Digging Into RecruitingBlogs.com v2.08: The Death of Sourcing

(Feb 27, 2009) Sourcing, as currently practiced, is a short term phenomenon. There is money to be made in the field today because the techniques required to find people are arcane and confusing. Additionally, with the strong exception of Avature and Broadlook's products, there are no useful tools for the automation of the process.

Meanwhile people are getting easier and easier to find.

The next waves of innovation in social networks will be all about making the membership accessible to each other. Right now, finding additional network nodes, new friends or interesting potential connections is a black art. You've got to be a Boolean Black Belt. You need a guru. There's an entire consulting industry built on specialized knowledge.

You may rest assured that this situation will not last.

The web is best when it tears down the friction that separates information from the people who need it. The folks who work hard mining data manually today will be flipping burgers in the near future. The skills required to move forward are unlike the ones being taught. Contemporary sourcing is a dead-end occupation with little in the way of transferrable skills.

Next generation recruiting is about relating intimately, not about mutual discovery. It's about fidelity and long term value exchange, not one night stands. It's about data that updates itself because the relationship is constantly working. Finding each other? Easy. Building an enduring relationship? Hard.

For a while, sourcing will be a high dollar, easy pickings income source. But, in the relatively short term, the need for the expertise will evaporate. Former sourcing luminaries will be familiarizing themselves with the alarm on the French fry machine and the relative difference between Rare, Medium and Well done.

Evaporate, as in "What air freshener scent would you like with your car wash?"

So, what do you do if you're a sourcer (or any kind of Recruiter, for that matter)?

Get really good at being a productive member of an online community. Join stuff, volunteer, get experience.
Develop repeatable methods for discovering new communities and joining them.
Develop community management skills (Jason Davis is a good role model).
Stop acting like an email address is a relationship or a list is a community.

I'm on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Friendfeed. Catch up with me.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on March 10, 2009 at 12:09pm

Quit being a whinebaby and chat; right now the content is more important than the copyright.

Maureen Sharib said:

No, we're not having chat until I can find a chat that can be copied out -the information imparted is just too valuable to let it time off every 15 minutes...many people come to the site specifically to read the logs as they cannot attend the "classes" at the specific T and TH noon times that they are set to. WATCH for a new chat product - I'm determined to find one - and maybe even a NEW setting for the chats!
Lunch: grapefruit

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on March 10, 2009 at 12:12pm

No, Steve, I'm not in this for my health. I've never hidden that fact.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on March 10, 2009 at 12:14pm

Maureen, you know that I believe that there are other chats that can be substituted for this one. I can't see what was wrong with www.freeshoutbox.com. It worked for me.

Also we could have someone just write down the key points from the discussion and post them.

A lot of it is not essential. If you pare it down, the key lessons can often be expressed in a few lines. I am willing to go over the transcript from previous chats to prove my point.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on March 10, 2009 at 12:19pm

Okay - RA you may have a point and Steve offered to look into the copy function for me... I'd like to hear from others that have participated in the chats (or read the chats after they're posted) if they agree with the Animal. I'm over there now if you wanna chat about it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gene Leshinsky on March 10, 2009 at 1:06pm

Just because we all have the same resources doesn't mean we will find the same people. The online databases are too vast. If you use too many keywords you will not find some candidates and if you use too few you will not have enough time to call them all. Not one precise combination will do the trick and even then you will need a recruiter to figure out if the keyword match is actually a culture match, manager, match, company match, and skill match.

bill josephson said:

Keith Halperin said: Though this has probably already been said, I believe that the number of people who are hard to find (BY ANY MEANS) will be decreasing, so the paradigm will switch (or has already switched) from "hard to find" to "hard to get".

If people are easier to find it likely means they're more desperate for a job making themselves visible. The Engineers I look for often work long hours tending to love their work and don't seem to have much free time between work, continuing education, and family to have a great deal of time to be on the Internet much.

But the one thing that bothers me most about Internet Recruiting that I just can't escape from is that Major companies have their own internal recruiters. Their job is to source candidates on the Internet. They're getting the same Internet sourcing training I am. Why in Hell will they want to work with me if I'm uncovering the same candidates they are? They aren't going to be happy paying a fee to me when I found the candidate a day or 3 hours before they did, will they? Don't they want me to supplement their efforts rather than compete with them for the same candidates?

The obvious rhetorical question being......aren't they working with me because I'm providing them access to candidates they couldn't readily gain access to on their own?

Or am I just being obtuse about Internet recruiting?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on March 10, 2009 at 1:16pm

Karen, I thought I explained this...chats are posted after each chat for the convenience and edification of anyone who wants to come and read them after class. It's kind of like watching a video at your own convenience or picking up a book when you have time to read it.

The chats are scheduled and planned in advance from noon - 1p.m. EST. They are called the MagicMethod Phone Sourcing Classroom Chats so there is no mistaking them for ordinary chats.

