“Increase your volume”

“Do a deep screen on everyone”

“Return every call!”

“Tailor each message but if you’re looking at someone’s pedigree for more than 7.5 seconds move on.”

“These are the numbers you have to meet or you’re kaput here”

“We need 10,000 bodies, not candidates, not humans, not individuals but flesh bags by St. Swithin’s day.”

“Don’t forget candidate experience!”

“Pitch the company as perfection - but never lie!” 

“Sell! SELL! SELL! 

"Oh, but don’t use pressure…”

Welcome to sourcing in 2021.

We have arrived at peak pressure. And they wonder why it’s getting harder and harder to fill our jobs...

I’m a big fan of the subreddit /r/recruitinghell. There are “great” stories about how terrible we are. Some - maybe many - read 100% as the truth. I know this may come as a surprise but the one I encounter the most is some version of “They never got back to me”. I try to respond with what has started to become a rote spiel”

“We are judged on how many butts we get in seats. Our commissions, our bonuses, our careers - our livelihood - are judged on that factor alone. Not if you had fun in your interview. Not if we sent you an email on why you failed during the phone screen. Not if we sent you a thank you note. Not if we sent you a mass email that called you the wrong name and your skills didn’t even come close to the role. We are judged and we are rated and we are graded on one thing: butts in seats. So, of course we don’t get back to you. It doesn’t lead to the outcomes we need in a timely and efficient manner. It’s not an on purpose. If it hurts your feelings? That’s just a side effect.

This is not the weirdest market I have recruited in. The .com boom in the mid aughts had a similar feel as did Y2K. Not enough people and way too many open roles. Even though we have all read the articles I imagine your day to day gives it a big underline. That increases our need to balance an even heavier volume for less of a return. When that's the case, I think we all know what suffers the most: candidate experience. 

I’m going to suggest some ideas on how we can make this better, most of which will never ever happen. The reason is because everything goes back to quarterly revenue and direct, tangible ROIs. And that all goes up to some bean counter who has zero idea of what our day to day is but knows how much we spend per day. I imagine Cost per Hire is something that gets talked about a lot more than Quality of Hire. 

Sadly, my suggestions will both be things measured over a long period of time - something which the money people hate. Some of them will be intangibles, things that are not quantifiable, but very important aspects of what our roles should be. Those will be things the person who writes your review will hate. 

Finally, some of what I’ll suggest will change the focus of what we call “sourcing” by adding new tasks to it. Who knows what the future holds, right?

As long as I’m in fantasy land, I’m not going to settle for a simple unicorn. I want 6 medium size unicorns that can form into one giant Voltron style unicorn. How cool a vision is that? 

Without further ado, here are some tweaks we can make to influence the way we measure our performance as individuals and as a team:

• We need to end the idea of recruiting/ sourcing as a transactional based experience. It was never linear, but we have attempted to make it so. If this was a commodity-sales profession, that would make more sense - Timberland sells boots, and boots don’t miss interviews, accept counter-offers, or decide they want to be on someone else’s feet. Boots are predictable. Humans? Less so. Don’t blame me: it’s math. Chaos-theory math in this case.
• We need to view the process as a trade, not a sale. There are 3 parties to this arrangement, the hiring manager, recruiting, and the candidate. I specifically use the hiring manager and not the company because what we do is about human beings. The corporation behind the hiring manager shouldn’t play an overwhelming role. People don’t leave companies, they leave managers. What sparks joy in your day is more likely to be from your colleagues than it will be because of the company. So their input is critical to the success of the assignment. The company simply supplies the process and tools.
• Our role is not to “sell” either side of this trade. Our role is to be the expert advisor that helps the potential new employee see why exchanging their labor for compensation is better done here, than where they are now. When it comes to the hiring manager, we need to help them understand why the candidate’s labor will help their specific team and goals. Companies should think and act globally but the rest of us need to think and act locally. How will your day to day be improved by this trade?
• I don’t have to tell the people reading this that the more attention we pay to making this happen, the less volume we can do. Every candidate, every hiring manager, heck - everyone on this wild party we call “Earth”, is beautiful and unique. Helping facilitate between 2 people should take into account the things that make these 2 people special. We should be thinking about longevity and experiences as we do it. We shouldn’t be thinking “will this help me meet my soul-crushing numbers?”
  

