racted at best, held in suspicious contempt more likely.
I don't know if trying to "trigger the corporate immune system" ultimately serves anyone's best interests unless it is a calculated, strategic move.
To the dilemma - let me reframe the question: Is it OK to help yourself to pie off the kitchen table simply because the kitchen window is left open and the pie is within reach?
If you are suggesting we knock on the door and alert the housekeeper that there is a potential problem are you also suggesting that we do that in anticipation of getting a piece of the pie or simply because its the neighborly thing to do?
Is a list obtained from a ruse call any more or less dubious or valuable, depending on your point of view, from a list obtained by flipping site or "peeling back" a URL?…
cess to shrink in both time and the number of touch points a recruiter has to take in order to complete the process.
Video interviewing can be inserted in a few key areas (that I have experience with) to reduce the time that it takes a recruiter to physically make a connection with the prospect (in between the potential many voice mails) and to alleviate the challenge of a generalist recruiter that in most cases simply cannot convey the technical ability and thought process of a technical candidate.
With that said you need to define if you are speaking about live video interviewing or a recorded video interview. I am fan of recorded video interviewing as part of the screening process and can stand behind the results of decrease time to slate and eliminating at best 2-3 potential touch points the recruiter has to take in the absence of recorded video interviews.…
from eating just one banana, how it is the leading fruit among athletes, how just two supply enough energy to complete a strenuous ninety-minute workout. Also expressed were the different maladies that are alleviated by the ever-lovin' banana, including depression, PMS, anemia, high blood pressure, constipation, heartburn, motions sickness, stress, strokes and so on...
There was also talk of using banana skins for different skin or muscle afflictions. Take the inside of a banana peel and rub it on rashes, mosquito bites, charley horses, and aching joints... Bananas are also said to increase brain power, help with nerves, and ease a hangover. God bless the banana... I always have a problem with bananas because they seem to go rotten before I have time to eat them. Now that I know they will cure or ease almost anything, that might provide enough impetus to get them gone at my house. Interestingly enough, a few years ago, I purchased a book called "Letting Go of Your Bananas" with the subtitle, "How to become more successful by Getting Rid of Everything Rotten in Your Life" I had dealt with a horrible work experience and was struggling in a bad marriage. I thought maybe this book could help me out - the title, alone, put a smile on my face. How are your rotten bananas these days? Are you ready to let them go? Think about what your rotten bananas are. Work + Play + Home = Life. We have responsibilities in Life and, somehow, we must attain balance in that Life. If letting go of the rotten in your life helps you to achieve that precious balance, then let the letting begin. There are times we allow fear to rot the good. Think about what you fear most. What is it..., Do you fear failure? Do you fear loss? Do you fear getting older? Fear can be overpowering but did you know that "Passion Eats Fear for Lunch?" (D. Drubin)
Interestingly enough, there is a chance that you are the "rotten" in someone else's life. If that recognition falls upon you, take care of it and move on. Find the peace and balance you need by acknowledging the bananas, good and bad. And timing is everything. Hang around the rotten too long and what happens? Other things start to rot. My mother used to say, "Something is rotten in Denmark" - a reference from Ol' Will Shakespeare in Hamlet (Something is rotten in the state of Denmark) It simply means: evil, if permitted will corrupt good. So..., go, bananas. Leave already. "When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be." ~Lao Tzu by rayannethorn…
-ol’-same-ol’: How do I do what I do?
I spend the early parts of my mornings doing phone banks, posting in my groups, answering customer inquiries and things like that. What I do most of the hours in the day, is either think about, dream about or actually telephone names source. Yep, it’s the air I breathe, oh lucky me.
“What’s name sourcing?” you may be thinking. Names sourcing is the activity of finding people who hold specific titles, or who do specific job functions, usually inside specific organizations. These “persons of interest” are usually not found in large numbers on the internet, which differentiates the two branches of names sourcing. Internet sourcers scour the net for these folks; telephone sourcers call into the companies to obtain the names. The difference is obvious: telephone sourcers dig out the candidates behind the corporate brick and mortar walls – Internet sourcers peel them off the Internet pavement. Telephone sourcers sometimes begin their searches on the net – many times it’s necessary to “have a name” ready for the Gatekeeper in order to be transferred inside the company. Most times it’s just easier and faster to get on the telephone, call and ASK for what you need.