To address the nefarious insinuations (why do you always go to the dark places, Karen?) in your post, everyone who participates in the chat gets full credit for what they say - unless, of course, they want their names removed, maybe replaced by initials to protect their privacies, which I do for them if they ask me to.

The MagicMethod Phone Sourcing Classroom Chats (look for the yellow talk bubbles that say "MagicTalk" in the blog posts section - there are about ninety of them accumulated over the last ten months or so- here's one you might be familiar with Karen) are the ONLY THING OF THEIR KIND on the subject of telephone names sourcing and have been of enormous assistance to many who were curious/wanted to learn more on the subject.

The only time someone gets their word(s) changed is when those words are spelled incorrectly. I do this when I review and post the log - all this is usually done within minutes of the class ending.

“When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings.” ~ Epictetus

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on March 10, 2009 at 1:20pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on March 10, 2009 at 1:22pm

omg

KarenM / Hirecentrix.com said:

Steve - you said "I guess this assumes that the majority of these people are the kinds of candidates companies want. ;)"

Well Yeah! They were hired before they came to me, and they got jobs after they sent my resume to me - and some even by my fair weathered competitors.. Monster has what Millions? of resumes on their database, and do you think every one of those candidates got a job via monster? or ever will?

Every recruiter I know, who has a database that continuously grows every day, by the tens or hundreds will recognize what I mean..

Let's even Use Google and Microsoft as an example.. what is it that Google receives a day - Thousands.. and thus they came up with this really outlandish, test which had Great potential for creating systemic discrimination (why they don't use the test anymore) to try to help them to "weed" through their desirables - then they create the most interesting subjective employment criteria, again to help them weed.. -- IE a Bachelors degree for a RECEPTIONIST

Oh, and there were many a candidate that Google Shunned that later got hired at Microsoft, or Yahoo, and other companies, and faring well..

Another interesting statistic to be posed to Monster - Careerbuilder and others.. how Many of Your "relationships" become "marriages" Monster, through your efforts

I cannot place everyone, and I dont' want to die trying.. - even though it would really be nice.. FYI, I generally get about 200 emails a day - from my website, through referrals, and from my own personal recruiting network; of those, I would keep about 5 a day.. Steve, do you think sincerely even with a huge team of employees, that they would all get placed.. not to mention that my team would then also get their own emails as well..

Jerry, IMHO unless the trainer have walked the talk they shouldn't be talking the talk.. to me I find that totally 100 percent irresponsible. Unless you have been bloody in the trenches.. Continuously, one doesn't know how hard that next call can get.. and there are days one can just smoke, every call is a winner..

Steve, maybe it is because I have been doing it for a long time, but Yeah, one CAN sense if you have a winner on your hand.. that that candidate is the one.. when you hang up, it is YEAH! all just fit well in the skys above and the gods kissed you

Steve Levy said:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on March 10, 2009 at 1:23pm

Pass it , Jerry.
My shoes are off.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on March 10, 2009 at 1:26pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gene Leshinsky on March 10, 2009 at 1:41pm

You can definitely sense if you have a winner, it's the sixth sense of recruiting.
Steve Levy said:

omg

KarenM / Hirecentrix.com said:
Steve - you said "I guess this assumes that the majority of these people are the kinds of candidates companies want. ;)"

Well Yeah! They were hired before they came to me, and they got jobs after they sent my resume to me - and some even by my fair weathered competitors.. Monster has what Millions? of resumes on their database, and do you think every one of those candidates got a job via monster? or ever will?

Every recruiter I know, who has a database that continuously grows every day, by the tens or hundreds will recognize what I mean..

Let's even Use Google and Microsoft as an example.. what is it that Google receives a day - Thousands.. and thus they came up with this really outlandish, test which had Great potential for creating systemic discrimination (why they don't use the test anymore) to try to help them to "weed" through their desirables - then they create the most interesting subjective employment criteria, again to help them weed.. -- IE a Bachelors degree for a RECEPTIONIST

Oh, and there were many a candidate that Google Shunned that later got hired at Microsoft, or Yahoo, and other companies, and faring well..

Another interesting statistic to be posed to Monster - Careerbuilder and others.. how Many of Your "relationships" become "marriages" Monster, through your efforts

I cannot place everyone, and I dont' want to die trying.. - even though it would really be nice.. FYI, I generally get about 200 emails a day - from my website, through referrals, and from my own personal recruiting network; of those, I would keep about 5 a day.. Steve, do you think sincerely even with a huge team of employees, that they would all get placed.. not to mention that my team would then also get their own emails as well..

Jerry, IMHO unless the trainer have walked the talk they shouldn't be talking the talk.. to me I find that totally 100 percent irresponsible. Unless you have been bloody in the trenches.. Continuously, one doesn't know how hard that next call can get.. and there are days one can just smoke, every call is a winner..

Steve, maybe it is because I have been doing it for a long time, but Yeah, one CAN sense if you have a winner on your hand.. that that candidate is the one.. when you hang up, it is YEAH! all just fit well in the skys above and the gods kissed you

Steve Levy said: