Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amybeth Hale on June 6, 2007 at 6:50pm

This is the best definition I've seen of sourcing so far!

Permalink Reply by Sucharith Menon on June 7, 2007 at 3:31am

Spot on Amybeth. With you on this !!

Permalink Reply by Moises Lopez on June 7, 2007 at 8:42am

I agree with the definintion on wikipedia. It was well thought out and well defined but I notice that people use the term sourcing differently than that and wanted to see were the difference lays. Somehow it feels as though recruiters think differently of what sourcing is that is all.

Permalink Reply by Harold Ensley on July 26, 2007 at 6:31am

Wikipedia's definition is solid, I like how it clearly defines what Sourcing is not. In my mind, Sourcing and Recruitment is church and state: any mudding of the work compromises the entire model. If they are not separated, it's a downwards slope of Recruitment seeing Sourcing resources as their own; as is such, Sourcers will end up recruiting/assessing candidates when things get busy. This effectively kills any ongoing focus on future needs. As they say: 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions'...

On a related note, some Recruiters like to think of Sourcers are junior Recruiters -- and this is a major reason it should be a peer job, or as a stand alone entity. Nothing is further than the truth.

Many North American organizations are in 'build' mode for sourcing... most have identified sourcing as a key area, few have defined/separated it successfully.