then hire one person to bring it in-house. That person is usually a junior recruiter or an HR generalist, and over time the role becomes administration.

It happens for structural reasons, not because the person isn’t capable:

• The budget points to junior. Employment Hero’s survey of more than 1,000 Australian SME leaders found medium-sized businesses spend about $18,371 a year on recruitment. A mid-level recruiter costs several times that, so the first hire often comes in junior, and there’s no one senior to develop them.
• Time runs out. Hiring arrives in clumps, not evenly. A generalist with payroll, policy and people issues to manage fits hiring in where they can.
• Admin pulls at the role. Scheduling, onboarding and interview coordination all drift towards whoever handles hiring, because they all involve people.
• Sourcing is a specialist skill. TestGorilla’s survey of 1,000 US hiring leaders found 77% call active sourcing essential or very important, yet only 27% actively source more than half their hires. Most in-house teams wait for applicants, even when they know they shouldn’t.
• The hard roles still go to agencies. So the in-house person ends up managing agencies rather than replacing them.

The talent acquisition writer John Sullivan described where this leads years ago: a recruiter who manages requisitions, manages the search firms doing the actual searching, sits in interviews and reads CVs. The person is measured on filling seats. Nobody is building the function.

The result is the agency model with an extra salary attached. Each role still starts from zero, and very little of what’s learned stays in the business.

When is building in-house the right call?

When your hiring is high-volume and steady, and you can fund a senior leader before you fund the team.

Building is the right answer if:

• you hire 25 or more people a year, every year, not in one burst,
• many of your roles repeat, so the same process and market knowledge keep paying off,
• you can hire someone senior enough to design the function first, then add sourcing and coordination around them,
• you’re prepared to give it a year to mature.

If those are true, a well-built in-house team will often cost about what you’d pay agencies, and it builds something that stays. Many of the best hiring teams started exactly this way.

What are the options?

There are three, and each suits a different business.

If you’re mostly paying per hire today, What recruitment agency fees actually buy explains what that fee is paying for, and how to get more from it.

---

Thinking about your first in-house recruiter? Tell us roughly how many people you expect to hire this year, and we’ll show you what each option would cost you, before you commit to anything.

---

Josh del Rio is the founder and CEO of Ploomo, which runs hiring for growing businesses so every role is built on evidence, not instinct. He has coached hundreds of leaders and founders.