“Isn’t that hard?” you may be wondering. Believe it or not, about half the time you call and “just ask”, you will receive! Not many people get this. It has something to do with the fact that many people, over the last ten years, have become accustomed to working on the anonymous net, where nobody gives you headwind, nobody demands to know what your business is in asking, nobody gives you anything remotely resembling a hard time. You don’t have to “talk” to anybody on the net – the browser obeys your every command. Don’t find it on Google? Go to Altavista. Altavista not delivering it either? Try dogpile! Want someone to do it for you? Shell out for ZoomInfo – their crawlers are doing this stuff 24/7. The choices are endless and the navigating is painless. It’s the drug-of-choice for some. And who could blame them? It’s still a pretty effective delivery means for names, but, in my estimation, dwindling in importance by the day. But then, I’m biased.
Biased to telephone names sourcing. I believe this is where the real gold at the end of the rainbow lies; this is where the folks who, at present, are not, will not or have not any hope of ever being found on the internet, reside. He’s the curmudgeon sitting at his desk, head down, busy at his CAD (computer aided drawing) job as a valuable Individual Contributor to his organization. She’s the top software sales person in her region who spends half her year on the road selling her company’s product. They’re the ones living in the shadows, too busy to even think about another opportunity – until you come along! And the only way you’re going to find them is to call into the company, or network with someone who has, or can obtain, this information, to get their names. There’s simply no other way.
“Isn’t that wrong?” maybe you're thinking. What’s “wrong” about the fact that you’re working to find people with the best skill set for your opportunities? If you think there’s something “wrong” with competition, well, dear, you’re living in the “wrong” space and time. Try the serf society of medieval Europe. That might suit your fancy.
“So, how DO you do it?” you may be asking. It’s simple. Really, it is. And, I’m willing to tell you, him, her, and anyone willing to listen. When someone needs to find, say, pharmaceutical marketing managers, or .net developers, or financial software sales reps or actuarial analysts or rocket scientists or underwriters or civil engineers in wastewater or...you get the idea. The need is endless. The opportunities are endless. You get on the phone. You call the companies who have these people secreted inside their walls and you ASK who they are. And if you don’t want to do that, call someone who can do it for you! Like me.
"A wave of panic passed over the vessel, and these rough and hardy men, who feared no mortal foe, shook with terror at the shadows of their own minds." ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Like what you just read? MagicMethod is brimming with information like this and will show you the inside tips and techniques of true telephone names sourcers! Subscribe today here.
The Book of Sourcers is ready! Get your list of 200+ sourcers now here.
NEW Join the SourcersGuild Ning network here.
Join the MagicMethod telephone names sourcing group over on RecruitingBlogs here.…
e familiar with the Boolean NOT operator. In my opinion, it's one of the most powerful and least utilized Boolean operators.
Most recruiting and staffing professionals use the NOT operator to exclude unwanted results from their searches. For example, when it comes to searching for resumes on the Internet, it is a commonly accepted best practice to exclude results that mention the word "resume" but are in fact job postings (e.g., AND NOT Job AND NOT jobs...).
However, the NOT operator can be used in a much more powerful manner than simply avoiding false positive results. The NOT operator can be leveraged to enable sourcers and recruiters to begin their Boolean searches by targeting ideal candidates first - candidates that meet all required and desired skills and experience requirements, and then systematically running successively looser searches using the NOT operator to remove one search term at a time.
In other words, the NOT operator can allow sourcers and recruiters to start their searches focused narrowly, and then loosen searches to make them broader. It also enables you to tap into the Hidden Talent Pool of candidates you don't find in every source of candidate data (Internet, Job boards, LinkedIn, ATS, etc.).
