Groups
SOURCING Techniques and Methodologies Discussions « back to group
-
Jason Buss of The Talent Buzz originally asked this question today (http://thetalentbuzz.com/) but I thought I would get your feedback.
"What would happen if job boards became obsolete?"
47 replies
Log in or register to post a reply.
-
If someone places hundreds of people from the job boards he is not a recruiter? That's just laughable.
I've made my employers several million dollars off the job boards and I consider myself every bit a recruiter that Mr. Ruffini considers himself to be.
While knowing how to name source is a great tool, it is just a tool. I have LinkedIn for all the name sourcing I can handle.
The job boards are part of Web 2.0 and they are not going anywhere; just like LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace are here to stay.
-
Oh. THAT one.
I remember it and also remember getting my panties all bunched up over it at the time and now, in retrospect, I think Jim was just funnin' on the subject. Sometimes sarcasm gets points across.
Sarcasm is most often used as an intelligent form of humor to satirically and paradoxilly portray the minutinae and uselessness in some aspects of everyday life. Sarcasm, despite its wounding potential, can help reinforce one's lack of worldliness in a playful, yet pragmatic manner. It can be directed at persons, objects, events, ideologies, establishments, or even with references to history. It is often used as proxy to other forms of expression.
I don't agree with the approach demonstrated - for instance I recommend ALWAYS going directly at the Gatekeeper and ALWAYS telling the Gatekeeper your name. Although going to other departments to obtain the information you seek is many times helpful, I would not skip the first opportunity that presents itself and this is usually the Receptionist (Gatekeeper).
Simply and politely asking for information is a powerful telephone sourcing tool.
-
Well, Maureen, I think the most classic video on the subject that I have is the 2nd part of this video:
http://freeiq.com/therecruitersloungeamigivertzandcallgirlvicky
where "Call Girl" Vicky Boudouris and Jim Stroud demonstrate phone sourcing techniques from an airport.
The "tone" is a little troubling, IMHO ...
-
I was delighted to see Brian Whitfield's post as it is what I have been thinking since this theme started (and never ends). There is room for all types of recruiters in terms of methodology and resources. As long as we are putting people in good, solid positions and funds into our bank account, then there is a great deal of value there as far as I am concerned.
On a separate note, to those "purists" that are so against using boards, that is totally and completely your prerogative. I just wish you all would realize what "elitists" you make yourselves sounds like. It is fairly condescending to those of us that make a very good living using ALL means and resources. Just food for thought.
-
John, You touched upon a very good point about �??A�?? players. The reality is that statistically (sorry to bring up statistics again, but these darn facts keep popping up), �??B�?? players make up the majority of most organizations. �??B�?? players are absolutely necessary, and although they may not be �??game changers,�?? companies desperately need them. Jack Welch has had much to say about A/B/C talent that also supports this idea.
Also, that reminded me of two very good articles on ERE regarding �??B�?? players: http://www.ere.net/2006/08/29/a-players-unwelcome/ http://www.ere.net/2006/07/13/recruiting-b-players/
-
Joshua, I agree that there can be no widely accepted process of judging talent �?? it�??s a subjective process. However, my point about statistical theorems is that regardless of how anyone would subjectively judge the talent of any particular candidate, when you�??re dealing with a sample size of millions �?? in some cases, 20+ million �?? that it�??s statistically likely (enter the central limit theorem) that you�??re going to get somewhat of a normal distribution of talent, regardless of any one individual�??s subjective definition/judgment of talent.
FYI �?? I didn�??t know what the central limit theorem was prior to posting in this discussion �?? I�??m certainly no statistics wizard. I simply did some quick research to try and back up what was a gut feeling I�??ve always had about the common misconceptions about job boards and the quality of the candidates you can find on them. For most people, in my opinion, finding �??poor quality�?? candidates on job boards is self-fulfilling prophecy �?? I don�??t think many people are highly proficient at talent mining. I thought it would be interesting to apply something other than subjective opinion to the whole job board quality discussion. I�??ll restate that the only perception of candidate quality that counts is the client�??s. I�??ll stand behind the fact that if a well known and respected client tells me that the candidate I submitted to them was a rock star and the best of all candidates under consideration �?? that�??s an �??A�?? candidate. The ultimate judge of candidate quality is the client. In a competitive staffing scenario, where a hiring manager may receive 10-20 resumes from multiple sources in consideration for 1 opening, the person the manager selects as their top choice after interviewing them is likely to be an �??A�?? player.
I�??ve worked a desk less than 2 years ago, quite successfully, and I spend most of my time since then in �??the field�?? working with recruiters across the nation. I�??m not playing word games when I say that my personal experience was and still is competitive and definitely NOT �??cut-throat.�?? I looked up the term and Webster�??s dictionary defines it as: �??marked by unprincipled practices : RUTHLESS �?? Even from your description and supporting arguments, I�??d say you think the IT contracting world is �??extremely competitive.�?? But would you really go so far as to say that everyone in the IT consulting business is �??marked by unprincipled practices and/or ruthless?�?? I certainly hope not.
******************************************** Someone else posted that the job boards don't necessarily get you connected to the "best of the best". I�??d argue that cold calling, referral recruiting, Internet sourcing (insert your shiny new way of acquiring talent here) also do not necessarily get you connected to the �??best of the best.�?? It�??s a recruiter�??s job to contact many people, sort through them, and submit the best candidate they can find �?? regardless of source.
**************************************** Has anyone in this discussion ever posted their resume online? Did it automatically make you an �??active job seeker?�?? Or a �??desperate�?? person? Would it make you a �??desperate�?? seller if you posted an item on eBay? From many a candidate�??s perspective �?? posting their resume online is a wise thing to do.
**************************************** I�??ll be a little bold here and say that I think �??deep and passive�?? Internet research and sourcing gets too much press and seems (at least to me) over-hyped as �??the answer�?? to talent identification and acquisition. I�??m not new to the game �?? I�??m very proficient at using �??alternative�?? sourcing methods, and they can lead you to fantastic candidates. However, there are always large numbers thrown around, such as �??100 million resumes�?? on the Internet �?? which makes it seem as if the Internet has a nearly inexhaustible supply of candidates. Anyone care to guess the distribution of talent on the Internet??? Why would anyone assume the distribution of talent quality on the Internet (resume, LinkedIn, blogger, Tweeter, etc.) is any different than that of the job boards???
The real issue comes when you begin to look at highly specific and challenging hiring profiles in specific markets. Such as when you need an RF Engineer with a secret clearance that lives within 20 miles of Washington, DC, with a minimum of 10 years of experience and has experience using specific propagation modeling tools (add additional challenging requirements here), there�??s remarkably few resumes (or LinkedIn profiles, or blog posts, or tweets) on the Internet that are of significant help to you. The same is true of many other hiring profiles �?? not just cleared RF engineers. I know, because I�??ve filled many client requirements where I could literally find no one on the Internet who I could immediately identify as potentially qualified �?? however, I could find respectable quantities of candidates on the major job boards (as well as in my own database), that I could quickly identify as meeting all of the minimum requirements of my openings, enabling me to �??get on the phone�?? quickly. And if you go beyond resumes and use ANY other non-resume source, you have very little, if any direct control over critical candidate matching factors (such as specific years of experience, specific degrees, exactly where they live, specific experience with particular tools/software, clearances, etc.). If you think making 60+ calls to fill a position with a great candidate is an acceptable ROI, or if you have 30+ days to find the best candidate, using Internet sourcing as your primary source can and will work (although I would argue the ROTI would still be low). However, if you have a week (or 48 hours!) to find some of the best candidates available that match your hiring profile (�??best�?? defined by your client, not you), or have a very high volume of positions to fill, Internet sourcing alone isn�??t likely to consistently and quickly produce for you �?? no matter how proficient you are.
