Outplacement Services Vietnam

A coaching firm improves the way someone searches. That is worth something, but they are still approaching the market from outside, sending applications to companies that have never heard of them.

Filling roles is our main business. The consultants doing that sit in the same office as the coaches, so a person in a programme can be considered for something real rather than coached on how to look for it. That is a difference in how the firm is built, not a premium tier.

What changes in practice is the ratio of applications to conversations. Fewer of the first, more of the second, which is what shortens a search and keeps an exit from curdling into a dispute.

No published rates, because one senior departure and a plant-wide reduction are not the same commercial problem. Four structures exist and we propose one after understanding which you have.

Per person, banded by level, with executive, senior, mid and junior programmes differing in depth and length. This covers one person or a handful.

Per person at a fixed length. Three, six or twelve months at a flat fee, chosen when a defined end point and budget certainty matter more than flexibility.

Per cohort, at a reduced rate per head, where a group leaves together. This is the normal case for a restructuring or a site closing.

Bespoke, where the profiles, timeline or inclusions resemble none of the above.

In every case fees and inclusions are documented before the first person enrols.

More variably than providers like to admit. Junior and mid-level people in sectors that are hiring often move within two months. Senior searches run longer, since there are fewer seats and slower decisions, and a change of industry adds time again.

What we track is not weeks elapsed but live conversations, because that is the leading indicator. Someone in three active processes is in a different position from someone who has sent sixty applications, whatever the calendar says.

No. Whether somebody gets hired depends on the economy, the hiring cycle in their sector, what they decide they actually want, and an employer's own timing. A provider controls none of it.

What we commit to is the programme: a coach inside five working days, weekly sessions while the search is live, documents rewritten by people from recruitment rather than copywriting, mock interviews with real feedback, salary negotiation preparation, and active introduction into the mandates we are running.

A guarantee would win more work and would fail the person relying on it.

Most of it is decided in the first hour. Done properly it acknowledges the situation plainly, does not linger, and moves to something actionable: what they want next, where that is realistic, and fixing their documents this week.

After that it is consistency people mention. The same coach each week, someone who remembers the last conversation unprompted, and a fixed hour in a period that otherwise has no shape. The thing that changes the mood most, though, is a call about a real open role in their sector, because the search stops being theoretical.

Yes, and a cohort is where the recruitment side shows most plainly.

Everyone onboards together on a per head rate, coaches are allocated by sector rather than at random, and the HR sponsor gets reporting across the group covering progress, outcomes and how the process is being received internally.

Inside the first week our consultants across several sectors are already weighing those people against roles they are working. In a site closure that is the part employees notice, and the part that protects how you are spoken about as an employer afterwards.