Outplacement Services Indonesia

A coaching firm improves how someone searches. That has value, but the person is still approaching the market from outside it, sending applications into companies that do not know them.

Our business is filling roles. The consultants doing that work sit in the same office as the coaches, so somebody in a programme can be considered for something real rather than advised on how to find it. That is an organisational difference, not a better service tier.

What it changes in practice is the ratio of applications to conversations. Fewer of the first, more of the second, which is what actually shortens a search and keeps the exit from turning into a grievance.

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

Per person, banded by level. Executive, senior, mid and junior programmes differ in depth and duration. This covers one person or a small number.

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

Per cohort. A reduced rate per head where a group is leaving together, which is the usual case for a restructuring or a site closure.

Bespoke. Where the profiles, the timeline or what needs including does not resemble any of the above.

Whichever applies, fees and inclusions are documented before the first enrolment.

More variably than most providers admit. Junior and mid-level people in sectors that are hiring often move inside two months. Senior searches take longer because there are fewer roles and slower decisions, and anyone changing industry should expect longer again.

The number we watch is not weeks elapsed but live conversations. Someone in three active processes is in a fundamentally different position from someone who has sent sixty applications, however long each has been going.

No. Whether someone is hired depends on the economy, on sector hiring cycles, on what the person decides they actually want, and on an employer's own timing. A provider is in control of none of that.

The commitments we can make are about the programme: a coach within five working days, weekly sessions while the search is live, documents rewritten by people with recruitment backgrounds, mock interviews with real feedback, salary negotiation preparation, and active introduction into the mandates we are running.

Promising an outcome would close more deals and would fail the person it was promised to.

Mostly it depends on the first hour. Done well, it acknowledges the situation honestly, avoids lingering in it, and moves to something concrete: what they want next, where that is realistic, and getting their documents fixed this week.

After that, what people tell us mattered was the consistency. One coach who remembers the last conversation, a fixed hour in a period that otherwise has no structure, and at some point a call about a live role in their sector, which is the moment the search stops feeling theoretical.

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

Everyone onboards together at a per head rate, coaches are allocated by sector rather than arbitrarily, and the HR sponsor receives reporting across the group: progress, outcomes, and how the process is being talked about internally.

By the end of the first week our consultants across several sectors are already weighing those people against roles they are working on. In a site closure or a unit shutdown, that is the part employees notice and the part that protects your standing as an employer afterwards.