Bottom line �?? the job boards DO provide value. And let�??s not forget they provide value to the candidates who use them �?? it�??s not all about recruiters.
I can�??t wait to launch my website�?�
-
"...they occasionally post videos practically bragging about how proud they are of being able to make a fool of someone in the process of extracting those names."
Where can I see these videos?
-
>I couldn't agree with you more with regard to job boards. >I don't personally use them because of the expense but I >know of many, many "A" players who have their resumes >posted on job boards.
Good point to bring up.
Sometimes it drives me a little batty hearing such descriptions of certain candidates being "A" players and presumably certain candidates being the opposite - "losers".
As hard as it is to see at times, there are a finite number of people on this planet, and whoever figures out a way to bring some useful work to as many of them as possible will be the person who comes out ahead of the game.
Or, perhaps to express it more simply as a question - instead of beating your head against the wall trying to find the "perfect" candidate for a client, why not find some clients who are growing so rapidly that they have no choice but to give a chance to the "less than perfect" or they will miss their deadlines for sure?
-
>there are so many quotation marks in the post that it's >difficult to see when you are making a point and when you >are using someone elses quote.
Let me go back to the old "arrows" format from the old "on-line forum" days and see if that helps.
>What's the difference between the way they do it and the >way you do it John?
Generally speaking, in the contract/temp space direct sourcing is largely ineffective. If a potential candidate is "nose down, hard at work at his desk" the chances are remote in the extreme that such a candidate would be interested in, for instance, a six-month contract assignment.
Contract/Temp recruiting is largely advertising and referral based. Reputation is EVERYTHING. If the contract and temporary workers don't trust you, they won't come back to work for you and they will tell ALL their friends not to do business with you.
Now when I first got into this business I heard stories about "headhunters" / "direct" recruiters. I got the distinct impression that some of their tactics were so "cut-throat" that they were very secretive.
I was almost shocked out of my wits when I discovered not only are some very public, not only do some concentrate specifically on extracting names over the "gatekeeper", but they occasionally post videos practically bragging about how proud they are of being able to make a fool of someone in the process of extracting those names.
Now I suppose one can follow the logic that if a particular site is frequented by "names sourcers" that from a purely marketing standpoint they would want to make the argument that there's very little of value on the job boards. This would only make sense that a names sourcer would want a client to spend their recruiting dollars more on names sourcing than job ads or resume databases.
However, a few bits of input from at least one other person involved with contract placement and even one direct recruiter are painting the picture that, yes, there are commercially viable candidates on the job boards.
And you don't even have to outmaneuver the gatekeeper to reach them.
-
Let's beat this dead horse. The argument that is being made is that a new technology "automatically" replaces an old one.
If this is true, why do companies still use news papers to recruit? Shouldn't it be obsolete?
Flattering ourselves with a pat on the back for being ahead of the curve is fine, but don't be blind to facts.
Boards have a purpose and will likely serve a function until they are true breakthrough in technology is achieved.
The nature of today's technology is constant evolution and change. This means that by the time the late adapters catch on, the early adopters have moved to the newest tech. This means that we will always have a "digital divide" separating unless a true evolution occurs and eliminates the previous tech.
P.S. Some people in America still ride horse and buggies, get water from wells, and mail letters. Does that make them undesirable, or just harder to reach and market?
-
"IT Flex"?
Oh, I'd go beyond "cut-throat" - I'd say more like "no longer viable".
Ten years ago some companies put processes into place to facilitate a pipeline of H1B candidates and/or outsourced the work out of the country entirely.
Other companies decided to focus on, for instance, engineering work on DOD contracts that require permanent residency or even full citizenship and high level clearances and are doing much, much better.
Speaking of which, as we now have some VP level participants here ...
When do you start thinking about chaning verticals?
At what level does this have to happen?
Have any of you at any level faced a situation where you quite clearly were working on business model that had become non-viable?
What changes did you make?
-
I always find it interesting that someone thinks that good candidates can't come from job boards and that somehow they are superior recruiters because they find all their candidates somewhere else. Good recruiters should use EVERY possible resource to locate their candidates - and yes that includes job boards. Should that be where 100% of someone's candidates come from? Of course not. In 2008, people use job boards. They don't become unqualified the minute they post.
-
John - I couldn't agree with you more with regard to job boards. I don't personally use them because of the expense but I know of many, many "A" players who have their resumes posted on job boards.
You're right ... one more tool on the belt.
Vy Allen Principal Employment Outsourcing Services www.employment-outsourcing.com vyallen@employment-outsourcing.com 740-417-3965
-
In response to John - there are so many quotation marks in the post that it's difficult to see when you are making a point and when you are using someone elses quote. I do think it's a dangerous and unnecessary route to go down openly questioning the ethics of small business owners or proprietors - who would strike a deal at all costs - and to the name generators who would rifle company info for 50-100 USD per name..the name generation is a part of our business that you will never ever get away from - no matter what level you are recruiting to - if you stop gathering names then your business is gone. What's the difference between the way they do it and the way you do it John? Also as a business owner I am under less pressure than I ever was whilst working for a corporation - to push through a deal - to squeeze in a shortlist - to have daily invoicing.. My approach - and I'm sure you'll actually find it's the same across the board - your business is as ethical as you want it to be.. I walk away from more business now than i ever did.
Business ethics are slipping in general (that's a longer discussion)- I think the recruitment industry needs to more protective of it's own - we get a bad enough rap externally without one of our own adding to it. I could and would never openly criticise the way any of my direct or indirect competition does things. It's not mine to criticise.
In answer to the negativity surrounding job boards and candidates from there - again I think you'll find that most good recruiters will use as many sources as possible to find the best fit - if that is from monster at 18k a year or from networking sites for free then so be it..the boards like most databases are only as good as the effort you put in. As you mentioned John - the ones who criticise are the ones who use them irregularly. We promise our clients exhausitve searches - we promise to find them the best available candidate - we'd be naiive to dismiss job boards in the current climate. Havign said that - if they became obsolete - we'd simply find a way of doing what we did 20 years ago before they came along - we are quite resourceful.. Surely we are past the stage as an industry where WE attatch a stigma to being a contract/interim employee - many of the better candidates I have met have either now or before worked under those terms - if it suits both parties it's right - the quality of canidates who work under those conditions can't be questioned. I'm off for a cup of tea and a lie down - sorry it's a long one!
-
Glen, please elaborate on the following:
"As for some of the other posts - I�??ll place my trust in simple and some not-so-simple statistics rather than the opinions of others, no matter how tightly held to they might be. Greater minds were at work when they came up with the central limit theorem . . . I fear some people may be attempting to deny objective reality with their subjective beliefs �?? living in a fictional universe that only supports their opinions. It�??s like a twisted version of the �??gambler�??s fallacy.�?? To each their own."
