
Kamal Ladwa
Founder, Syun Consulting
Kamal Ladwa is the founder of Syun Consulting, a technology and AI advisory for UK recruitment agencies. Before Syun, he built and sold his own multilingual recruitment agency, so he's run the P&L, not just advised on it. Agencies work with him because he combines twenty years inside recruitment with a decade of hands-on RecTech, CRM, data and AI implementation work.
Founded Oak Tree Recruitment on 6 March 2006 with his brother and sister. Built it into one of the leading multilingual recruitment agencies in the UK. Ran the business for around eight years. Sold to a private investor in December 2013, remaining with the business until January 2016.
Delivered 100+ CRM migrations and implementations for recruitment agencies, working across major platforms including Vincere, Bullhorn, Loxo and Mercury, platform-agnostic throughout. Hands-on with Clay and AI-driven automation tooling since 2023, applying it directly to CRM enrichment, market intelligence and workflow automation for clients. This work spans the decade since founding Syun Consulting in 2016, across around 300 recruitment businesses.
Day to day, I was managing a team of sales consultants. That meant pitching to clients myself, identifying businesses we wanted to work with, and helping the consultants build proper pipelines rather than just reacting to whatever came in. I was more of a 180 consultant, geared towards the sales and client side rather than delivery.
The thing that worked best for us operationally was our referral network. We built it up properly, and it meant we were finding candidates who genuinely weren't on other agencies' radar. That gave us an edge a lot of competitors didn't have.
Where we actually did well was turning CRM data into decisions, and we were doing that back in 2011, long before AI made it straightforward. My background at Hermes was building fairly advanced spreadsheets with VBA, and I brought that same instinct into the agency: proper reporting off the CRM, used to work out where sales effort should actually go rather than guessing. Some of it was more complex than we needed at the time, in hindsight, but the underlying approach was right.
That's exactly the shift I now help agencies make. What used to take a lot of manual spreadsheet work can now be done far faster with AI, but only if the data behind it is clean and trustworthy. That's the part most agencies skip, and it's a big part of what I focus on with clients today.
If I'm honest about what I'd change, it's that I'd have pushed the sales side even harder. My role was bringing in new business and building client relationships, which is exactly what the agency needed to grow, and it's where I put my energy. Looking back, doubling up into more of a 360 role, staying closer to delivery as well as sales, would have given me an even sharper view of what clients actually needed. That's the one adjustment I'd make.
When we started, we didn't really have a database, calling it that would be generous. Once we had some cash behind us, that was the first thing we invested in, a CRM that was popular at the time. Our choices were limited, and it did the job for a while, but we outgrew it.
In 2011 we went back to market properly, did real due diligence on what was out there, worked out where the actual value would be, and I implemented it myself. That was a genuine shift, operationally, in productivity, and in reporting. It was the light bulb moment for me, and it's directly what led to what I do now.
Separately, one of the things I'm proudest of from that period was being an early adopter of Google AdWords, well before the bigger players like Reed, Monster and CV Library were doing anything similar. We pioneered it within multilingual recruitment specifically, targeting both candidates and clients with very specific keywords. By the time we sold the business, around 25% of our revenue was coming directly through that channel. It was cost effective and genuinely moved the needle.
I led that 2011 CRM migration myself. It's part of why I do what I do now, it was the stepping stone into this career.
The hard lesson came from a system failure, not the migration itself. We had the CRM running on a server, with an IT support company who were meant to have downtime alerts set up. A hard drive blew over a weekend, and it took about three days to get everything back up. No CRM for three days. We got through it, but it taught me not to assume "we have support in place" means you're actually covered until you've tested it.
Every engagement starts with the same question: what is actually happening across your workflows, tech and data, not just the one system you called us about.
We map how work actually moves through the agency: consultant workflow, CRM usage, data flow between systems, and where manual workarounds have crept in. This is diagnostic, not sales-led, and it is vendor-independent.
We separate genuine technology gaps from process gaps that look like technology problems. A common finding is that the tooling is fine and the process built around it is not.
We set out a prioritised, sequenced plan: what to fix first, what depends on what, and what can wait. Recommendations are tied to your actual constraints (budget, team capacity, contract timing), not a generic best-practice list.
Where needed, we support the agency through the change itself: CRM migration, AI tool adoption, or process redesign, with the same whole-system view carried through delivery.
We check outcomes against what was agreed at the start, not against a vague sense of improvement.
These come up repeatedly in recruitment businesses, regardless of size or platform.
Migrating the data across is the easy part. The real work is redesigning the workflows that sit on top of it, how consultants log activity, how leads get assigned, how reporting gets pulled. Skip that step and you end up with a new system running the old, broken process, just faster.
AI gets bolted onto an existing process instead of replacing the manual steps it was meant to remove. The result is an extra tool to check, not less admin, and the team quietly stops using it within a few months.
Switching cost becomes the real reason a business stays on a platform, not whether it's still the right fit. This usually shows up as growing frustration with a system that nobody can quite justify replacing, because the thought of moving the data again feels worse than living with what's there.
Choosing new technology before agreeing how the business actually wants to work means the tool ends up shaping the process by accident, rather than the other way round. Agencies often only notice this once the new system is live and everyone's found a different workaround for the same task.
Everyone assumes someone else is keeping the CRM clean. Six months on, duplicate records, missing fields and inconsistent tagging have crept back in, and the reporting nobody trusted before the migration is now just as unreliable in the new system.