Source of Talent, 09 is an extraordinary (free) report published the last week by two Australian staffing experts ‐ Phillip Tusing, Destination Talent and Michael Specht, Inspecht.

I admit to being somewhat biased about the study because Philip and Michael surveyed an area CareerXroads has long been passionate about‐ Sources of Hire.

Mark and I were given an advanced copy and our initial analysis of the report is included, although in a slightly different form, as a Forward to their report.

The study provides for the first time International comparative data - and it is a delightful contrast to the US mindset. If only because it opens a small but fascinating new window into how cultural differences drive staffing around the world.

On the surface, the Australian study includes information about 92,136 hires reported by 409 “organisations” and is easily compared to several similar US reports, including CareerXroads’ annual Sources of Hire.

But, there is much more than a surface comparison here because the authors approached their data collection and analysis with an “eyes wide open” attitude ‐ willingly offering a transparent look at their methodology and the challenges they faced as they swam through the sometimes conflicting currents of information.

Beneath the surface is a deep pool of data differences that should encourage serious conversation about the role culture plays in recruiting.

Here are a few “quick takes” comparing our US study with Australian sources. (I’m sure much more will surface over time - and would encourage others to take a deep dive looking for even more).

- The Australian SOT-09 lists the results for 18 sources. The top 6 (which account for 3 out of every 4 hires ) are as follows: - Job Boards- 29.6%, Internal Recruiters- 16.8%, Corporate Website- 10.6%, Referrals- 7.6%, Recruiting Firms- 6.8% and Internal Promotion- 6.3%.

Our first reaction was to note that the US market typically separates internal moves and promotions from all “external” sources. The Australian approach incorporates the two.

- By contrast, we adjusted our US study of 14 sources to compare to the Australian SOT-09 results (by combining both internal and external sources into one list). Our 5 top results (which also account for about 3 of 4 hires): - Internal Movement (including promotion)- 38.8%, Employee Referrals- 16.7%, Corporate Web site- 12.3%, Job Boards- 7.5%, and Direct Sourcing- 4.8%.

If Internal promotion and movement (US) are defined similarly in Australia then Internally filled positions are 6x greater in the US than in Australia! Not a minor difference no matter how you define this category.

- Job boards are considered a source for Australian hires nearly 4 times as often as in the US.

- In Australia referrals lead to hires half as often as in the US.

This gap becomes even wider when breaking out employee referrals for employers alone.

- It is not surprising that company web sites are attributed nearly as often as a major “source” in both Australia and the US.

We are still of the opinion that a company careers site is a destination. Attributing hires to the Career Site as a "source" dilutes the impact of other channels that influence visitors to go to the site.

- A quick comparison of adjusted agency hires shows the US at 1.7% versus 6.8% in Australia (really 9.9% if you compare only the employer hires).

Some of the difference is explained simply by the differences in the sizes of the firms participating in the respective studies but – not all. We would have thought Agency/Third Party hires in Australia would have tracked much higher.

- In both the US and Australian data, the attribution of social network sites in staffing is still quite small.

The reasons for this result require a much longer conversation than this quick take but both collection methods and investor hype are part of the answer.

While it is easy to assume (and is often noted by both US and Australian authors) that Australia lags the US market and eventually all these various sources will shift or converge toward US numbers, we do not subscribe to that conclusion. instead, we believe we are beginning to see basic differences in our respective approaches to hiring…country by country.

The evolution of a more sophisticated way to examine the staffing supply chain even on a national level is still out of our reach but eventually we may discover that combinations of sources that interact to brand, confirm and eventually influence job seekers to make better career decisions. These influence clusters may be as related to the culture of the country as they are to technology choices, economics and other business factors.

As more countries collect and share data similar to Source of Talent, 09, the standards for defining and comparing sources will continue to develop and this conversation is going to move to a new level. Michael Specht and Philip Tusing have taken an excellent first step. Kudos