Ad-writing skills trump hours of sourcing

Recruiters have an “effort bias” that blinds them to the inefficiency of a great deal of sourcing work, a talent acquisition specialist says.

This bias makes them perceive that time-consuming online sourcing techniques make a sourced passive candidate worth more than someone who applies to a job ad, says Workable customer advocacy VP Matt Buckland.

Some recruiters operate under a false assumption that sourcing is their best recruitment channel, but “when we looked at their data, 80% of their hires came from job ads”, he told last week’s RecFest event.

“Just because you put effort into it, it doesn’t mean it’s any better. [Imagine] a hiring manager looking at two CVs saying, ‘well they applied? No, I don’t want that person’. Who does that? I’ve never heard a hiring manager do that.”

A hiring manager is not interested in the fact that a recruiter had to attend a meet-up and chase a candidate home, he stresses. “Hiring managers just want candidates, and they want them then. They also don’t want a blank piece of paper and [to hear from a recruiter], ‘oh, that’s someone I’m talking to and they’ll be ready in about three months’.”

Using his background in e-commerce as an example, Buckland points out that those businesses always seek customers with “high intent”, not those “who are just browsing the site”.

“And then recruitment does this the completely opposite way and says, ‘no, we don’t want active people. I don’t want people that want the job – I want people that don’t want the job!”

With this approach, recruiters are essentially saying, “I’m going to make it harder for myself, and talk to [passive talent] for days, and send them emails for weeks and then hopefully they’ll want my job'”.


Tuesday 11 September 2018 10:31am

Speak Your Mind