Central limit theorem? You're missing my point - there can be NO widely accepted process of judging talent, so my bellcurve may represent a different visual representation than yours. I say that because the ultimate variable is the 'observer' himself/herself. The main reason is that judging talent is subjective process. KFRC may judge talent one way . . . while others hold a different frame of reference.
In that sense, what are your statistics (those that you note as 'simple' and 'not-so-simple'?) As for me, I'm not trying to disprove your perfect bellcurve hypothesis, I'm just stating my opinion. However, your approach seems to indicate that you have data for us to mull over so that you can prove your theory. What are those statistics? You've piqued my curiosity.
"I would not call consulting �??cut-throat,�?? and I am not really sure where that comes from. Competition? Trust me, I love an exclusive order as much as the next recruiter, but I also revel in providing not only the best candidates (again, judged by clients �?? not me), but also candidates that are clearly superior to those that other firms and recruiters could provide. It�??s like running a race against other people �?? when you win, it actually means something. How hard do you really have to run when you�??re not racing anyone else? It�??s a Tiger Woods mentality �?? it�??s not enough to just to score well and win �?? it�??s best to win decisively against the competition. Maybe it�??s just me."
Glenn, in reading the above, I must ask: Are you currently recruiting? I say that because the scope of the IT Flex market is beyond the scope of this post, but at a high level, everyone knows IT Contracting is the most cut-throat segment in our world. I personally know many, many, many KForce recruiters (past and present) who will echo this (as well as many others seeing H1-B talent driving down contracting rates across the country while organizations award huge contracts to the lowest-bidder).
I respect the notion that 'cut-throat' can be looked at as nothing more than competition, but I can tell you that there is a fine line. In the SE Region alone, there are multiple blue-chip orgs awarding large scale contracts to RFP bidders that are widely known to be bringing over H1-b candidates en masse from India. I have several friends that have seen their contracting rates drop from $70/hr (just 2 years ago) to $30/hr today. It's supply-and-demand economics at work.
Look, I'm all for platitudes and neuro-linguistics programming (it's not 'cut-throat', it's competition), but I can see with my own eyes the falling contracting rates, the H1-Bs working for peanuts while the Contract Award firm keeps them in Econo-Lodges by the client sites, the stress of the recruiters I know in the IT Flex world, etc. I also see these same firms winning Supplier-Diversity awards while U.S. workers (who can do the same job, albeit cost more) are without jobs right now.
To conclude, I'm not anti-job-board . . . which is odd that I even have to say that.
-
�??Well, of course one question that might deserve some scrutiny is the "Bell Curve" of ERE members.�??
Nice point!
�??Yes ... and anecdotally this is what I hear - from the standpoint of a public company (or even a large private one), investors like to see some form of semi-steady income�?��??
True enough �?? the street isn�??t too fond of the non-recurring and thus nearly impossible to forecast revenue associated with Search business.
�??The bigger question is whether or not virtually all activity associated with a public company (or perhaps all financed business activities in general) could be considered "cut-throat". The buzz on the street seems to be that the only valid interest of any company is to improve shareholder value.�??
I am not sure how other publicly traded staffing firms operate, but I would hope they increase shareholder value by increasingly and consistently providing the right match to their clients. In my experience, there is nothing �??cut-throat�?? about that. Competitive �?? yes, �??cut-throat�??- no.
When it comes to the consulting side of the business, the way we prioritize our methods of talent identification and acquisition in response to a new job order typically follows this order: #1 current Kforce consultants who are coming off of assignment, #2 our network of candidates we have previously worked with and/or interviewed and assessed that are known quantities, #3 our internal database, #4 job boards, #5 phone/Internet sourcing (of all types), #6 user groups/associations. Referral and network recruiting take place every step of the way.
-
"One point I found interesting is that there seems to be negativity towards the job boards from people who I have to assume, based on their comments, don't actually use them much (because of course they provide no value and have mostly average and below average candidates) ..."
Well, of course one question that might deserve some scrutiny is the "Bell Curve" of ERE members.
One might have suspected a very wide distribution - perhaps even a few 1500 hires/month staffing and recruitment process outsourcing folks on one end, a truly staggering number of in-house corporate recruiters in the center, a good collection of technical, IT, and health care contract recruiters, a decent number of contingency recruiters, and a tiny smattering of elite "big billing" retained recruiters.
This isn't what one finds at all though - it seems that at least the "vocal" members represent not actually the big billing retained recruiters but their SOURCERS, almost bragging about how they can rifle just about any company for $50 - $100/name.
"Kforce does in fact, as the reports clearly state in easily accessible public records, earn over half a billion a year in contracting and contract to hire revenue."
Yes ... and anecdotally this is what I hear - from the standpoint of a public company (or even a large private one), investors like to see some form of semi-steady income from just about any business in which they are involved and providing temporary or contract services can provide a steady stream of income not dissimilar from providing, say, communication services.
"I would not call consulting 'cut-throat' ..."
The bigger question is whether or not virtually all activity associated with a public company (or perhaps all financed business activities in general) could be considered "cut-throat". The buzz on the street seems to be that the only valid interest of any company is to improve shareholder value.
Of course such an atmosphere is not confined to publicly traded or even large companies. There have been participants in these forums who are presumably sole proprietors or employees of very small businesses who have bragged, "My clients don't care in the slightest how I sourced these candidates."
There are small business owners and managers who have said such things as, "If you don't get your quota this month, how are you going to eat come Christmas?", with a certain implication that somehow you're doing a disservice to the "team", your own family, and perhaps the entire country if you're not willing to attempt to put deals together by any means necessary, ethical or not.
"The fact is that Kforce, like most staffing organizations, uses every method of talent identification and acquisition available - our internal database, job boards, referral recruiting, cold calling, Internet sourcing, job postings. If the best candidate, from our client's perspective (the only one that counts), happens to come from a job board, we don't discriminate, or hold fast to silly notions that the 'best' candidates can only be found via cold calling, or any other non-job board method of talent ID and acquisition. The job boards are simply one tool on the tool belt. And some people can wield certain tools better than others."
But how do you prioritize though? Say when you get an "average" job order - one you've filled many times in the past but maybe haven't seen in the while, what do you put your resources on first?
-
Nothing like a good discussion with passionate professionals, yes? I love it.
Bryan �?? I loved your post, thank you.
As for some of the other posts - I�??ll place my trust in simple and some not-so-simple statistics rather than the opinions of others, no matter how tightly held to they might be. Greater minds were at work when they came up with the central limit theorem. I enjoyed the canon reference �?? however, I fear some people may be attempting to deny objective reality with their subjective beliefs �?? living in a fictional universe that only supports their opinions. It�??s like a twisted version of the �??gambler�??s fallacy.�?? To each their own.
One point I found interesting is that there seems to be negativity towards the job boards from people who I have to assume, based on their comments, don�??t actually use them much (because of course they provide no value and have mostly average and below average candidates �?? lol), or at all, or perhaps not as well as they could be utilized. So how can opinions be formed from a lack of (quality) experience? It�??s rhetorical.