This Hidden Talent Pool is made up of the candidates that your searches return in the results, but you do not actually "find" them because your search returned "too many" results for you to review them entirely.
For example, if you run a Boolean search and it returns 398 results and you only review the first 100, you only looked through a small portion of the results, and thus you did not find the other 298 results. Any result returned by a search, but not reviewed by you is a candidate you did not find. This begs the question – how can you be certain that the best possible candidates are not within the 298 candidates you did not review? You can’t.
Simple, broad, and imprecise Boolean searches yield large quantities of imprecise results, and it is impractical for most people to sort through several hundred results.
So how can you specifically target the candidates most recruiters typically do not find?
Step 1: Your first search should always be a "sniper" search – very tight and narrow to quickly find and “cherry pick” a small number of highly qualified candidates.
For example, you can:
Add explicitly desired (but not required) skills and experience to your searches. These are typically listed on job descriptions and/or mentioned by the hiring manager
Add implicitly desired skills and experience to your searches. These are not specifically mentioned or requested anywhere, but would in fact make for a more ideal candidate. For example: industry-specific terminology, competitor-based experience, certifications, higher than minimum education, etc.
Add responsibility-related terminology listed in the job description to your searches
Add search terms to specifically find candidates who have performed the exact same time of work in the exact same type of environment as they would be if hired
Search a tighter geographical radius than you would otherwise. For example – if you would typically search in a 30 mile radius, start first by searching a 10-15 mile radius. It will narrow your results to a more manageable number and also solve a critical candidate variable – location/commute.
After running your first "sniper" search, systematically loosen your searches using the NOT operator to get mutually-exclusive results sets. The goal is to have a true search strategy, and why do anything other that start with the highest probability of match and systematically loosen the search on step at a time?
For example, let's say you are searching for a hiring profile with 3 required skills (A, B, C) and 2 desired skills (D, E). Let's also say that you decide to narrow your first search by adding a certification that is related to the work but not mentioned anywhere in the job order (F) and that you also decide to search for candidates with industry specific experience (G).
Your first search will look like this:
A and B and C and D and E and F and G
Your first search would be a “sniper search” to find any candidates available that meet all of the required, explicitly desired, and implicitly desired qualifications.
1. A and B and C and D and E and F and G
After "cherry picking" the best candidates available with that super-tight search, you can then run these searches back to back to systematically yield additional and mutually exclusive results – from highest probability of match to lowest probability of match:
2. A and B and C and D and E and F and not G
3. A and B and C and D and E and not F and G
4. A and B and C and D and not E and F and G
5. A and B and C and not D and E and F and G
6. A and B and C and D and E and not F and not G
7. A and B and C and D and not E and F and not G
8. A and B and C and not D and E and F and not G
9. A and B and C and D and not E and not F and G
10. A and B and C and not D and E and not F and G
11. A and B and C and not D and not E and F and G
12. A and B and C and not D and not E and not F and G
13. A and B and C and not D and not E and F and not G
14. A and B and C and not D and E and not F and not G
15. A and B and C and not D and not E and not F and not G
If you’re fortunate, you may find so many well qualified candidates from the first few searches that you may not need to run search #5, let alone search #15. The power of this approach is that you start by making the conscious decision to target the best possible candidates first, then systematically run searches using the NOT operator to peel away the layers, one at a time, to review manageable quantities of mutually exclusive results, with the last search performed being one that solely targets the minimum qualifications.
Essentially, this strategy starts with targeting the “maximum” qualifications. Most sourcers and recruiters run one search, maybe two, typically only searching for the minimum qualifications. Seems a little backwards, yes?
Sourcers and recruiters who run one or two broad and imprecise searches get a large number of broad and imprecise results – typically too many to review, automatically building the Hidden Talent Pool of candidates they don’t find. Also, broad and imprecise searches yield results in which each result has a low intrinsic probability of being the right match. It’s the difference between a shotgun and a sniper rifle – the goal should not be to be happy to just hit the target, but to hit the target in the bulls-eye with as few shots as possible. And the NOT operator can help you achieve this.…