3 Things I’d Like To Change About Sourcing by @MatthewJLeBlanc

time for change

Sourcing as a stand-alone function is a relatively new part of the recruiting continuum and although it is something I’m passionate about and have a deep affection for, there are a few things that need to change for it to advance and continue to thrive.

  • Sourcers are not miracle workers and need to quit being seen as such. The idea that a sourcer can snap their fingers and produce candidates on demand is a bit much – there is no amount of AND, OR, and NOT (or abracadabra for that matter) that will produce immediate results. A good sourcer should be able to find candidates all day long but their ability to deliver said candidates is only as good as the combination of their sales skills and the attractiveness of their employer. To state it simply, if an organization is a horrible place to work (or has the reputation as one) no amount of sourcing is going to fix that.
  • Sourcing is not recruiting’s little sibling. Contrary to popular belief in many circles, sourcers are not the snot nose little brothers and sisters of recruiters. Each piece of the equation plays an important part and the relationship looks different within each organization. Whereas a recruiter should be able to manage process, negotiate with the best of them, and manage (sometimes difficult) hiring teams a sourcer needs to be a critical and creative thinker who can look at information about a requisition 100 different ways and come up with effective solutions and strategies to find talent. The sooner the public at large understands that it is ok to specialize in sourcing, the better the world will be.
  • Judging a sourcer strictly on hires is not the best way to judge their impact. This is a debate that is as old (or young) as sourcing itself – how do you judge the true effectiveness of a sourcer? Hires are a very good indication of the overall productivity of how a sourcer is working but there are so many variables that it is not entirely accurate. In many organizations the sourcer gives up complete control of the candidate at some point (normally early on) in the process. Judging them on hires in that situation is like judging an offensive coordinator on his quarterback’s completion percentage. He plays a part in that but is not the one producing the final result. I ‘m a firm believer in taking a look at several different factors such as submittals per week per req / project, the quality of those submittals (% that were interviewed), how many of those received offers / hires, and ultimately time to source all give a good indication as to how successful a sourcer is.

For those that have chosen sourcing as your career path of choice, what say you? What things would you change or keep the same about the work world you live in?

  • http://www.recruiting-online.com/ Glenn Gutmacher

    Amen, brother

  • http://www.techhiring.com TechHiring.com

    Matt,
    Great post and totally agree with you. There are tools that can speed up sourcing now but still is a lot of work and can not be done overnight. Good points on what KPI’s recruiters get rated on and feel the # of accepted candidates from hiring manager should be on the list.
    Dave H.

  • Marcel Rietveld

    I totally agree Matt! Great post

  • Dawn Barry

    Agreed, great post. I think you nailed it on the sourcing metrics. There is definitely more to look at then just the # of hires especially if you’re not closing candidates yourself. A lot of companies struggle to come up with good metrics for judging a sourcers performance and this is a really good guide.