Kforce does in fact, as the reports clearly state in easily accessible public records, earn over half a billion a year in contracting and contract to hire revenue.
What I found really interesting about one of the posts is the idea that somehow the quality of a consultant seems to be judged differently (it seemed to me as lower quality �?? can�??t be sure) than that of a �??permanent�?? employee. In my experience, many of our clients (including Google, Microsoft, and many other discerning and well respected companies) seem to expect and require consultants to be of the highest �??quality�?? in terms of skill, experience, and interpersonal savvy. The decision to to hire a consultant vs. a permanent employee is not a matter of quality - it's a matter of need. I have quite a bit of experience in this space �?? more than most people in this discussion, so I�??m coming from a position of strength on this point. It�??s not an opinion �?? it�??s based on years of clearly communicated client expectations, requirements, and feedback (and 1000�??s of hires every month).
I would not call consulting �??cut-throat,�?? and I am not really sure where that comes from. Competition? Trust me, I love an exclusive order as much as the next recruiter, but I also revel in providing not only the best candidates (again, judged by clients �?? not me), but also candidates that are clearly superior to those that other firms and recruiters could provide. It�??s like running a race against other people �?? when you win, it actually means something. How hard do you really have to run when you�??re not racing anyone else? It�??s a Tiger Woods mentality �?? it�??s not enough to just to score well and win �?? it�??s best to win decisively against the competition. Maybe it�??s just me.
One point I did not raise in previous posts is the obvious (to me) benefit of using job boards to quickly build targeted call lists which can accelerate and facilitate referral recruiting �?? much faster than cold calling.
The focus of the original �??Question of the day�?? was focused on the job boards. The fact is that Kforce, like most staffing organizations, uses every method of talent identification and acquisition available �?? our internal database, job boards, referral recruiting, cold calling, Internet sourcing, job postings�?� If the best candidate, from our client�??s perspective (the only one that counts), happens to come from a job board �?? we don�??t discriminate, or hold fast to silly notions that the �??best�?? candidates can only be found via cold calling, or any other non-job board method of talent ID and acquisition. The job boards are simply one tool on the tool belt. And some people can wield certain tools better than others.
If someone would like the �??last say�?? in response �?? you are most welcome to it. I�??ve enjoyed this discussion, and appreciate the views of everyone who�??s posted. It�??s been fun!
-
Hi Folks,
I need an answer to a dollars-and-cents question.
Lets say my company decided to get the very best three month package we can get to have resume access and post up to five jobs with all of the four major boards (CareerBuilder, DICE, HotJobs, and Monster). If we say that there are 520 hours in these three months, what is the hourly cost of just using these four boards, not including the time of the people who use them? In effect, what is the hourly rent of the combined "Big Four"?
Thank You,
-
"I have recruited and placed many candidates from the job boards that my clients also had access to. How is it that the client did not find this person? Did I get lucky? Only if you can get lucky consistently." -I love it.
This is a phenomenal discussion and it reveals (like lime juice on the hangnail you didn't know you had) that a very small percentage of sourcing recruiters truly know how to utilize the plethora of boards online. I firmly believe that there is a natural distribution to the talent in these databases, much like the bell curve in the "real world." The skills it takes to find the more highly qualified people are merely orchestrated differently.
Is it harder to find a needle in a haystack, or a specific needle in a stack of needles (read: job boards)? You must be able to think like a candidate as well as know how to articulate the terminology from their perspective(s), not just yours. That said, it also depends on what you have planned for the candidate once you find them.
There's an entire team in my organization that focuses on internet research solely for the purposes of "teeing up" talent for recruiters to work their magic. It's a time intensive process that requires boolean expertise to the nth degree, social networking skills and a wealth of patience.
Yet another division focuses on rapidly scaling the online sourcing process using technology to identify prospects. The prospects are proactively contacted and presented with compelling position details and employment branding media(expect more of this).
There is no silver bullet to "fix" your sourcing problems. Job boards will(must) evolve and diversify their efforts to keep up with the ever elusive candidates. You must keep several initiatives running simultaneously, focusing on different demographics, approaches and candidate profiles to get the response you need.
Your target is evolving - try to keep up.
-
Great questions on our office stats. The rest of the business comes from, get this, are you ready?...referrals and good old fashion recruiting.
Because recruiters are recruiters, it's impossible for us to get them to code where the referral came from. I suspect a large percentage of our referrals do come from candidates we find on job boards. But we just haven't found a way to track the one off's and two off's that way.
As for the industries, we recruit in construction, HR/admin, senior care, biopharma and water technologies.
How is our percentage of placements from job boards so high? Someone said it a few posts ago...we find people other recruiters don't! Our clients do have access to the job boards and some also have internal recruiters. In fact, we've placed internal recruiters at our client's offices from our office (if someone wanted a change etc). But we have research teams that are really good at uncovering and finding candidates on job boards that others can't. We really try to get our money's worth.
And, we aren't in the job board business because we're a 30 year strong, very successful recruiting firm. We do operate two off shore internet research companies but at this time we aren't interested in sharing our database, even for a fee. We've done research and we actually make more off placements than we would charging a fee for using our database.
I hope I answered everyone's questions. Please let me know if anyone has any more. Have a great day!
-
I wanted to join this discussion because i do think there are a lot of things in flux with job boards, candidates and recruiting. Glen makes some excellent points in regards to Monster's 20+ million resume database..it IS a great sampling of job seekers, and so it should definitely be one of the tools companies use to source for their positions. Why wouldn't you?
But I attribute people's perception that only "bad" candidates submit their resumes to Monster because most active recruiters would rather find the elusive passive candidate who is the perfect candidate for a specific job. These "quality" candidates aren't looking for a job and therefore won't be in the Monster DB. And from a sampling size, there's over 300 million people in the US...ultimately a much larger pool of people to go after.
This is the key difference between many recruiters. Some recruiters will limit their recruiting world to the standard tools/resources that exist today (job posting, resume database, etc). From that viewpoint, Monster IS the top place to spend your time. Others, however, will see EVERYONE as a candidate and leverage techniques to reach out to both active and passive. From this viewpoint, you believe that the best candidate for your job probably isn't actively looking today, thus you will put little weight into a database like Monster's. Although more challenging a task, the recruiter who is able to effectively reach those passive candidates wherever they are on the web will ultimately outperform recruiters who rely on the same common resources as every other recruiter.
And I believe, while job boards like Monster will continue to exist and provide value, we are definitely seeing a shift in how recruiting works today...which will only increase over time. Social Networking will play a large role, but at a 10,000 foot level, it's the new world of connectedness that is going to change this space. Some recruiters are more plugged-in with these changes than others...which is why you end up with topics like "Are job boards dead?" :)
Mike Hennessy mike@smashfly.com
-
Glen, my personal hypothesis is that the bell curve of talent within job boards does not represent an even distribution.
I am NOT convinced that 20% of talent is A-level, 20% is B-level, 20% is C-level, 20% is D-level, and 20% is F-level. I'd take a gander that the distribution moreover looks something like this: A-level Talent - 5% B-level Talent - 15% C-level Talent - 50% D-level Talent - 20% F-level Talent - 10%
We can toss around 'data', but the truth is that my personal analysis of A-level talent may not be consistent with yours. So without accepted standards, the data is bunk. The data is, in and of itself, subjective.