How to Get There

• We need to make “high-satisfaction” with the overall experience one of the key metrics in cataloguing success. Companies who do this, and then react thoughtfully to the inputs they receive, ultimately hire at a higher quality and - oddly - perform better over time. If you haven’t, set up a quick 5 minute survey, offered to both candidates and, if they make it that far, to the hiring manager. Your surveys should encompass all parts of the process from how the candidate liked the first email right up to the acceptance of the new opportunity. Not only would this be a way to evaluate the effectiveness (or lack of) your recruiting processes, it is a guide to improving every aspect of the experience, from both a candidate and a hiring manager perspective.
• Next, let’s keep the candidate experience going for 90 days following hire. The sourcer adds this to their job role. Also: apologies if you’re a sourcer and thinking: “OMG, What will that do to the volume I need! How can I send out 100 emails if I am wiping someone’s ass all day because they’re muggles?” Well, that's the point, isn’t it? Changing that as a KPI. Getting you the time you need to focus on higher-impact activities.
• During the first 90 days, recruiting/ sourcing does some check-ins. These are done with both the hiring manager and the candidate. Asking about the general feel, how's it going, and do we have any roadblocks is essential. Just a good old “How d’ya do, how d’ya do and how d’ya do?” The added benefit is, new hires are a lot more likely to offer referrals than people who have been with your company for a few years. Staying in touch is a win-win: the new hire feels remembered, and the recruiting team gets leads.
  

The next suggestion is treading dangerous ground. I know many of the recruiting/sourcing managers will want to take me out back and let daylight through me. But hey, sometimes my feet look so tasty I cannot help but put both of them in my mouth.

• If a candidate who joined via a recruitment process is so unhappy that they’re looking for a new job, they’ll be encouraged to go to their sourcer. They should already have a relationship if we started doing the suggestions above.
• The sourcer will listen and empathize. They will work with HR and the hiring manager to see if they can help with any of the issues that are causing the person to be unhappy. If it is something that a simple tweak would help, we’ll do it. Often, when you have honesty and transparency, what seemed like a huge thing isn’t so big at all. It may be a quick fix. 
• If the issues aren’t something that can be corrected, recruiting will offer to help write the person’s resume. In fact, they’ll help collect internal references, coach for any upcoming interviews and even send them to peers at other companies that might have roles for the unhappy employee. Crazy, right? If someone has decided they’re checking out - well, they already have gone ¾ of the way out the door. They’re a dot. Leaving them with at least the feel of a beautiful exit may help any bad feelings.
• Plus, recruiting now knows what role is going to need a backfill weeks, maybe months, before it would have crossed their desk. In fact, a seamless transition - or even one where the former employee can help train the new hire - will save money and time in the long run
  

That leads me to another KPI we could track: longevity of a new hire. Cost per hire (hello, my bean counters) goes down based on how long someone stays with a company. In 2021, loyalty to a corporation isn’t really something we toss around but what you give is what you get. That has never changed. A company that treats its people well will have them stay longer. Check-ins for the first 90 days, and continuing after will increase longevity. Being transparent that it's OK to leave if we cannot give you what you need (but give us a chance to try, at least) will increase the length of employment. 

Here’s the thing: I have been doing this for 23+ years. I can make your resume beautiful. I can read your poorly written resume, even in comic sans, and see the person beneath the paper.  I can hold your hand and navigate you through the interview process. I can help a manager understand the difference between interviewing to hire and interviewing to knock someone out and which is better. In all humility (which you know means a BRAG is coming) I think I’m pretty good at the whole sourcing gig… 

Even with all of that, the mystery of why some people get hired is something that I can only guess at but I will never know. I think it would be easier to explain the appeal of Carrot Top, or Ryan Seacrest.

Then why, by Great Caesar's ghost, do people think that the number of submittals, calls made, emails sent, etc is indicative of success? Beats me. It’s as arbitrary as anything: because we are dealing with people. And people are weird about following linear, predictable paths. Especially when it comes to hiring.

I don’t claim to have the specific answers but I know this: Treating people well always leads to better outcomes. 

Let’s work on measuring that - but let’s do it even if we can’t.

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Recruiting News Network does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post and we are not responsible or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the article or for any damage or loss to be caused by and in connection to it.