I will say that I know quite a few recruiters and some rank D-level talent as A-level in their minds, while others are more realistic. What I'm suggesting here is that the 'other' variable is the recruiter himself/herself (let's note any outside parties "observers"). Outside of this factor, we must also keep in mind that some organizations rate talent on production probability, while others focus more on the ever-nebulous "fit". Others employ a hybrid approach . . . while others rely solely on the gut instinct of the hiring manager to rate talent.
In addition, it would be absurd for us to even begin evaluating the aggregate/mean level of talent on a board. I focus on Regulatory/Compliance executive searches to comprise 90% of my business. KForce derives the majority of its earnings from IT Contracting - a side of the business known to be the most cut-throat and speed-driven in all of staffing.
In fact, KForce only derived $78.1 Million USD of a total $1.037 Billion USD in 'Search' revenue (read: Direct-Hire placements). That's only 7.5%. In other words, only $.075 on each $1 dollar is from a Direct-Hire ("Search") placement.
In fact, accordin to page 13 of KFRC's 2007 annual report, IT "Flex" (contracting) derives for 50% of total revenue . . . with only $0.06 on each $1 coming in through Direct-Hire.
Therefore, my suggestion is that the perception of my firm, versus that of yours, is very, very, very different. Based on your annual revenues, I am assuming you are attributing the largest part of your case to your experience with IT Contracting? (I ask this because any data we derive from our personal frames of reference on judging talent are subjective, while revenue figures are not . . . at least the SEC wouldn't be too happy if they were!) :)
Cheers :)
-
That was an absolutely fascinating analysis by Glen Cathey, but I really find myself wondering whether or not speaking of a "normal statistical distribution" as it applies to the resumes on the major job boards makes any more sense than using the word "canon" when speaking of certain bodies of science fiction cinema, television and literature.
My guess has always been that the resumes on the job boards are extremely "time dynamic". Contrary to common belief, I've always suspected that the most valuable candidates are not the truly "passive" candidates, but the "very recently" active candidates.
For instance, say someone with a "valuable" background sees a listing on a major job board. What I think typically happens is that the candidate applies to that job and then leaves the resume "public".
Now within a day or so I suspect that someone with such a "valuable" background is SO inundated with calls that the candidate will subsequently take the resume "private".
This is sort of like the fact that in order to get any useful information from the Frank Drake equation you have to factor in the likely percentage of a star's life that an intelligent, technological civilization may survive.
Subsequently, the "survival time" of a "valuable" resume on the major job boards has to be ASTONISHINGLY small - possibly HOURS. The "hard to place" resumes have survival times that measure into the weeks or MONTHS, so, at any given moment, the "hard to place" would have to outnumber the "valuable" candidates by close to 100:1, so, yes, for any given "snapshot" you bet the major job boards look to have a "distribution" leaning HEAVILY towards the low end of the value scale.
-
"Job Boards are a by-product of the internet age just like this powerful ERE Network. Instead of becoming obsolete they will improve."
Spoken like a real CompuServe, Prodigy and GEnie customer. :)
-
>John, you raise a good question. My comment about >distribution of talent levels was in response to the >KForce VP's contention that there is an even distribution >of talent on the boards (I disagree with that).
I'm not even sure that's a measurable observation.
Pretty much the question is what's the best use of your time?
Presuming that 30% job boards number is feasible, that would mean hypothetically that when you get a job order in, you should put 30% of your people on the job boards and 70% of your people on the phone.
Or, another way of looking at this, if you spend two weeks on the job boards, and then the next two weeks on the phone, will you have 133% more billings during the two weeks you were on the phone?
>A friend of mine at a "Top 100 Place to Work" here in the >U.S. told me that pay between $5 and $50 for the name >itself, at which point they add it to the database (no >resume or further data included). When a search firm >presents the candidate, they then "close the loop" by >adding the resume and details, thereby turning back the >search firm with the comment, "We've had that candidate in >our db for 24 months."
Well, that's a real good way to put your suppliers out of business that's for sure.
Or do they actually pay a fee "every now and again" to keep the vendors coming back?
-
Glen,
Great points.
If you are both mining the databases and posting your ad's, you will find the talent you need more on the internet than with any other tool. The talent is out there AND the talent is responding to ad's as well as posting their resumes. With the exception of some senior executives and those with very specific skill sets, the candidates are on the net in mass. Google alone gets nearly 100 million job related hits a month. Where else are the candidates coming from? A company�??s internal database and referrals have only a limited reach compared to the over 100 million resumes on the net. Newspapers are seeing declines in print, yet according to the Newspaper Association of America (naa.org) Newspaper website traffic is up over 12% last quarter. The New York Times has an affiliation with Monster. CareerBuilder is partnered owned by Gannett, one of the largest newspaper companies in the world. It clear that the internet, used properly, is the single most powerful tool currently in your arsenal as a recruiter.
Here's a link to a short blog I wrote about recruiting Metrics, Statistics and Marketing: http://yourleap.blogspot.com/2008/08/metrics-and-reports.html
-
Now this discussion is really getting interesting!
I see a number of people disagree with, or are not convinced that there is a normal distribution of talent on the job board sites. Let me be very specific in that when I talk about the job boards - I am referring only to their resume databases. We�??re all painfully aware that the majority of respondents to online job postings are not spot-on (or even close) matches.
I will challenge those of you who do not think that there is a normal distribution in the resume databases of the major job boards by asking you one simple question: why?
I agree that ultimately it may be impossible to prove or disprove this hypothesis, and like many of you, I base much of my opinion on personal experience. However, I also base it on a couple of other factors.
#1 Statistics I am definitely not an expert on statistics, but I would argue that the people who enter their resumes into the job board databases is a random sample of the total job seeker population.
With some help from Wikipedia to help me concisely explain these points, a random sample is one chosen by a method involving an unpredictable component (which is fair to say in this case, because who can argue that we can accurately predict the subjective and objective �??quality�?? of people who post their resumes online?). The sample will usually be completely representative of the population from which it was drawn �?? in this case, job seekers. In the case of random samples, mathematical theory is available to assess the sampling error. Thus, estimates obtained from random samples can be accompanied by measures of the uncertainty associated with the estimate. This can take the form of a standard error, or if the sample is large enough for the central limit theorem to take effect
The central limit theorem (CLT) states that the sum of a large number of independent and identically-distributed random variables will be approximately normally distributed (i.e., following a Gaussian distribution, or bell-shaped curve, or �??normal distribution�??) if the random variables have a finite variance.
What this all means is that in statistics, it�??s generally accepted that if the sample is large and taken at random (selected without prejudice), then it quite accurately represents the statistics of the population, such as distribution probability, mean, standard deviation, etc.
The major job boards claim to have 20M+ candidates in their resume databases �?? that�??s a pretty LARGE sample of the job seeking population, so you can see where I am going with this. Additionally, I could reference the Law of Large Numbers, which if you boil down all of the technical statistics-speak when you look it up, basically says that the larger the random sample size, the more likely that it �??guarantees" stable long-term results for random events. �??Stable�?? results in our case would be that the majority of candidates on the job boards are �??average�?? �?? with fewer horrible �??undesirables�?? and fewer �??A�?? candidates (see the bell curve coming?). :-)
#2 The candidate�??s perspective And now for the very unscientific side of the equation�?�why do people post their resumes online? From the perspective of a non-staffing job seeker, many people see the job boards as an online marketplace, not unlike eBay. Most people who are not in the staffing industry and who are not perennially looking for a job don�??t view the major job boards with disdain. If a job seeker relies solely on searching job postings online, they are being proactive in seeking employment, but they are reliant on the reactive response of the firms they reply to �?? and let�??s be honest - most candidates do experience the �??black hole�?? effect when they respond to job postings (auto-responders don�??t count here). This can lead many candidates to seek to take more control over the process and be actively sought out by opting to post their resume into a resume database so they can be actively found and pursued by potential employers �?? kind of like posting something on eBay so that people looking for that thing can find it and attempt to acquire it. Many candidates pursue both paths, thinking they�??ll cover both angles.
Let�??s also realize that some people have not had to switch jobs in the past 5-10 years �?? most candidates are not professional job seekers. For many of these people, they simply respond to the advertisements of the major job boards as the �??new�?? way of finding a job as compared to the last time they may have had a career transition. Why not let 100�??s of recruiters try and find you the best opportunity? Aside from the experience they may have with poor recruiters, this is not a bad value proposition. Many candidates aren�??t even aware of how many calls they will get once they do post their resume. But as I pointed out in my previous post �?? just because they get a large quantity of calls, it does not mean they get a large quantity of quality calls �?? calls for positions that are very close to their ideal career opportunity. I�??ll also address the idea that all good candidates have a magical network of people who can automatically find them their next optimal career opportunity without them having to look online. Some people have this magical network �?? but even so, there is no guarantee that this network can provide the ideal job opportunity. I have a network �?? and if I were to leave Kforce �?? I would certainly leverage it. However, I do not for one second think that this network can be guaranteed to offer me the best possible match for me, nor all of the other fantastic opportunities out there that neither I nor my network can provide me. A strong analogy goes back to eBay. If I am looking to sell something, why would I only limit myself to the people I know?
My main point here is that it is not only the �??bad�?? candidates that decide to post their resumes online �?? I�??d go back to the random sample concept. However, it is easy for staffing professionals to assume this is the case, especially if their primary method of recruiting is cold calling �?? they�??re not going to hit many people who have their resumes posted online.
I�??d also like to take this time to comment on database mining expertise. I have recruited and placed many �??A+�?? candidates from the job boards that my clients also had access to. How is it that the client did not find this person? Did I get lucky? Only if you can get �??lucky�?? consistently. :-) I�??ve also assisted a recruiter with a search for a highly specific role for a network performance test engineer for Google �?? the position had been open for 4 months, and you can imagine how many recruiters and companies had worked it over a span of 4 months. Literally, with 1 search, this junior recruiter filled 2 of the openings within 2 weeks, using Monster - a job board presumably Google and many of the recruiting firms working as suppliers to Google have access to. I have more �??war stories�?? like this �?? they are not anomalies. They support my point that just because many people have access to a database, it is not safe to assume that everyone can find the same candidates, or find ALL of the qualified candidates, or find the BEST candidates.
Back to the normal distribution - we can discuss the exact shape of the bell curve �?? flatter in the middle or more sharply peaked, but I hope I at least got some people thinking and challenging the apparently widely held belief that most job board candidates are not desirable, and that conversely most of the �??good�?? candidates are not on the job boards. I hope it helps that I drew upon some statistical and mathematical theories rather than sticking to subjective opinion only.
-
If only 30.9% of your candidates are coming from the internet, where are your other candidates coming from?
Referrals are great, but whom do you get referrals from?
If you're using 1 or 2 job boards and getting 30.9 percent of your candidates from there, maybe you should consider using the more boards and using them better.
If you're claiming that your own database is more valuable than the major job boards, then I would ask why you don�??t get in to the job board business and compete against the monster�??s of the world.
-
Job Boards, just like any other evolution, fall into a survival of the fittest game. As the industry becomes more & more competitive, the winners will be the ones that deliver results and offer the best value-added-service along with an affordable price point.
Job Boards are a by-product of the internet age just like this powerful ERE Network. Instead of becoming obsolete they will improve.
Great topic.
David Mezzapelle dmezz@goliathjobs.com
-
Amanda, those numbers are interesting: 30% of your firm's billings are coming from Monster & Careerbuilder? Wow. Double Wow.
2 questions: Do your clients have access to the boards and/or have internal recruiting teams? What specialties does your firm specialize in?
Maybe it's because all I ever have a shot to handle are purple squirrels (real purple squirrels with gold stripes), I've only made a few placements off a board (and those were cross-country relos' that were worthy of a fee regardless of where the candidate came from!)
------------------
John, you raise a good question. My comment about distribution of talent levels was in response to the KForce VP's contention that there is an even distribution of talent on the boards (I disagree with that). We can further break this down to the real issues, one of which is the one you bring up.
What I have noticed is that many Internal Recruitment teams have been taught to think that having the name (and only the name) means the candidate is 'theirs' upon our presentation of the candidate's interest and qualifications, track record, etc.
A friend of mine at a "Top 100 Place to Work" here in the U.S. told me that pay between $5 and $50 for the name itself, at which point they add it to the database (no resume or further data included). When a search firm presents the candidate, they then "close the loop" by adding the resume and details, thereby turning back the search firm with the comment, "We've had that candidate in our db for 24 months."
It's a tough game right now - Internal Recruiting Organizations have been taught to value the name and not the actual recruiting of the candidate.
-
------------------ $11.2M total billings 13% of that came from Monster 16.5% of that came from Career Builder 1.4% came from passive research (this includes social networks, deep web etc) ------------------
Now that's the most fascinating statistic anyone's posted yet.
However, 13 + 16.5 + 1.4 = 30.9% - a signifiant percentage to be sure, but also a minority percentage to be sure.
Where did the remaining 69.1% of billings come from?
And if the resources invested in Monster and CareerBuilder had been invested in other sourcing endeavors would the return on investment have been higher?
-
I'd like to share some stats from our recruiting firm for 2007.
$11.2M total billings 13% of that came from Monster 16.5% of that came from Career Builder 1.4% came from passive research (this includes social networks, deep web etc)
So there are definately good candidates on the job boards. But I believe it is more a quantity issues than a quality issue. There are more candidates found on job boards then on passive research for most kinds of positions we recruit for. We do recruit for positions for which we NEVER find candidates on job boards. But that's not the norm.
-
Everyone has made some great points on both sides of this question, but the key here is to understand the basics of 3rd party staffing or any competitive market for that matter, "Time is Money." If the open position is truly "hot", as skilled recruiters, we must find qualified candidates before our competitors/ client find them first. Job boards offer not only a great starting point to find some candidates (given some detailed searches), but they also offer invaluable information. You get a list of companies from which to recruit. I've found that calling into prior employees and asking for the employee that you know isn't there and then following up with the question, "Well, then who is working that job now?" is a great way to bypass the gatekeeper. Knowing companies that utilize people with the necessary skill sets will also allow you to refine your job board searches. Remember, the query tools on the job boards are not infallible. You will get varied results from varied searches. This point alone maintains the validity of utilizing job boards. Corporate recruiters do not have time to search the boards effectively. They can't focus on just one job. That's what they pay us to do. Contrary to the common misconception, I've placed more candidates from information found on the job boards than from the other sourcing tools.
-
"I am not convinced that there is a normal distribution of talent on job-board sites."
Interesting way of thinking about this topic - although I'd be hard pressed to figure out a way to quantify job-board candidates in such a way as to make this statement meaningful.
Here's a different way of considering this topic.
Is it actually true that every significant client has already downloaded each and every resume available on the major job boards?
If not, are there way to market the candidates available on the job boards in such a way to make it worth someone's time or is it an utter an absolute waste of resources for third-party recruiters to use the major job boards?
-
As a Technical Recruiter, I personally find value in using job boards. Yes�?�I said it. There are great candidates on job boards. (Why do I feel like I just said a bad word?) Just because I found someone on a job board doesn�??t automatically make them a bottom-of-the-barrel candidate. Why do we believe this myth? Maybe some recruiters aren�??t screening these candidates well enough? Could this be the key? I will say that referrals/cold-calling/social networks are also great sources for candidates. It�??s just not the only way that I recruit. If we box ourselves into one �??trendy�?? way of recruiting, we limit ourselves and that can lead to a frustrated recruiter and an unsatisfied customer. (Thank you Glen. I appreciate your comments.) Kara Welsh www.linkedin.com/in/karawelsh
-
Glen, well-written and well-presented case. In fact, I agree with 99.9%. I completely concur that most recruiters don't look beyond the 30-day mark . . . and it's unfortunate to term someone a 'job-board candidate' (i.e. negative perception) because they have a resume on a board from 3 years ago! Keep in mind that we (TPRs') all benefit from the passive-candidate myth. As an exec recruiter, that includes myself as well. The more anyone tries to inform corporate recruiters the truth about this myth, the more you risk being distrusted for saying anything contrary. Challenging the Big Lie can even cost you business.
Hitler's use of 'Big-Lie Propoganda' is sometimes mis-stated, however he notes the psychology of how a big-lie can be so big that people will believe it over a little lie (from Mein Kampf):
"in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true."
As a sidenote, the 'same-candidates' myth largely comes from the IT-contracting side of the business; the world known by all of us to be the most cut-throat in all of staffing. It's a world that entices many large staffing firms (KForce included) by the sheer size of the overall market alone . . . however with the advent of firms focusing on H1-b mass importing of candidates (thereby leveraging 'supplier-diversity' status and advantage), it's very difficult to compete with bargain-basement contracting rates found within answers to F500 RFPs'. As such, recruiters (especially young ones lured in by the publicly traded staffing firms), are taught to cut throats or have your own cut - it's a game of speed and the thought process that "anything goes".
That being said, I am not convinced that there is a normal distribution of talent on job-board sites. I may be wrong, and we'll never know . . . but a traditional/prototypical bellcurve would surprise me (well, at least an even distribution would.) Perhaps a bell curve with a steep center of the bell (meaning 1 in 10 candidates on the job boards are not in the top 10% of talent within their specialization). This is why I challenge the perfect distribution concept, however it would be interesting research to say the least (albeit meaningless research because we can't judge top 10% talent by a resume alone).
-
If the job boards disappeared, recruiters would have to do the obvious �?? use their ATS more (assuming they already use it as a talent repository) or more effectively, leverage Internet sourcing, and use tried-and-true referral recruiting, networking and cold calling methods to identify and acquire talent.
With that said, it appears that most replies so far agree with the idea that �??job boards = bad/low/weak quality, cold calling/referrals/Internet sourcing = good/high quality,�?? so I will take a different angle and challenge some surprisingly widely held assumptions and beliefs.
In reality, the job boards have a cross section of all candidates �?? some would argue a �??normal distribution,�?? and I would agree. It�??s pretty much a statistical inevitability. You�??ll have a small percentage of horrible candidates, a large percentage of average candidates, and a small percentage of top-notch talent. The same is true of any company at any one point in time �?? so if you called through a company directory, you�??d likely hit the same statistical inevitability: some bad, lots okay/good, some great. The same is true of Internet sourcing of every type.
I�??ll grant that referrals tend to be higher quality candidates for obvious reasons, but let�??s get real �?? most referrals aren�??t carbon copies of the people referring them, nor are they always people we can help or hire�?�
There seems to be a HUGE misconception that everyone finds the same candidates on the job boards �?? this is a perception, not necessarily reality. It can seem that way for those recruiters only calling the people who posted yesterday, or minutes ago, or even within the past 30 days. However, most recruiters are not very adept at extracting the best or anywhere near close to all of the talent buried in the depths of the online job board databases. In my experience, most recruiters run very simple searches and thus they tend to capture the same candidates as others who run very similar and simple searches �?? making it seem as if everyone finds the same people. However, there are many high quality candidates that very few recruiters seem to find on the job boards. Here�??s the conundrum - searching resume databases is a bit like fishing �?? you know exactly how many and what kinds of fish you�??ve caught �?? but you have no real way of knowing about the fish that swam right by your boat that you DIDN�??T catch. Who�??s to say you caught all of the fish of the type you were looking for? That you caught the best/biggest fish? How can you know? Therein lies the rub.
The job boards don�??t contain only �??active�?? candidates either. I just ran a sample of searches on Monster and found that about 80% of all of the results had resumes posted over 30 days. I can tell you from personal experience that many candidates with resumes over 30 days old are still in the same job as when they originally posted their resume, but they aren�??t getting (m)any calls because of the age of their resume. Just because some of the candidates get tons of calls as soon as they post their resume �?? it�??s not safe to assume that anyone actually presents them with an ideal opportunity - one that�??s strong enough of a match for them to make a move for. I�??ve learned this from personal experience talking to candidates. Also, most of the major job boards go back 2+ years now, so the job boards are really huge repositories of passive candidates.
With cold calling of any kind �?? let�??s also keep in mind that you have very little control whatsoever over the probability of the person that you get on the phone is a good skills/experience, opportunity, location, or compensation match for anything you or your organization is looking for or has a need for . Sure �?? you can find great people through cold calling and referral recruiting �?? but how do they match with your needs, now or in the future?
Internet sourcing isn�??t new, although there are always some new �??hot�?? site or app through which you can possibly get exposed to people you may not be able to by any other means (let�??s also keep in mind people create these things primarily to make money�?�). However, many of them don�??t offer much in the way of being able to asses a talent/skills match up front, so let�??s be honest �?? you�??re fumbling in the dark with a flashlight most of the time trying to find, reach out to and connect with people you need and can possibly hire. Also, while there are many resumes that can be found on the Internet, they are not exempt from the laws of statistics (some bad, lots okay, some great), and for specific skillset/experience matching, there are surprisingly few in large metro areas. From my research �?? the job boards have many more total resumes of highly specific hiring profiles than the Internet in most major markets.
I�??m certainly not trying to ruffle any feathers or start a debate �?? I am just challenging some assumptions and hopefully provoking some thought. I don�??t write any of the above to say one method of talent identification/acquisition is intrinsically better or worse than other �?? all methods and sources have their pros and cons. I will, however, stand behind 3 points: #1 It is a huge assumption that everyone finds all and the same candidates on the job boards �?? most people aren�??t exceptional talent miners and are unaware of the candidates they are not finding, #2 Job boards (and any sample of the population) are bound by the laws of statistics (bell curve/normal distribution) �?? so they cannot consist of only �??bad�?? or �??weak�?? candidates, and #3 Searching resume databases (of any kind, ATS, job board, etc.) affords a recruiter more specific and precise control over critical candidate variables, such as skills/experience (including type, years, education, certifications, etc.), location, compensation (with some educated extrapolation), and even opportunity match (career �??trajectory�??) than any other method of candidate identification. Assuming, of course, you�??re talented at talent mining�?�
-
Very well said John Ruffini. In addition, a recruiter is someone who can navigate the hurdles of finding the quality, high caliber, exceptionally skilled, and competent candidate for a specific position. Not finding them at the job board.
-
Amanda - Could not agree more. Ryan - I think what you are saying is that if job boards become obsolete, recruiters will have to....recruit. If you are mining resumes form the internet job boards and that is your main source of candidates, in my opinion you are not a recruiter. There is some value to that, but the art and science of recruiting is achieved by traditional sourcing and networking, and finding the talent that your client cannot and will not find through any other means. I have always trained recruiters to recruit. That's what we get paid for. It is a skill that if developed well, will yield the best candidates by and large over time. Our clients can post ads and sift through resumes. We (and when I say "we" I am referring to any recruiter working for a third-party firm, not internal corporate recruiters) need to deliver significantly more value in order to justify our existence. Just one person's opinion.
-
"The better candidate resumes get picked over in about 20 minutes -- BUT, by everybody."
Speaking of which ...
Despite several very long discussions with at least two of the major job boards about getting something that will work something like an RSS feed for resumes, all we really have so far in terms of "alerts" are daily emails that quite honestly aren't timely enough to be of much value.
Question - when you say that candidates are getting inundated within 20 minutes, are you saying that there are certain searches that you run several times a day to try to "catch" candidates as they check in, or are there third part tools out there that I have missed that will allow you to see candidates "live" as they enter their resumes on the major boards?
-
The value of all proprietary networks (personal or electronic) are changing in value.
Internet traffic for all major job boards is stagnant or slowing.(I'd post a graph here but I bet you can't toss graphics on here.)
Here's a perspective sandwich...
1950s...> cigar chomping male employment specialist with a network of contacts. He's got a network going *way back*.
1960s-1990s...> recruiting becomes a sophisticated and complex skill set. Recruiters build their personal and company networks and deliver value.
1990s...> job boards take advantage of the growing internet population by creating a convenient *data repository* of individuals looking for jobs. A *super-sub-network* if you will.
2005 & beyond....> the internet becomes a ubiquitous network of broadband content created by ....individuals. The *real* global network, diminishing the exclusive value of everyone's proprietary networks.
Most people are on the global network, sortable by keywords, therefore the value of the *data repository* (major job boards) is greatly diminished.
*The *super-sub-network* (job boards) will never completely go away, it is a convenient resume database for certain positions.
*Smarter job aggregators will create new networks, and new value models on the network. (simplyhired, indeed etc)
*Niche job boards will always be useful, but more so for active candidates (not passive, and probably the more valuable candidates)
But the super-repository model of hotjobs/monster/cbuilder is losing luster as we speak.
That's why at IndustrySourcer we teach the new online sourcing model here.
The value of all proprietary networks (personal or electronic) are changing in value.
Online Sourcing, social networking & online marketing are contributing to the slow, steady erosion of "Job Boards" & their importance.
Welcome to the network....plug in.
Dave Boller Chief Strategist Industry Sourcer http://www.industrysourcer.com 714-968-1112
-
If job boards became obsolete, the whole recruiting industry would change dramatically. Recruiters and HR professionals who already know how to do deep web passive research or who outsource their research to people who do, would be okay. But reality is, most don't.
I would see this as being a huge benefit for companies who train people to do this work and companies who provide the outsourcing.
Our philosophy has always been, keep the recruiters on the phone (because that's what they're good at) and off the Internet. Use people who are really good at Internet research to do the research for them and make sure the recruiters have at least 100 people to call per day.
I realize that isn't the case with most companies. Most organizations have their recruiters and HR professionals do their own Internet research and still expect the recruiters to make enough calls each day to find the candidates or get referrals to fill openings quickly. In our 30 years experience we've found that just doesn't work.
Without job boards, all research would have to be passive internet research and phone sourcing. I think more internal HR professionals would have to use 3rd party recruiters who specialize in this and more 3rd party recruiters would have to learn how to do this and do it well.
-
To some degree the job boards are already obsolete. A quick check of dictionary.com gave me this definition of obsolete: "of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date".
From a resume mining standpoint the major boards can provide a few leads, but I think you can agree that the quality of the candidate pool on the "majors" is very thin compared to the pool you can develop through traditional, "deep web" and Web 2.0 sourcing strategies. The job boards pretty much only contain the active job seekers & misses the "premium" active seekers because frankly they don't need to post their resumes to get a job.
From a job posting standpoint I think they provide a little more value. A primo candidate may have had a bad week at work or is starting to get restless and may look at the major boards. They definitely will use a major search engine to search & if you've done a good job of marketing your job, making sure it's high in the relevant keyword rankings & provide a compelling reason to explore further you may get that candidate to apply. If all you're doing is listing a recipe list of skills & expectations you're probably going to miss that candidate and only see the people who have their resumes posted.
I've found that one board which used to provide a lot of value to us (technical staffing) is now something that I personally would discard. Others in our company like it so we keep it around. We've already dumped another board completely. Another that used to have marginal results now is our #1 source in terms of the majors and provides some decent candidates to jobs that are posted.
With all that being said, if more than 25% of your candidates are being sourced from the major boards (at least in our business) you're doing something wrong.
David Templeman Director of Recruiting
RiverPoint Group LLC 3 Corporate Woods 8700 Indian Creek Parkway Suite 100 Overland Park, KS 66210 www.riverpoint.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtempleman
-
Madeline based on the number of presentations/conference calls that I attended that you have hosted over the past year. My observations from the recruiters on these calls is and the questions they ask.
Job Boards will never become obsolete because too many corporate recruiters aren't skilled enough to cold call, do internet sourcing, and or network enough with employees(not recruiters). Recruiters today aren't that skilled, look at all the questions in the ere forum? How do I find this person? or where should I post this job ? What happened to working ?
Eric
-
If job boards became obsolete recruiters are going to need to become sourcers and learn how to source people using both traditional (phone) and non-traditional ways to find candidates such are video, user groups, social networks, building semantic job postings, file type searching, and building groups or blogs that attract people who have a common interest in the topic being pushed.
Ryann Reddy Director of Search NameGeneration.net
-
The Job Boards don't necessarily get you connected to the "best of the best". Resumes are posted by candidates who are actively seeking a new job. These are sometimes desperate people who will apply to anything (choking up in-boxes along the way). The better candidate resumes get picked over in about 20 minutes -- BUT, by everybody.
-
