How to Search Hidden Talent Pools – HTP #1
You may be surprised to learn that there are Hidden Talent Pools in every social network, database, ATS, job board, etc. – they contain candidates that #1 you can not find and #2 you do not find. In this post, I will focus on the candidates that you can not find.
You may ask, “So, why can’t I find them?” That’s a very good question – most sourcers and recruiters don’t even know that that there are candidates they can’t find with their Boolean search strings, so simply being aware that there are candidates that you can not find is a significant step on the path towards electronic sourcing and recruiting enlightenment.
Hidden Talent Pool #1 Defined
The Hidden Talent Pool (HTP) of candidates you can not find consists of candidates who do not mention the specific search terms that you have included in your Boolean search string in their resume or social network profile.
For example – if you are working on an open position for a business analyst and you create a search string that only contains the title of “business analyst,” you CAN NOT FIND candidates who do not have that title but who are qualified for your position. For example, there may be many well qualified candidates who do not have the specific title of “business analyst,” and instead have other titles such as systems analyst, business systems analyst, requirements analyst, functional analyst, or even just analyst. However, your search targeting the title of “business analyst” CAN NOT FIND those candidates, even though they are readily available. For all that you know, they don’t exist because they don’t show up in your search results. But they do exist.
Proof of Hidden Talent Pool #1
Let’s say you are working on an open position for a business analyst, and you’re going to search for resumes on the Internet using Google.
SEARCH #1 - Targeting only the title of “business analyst”
(inurl:resume | intitle:resume) “business analyst” (requirement | requirements) -~job -~jobs
Click here for the results - Nearly 4,000 results, and as expected – most of the results are of business analysts.
SEARCH #2 – Eliminating the title of “business analyst” and targeting alternate titles
On Google we can use the minus sign as the Boolean NOT operator in front of the title of “business analyst” to get results that do NOT contain that title.
(inurl:resume | intitle:resume) -”business analyst” (”business systems analyst” | “requirements analyst” | “functional analyst” | “systems analyst”) (requirement | requirements) -~job -~jobs
Click here for the results- Around 2400 results, none of them with the title of “business analyst,” yet most of them are resumes of people who perform the role of a “traditional” business analyst – working with users, gathering requirements, etc.
It’s important to realize that the results of Search #1 and Search #2 are mutually exclusive - no results from Search #2 are in the results of Search #1 and vice versa. This means that Search #2 represents a Hidden Talent Pool of 2400 candidates that sourcers and recruiters who run a search like search #1 CAN NOT FIND.
The Cardinal Rule of Boolean Search
Sourcers and recruiters creating searches that can only find candidates that mention the specific title of “business analyst” can not find those additional 2400 candidates unless they take into consideration the Cardinal Rule of Creating Boolean Search Strings. The Cardinal Rule of Creating Boolean Search Strings states that for every skill, title, technology, etc., that you are thinking about including in your Boolean search – take a moment to think of #1 whether or not every person would make explicit mention of it in their resume, and #2 if they would, how many possible alternate ways can it be expressed?
For example – if there are 5 different titles for the same type of role, or 5 different ways of referencing a specific responsibility or technology and you only think of 2 of them, you simply CAN NOT FIND the candidates who mention the other 3 titles or ways of expressing the same thing.
So, if a recruiter heeded the Cardinal Rule of Creating Boolean Search Strings and took some time to think about all of the various titles that business analysts can have before they created their Boolean search string for a business analyst position, they could increase their relevant results by 60% by tapping into the Hidden Talent Pool #1 of an additional 2400 candidates!
Another Example
If you were searching for an accountant and the hiring manager specifically requested experience with GAAP, FASB, and SOX, you may be inclined to add those terms to your Boolean search string. However, if you add all three of those terms to your Boolean search string, you CAN NOT FIND candidates who actually DO have experience with GAAP, FASB, and SOX, but do not explicitly mention those terms in their resume or profile.
These candidates ARE in the social networks you’re searching, your ATS, on the job boards, even on the Internet. These candidates have the experience with GAAP, FASB and SOX that you’re looking for – but your Boolean searches are actually preventing you from finding them – a graphic example of the Hidden Talent Pool of candidates you can not find. If you search for a term or terms that candidates don’t mention in their resume or profile, you simply can not find them.
Challenge Your Assumptions
Sourcers and recruiters commonly make the mistake of assuming that all candidates will always mention every last skill and buzzword they have experience with. In fact, more often than not, candidates don’t.
First – you must realize that whoever is writing the resume you’re searching for is not a resume writing expert – they are whatever you’re searching for – an accountant, a project manager, a scientist, a network engineer, etc.
Why anyone expects “perfect” and completely detailed resumes is beyond me. Writing a “complete” resume that specifically mentions every thing someone has ever done and done it with is nearly impossible. Depending on length of career, many candidates have only had to write 2-5 resumes in their career. Doing something 2-5 times does not an expert make!
Some of the things that sourcers and recruiters think that every candidate would “obviously” know to mention in their resumes are things that candidates don’t – and this is often because these “obvious” and “marquee” skills and/or technologies are so rooted in the candidates’ day to day resposibilities that it slips their mind to mention it.
The other classic situation is when candidates assume recruiters and hiring managers would automatically know what they have done and done it with based on other details in their resumes – this is quite common. I’ve personally heard that from too many candidates to count.
Conclusion
Be aware of the fact that your Boolean searches may actually be creating Hidden Talent Pools of candidates you can not find. Before creating searches for any position, heed the Cardinal Rule of Creating Boolean Search Strings and take time to carefully think about all of the various ways that the titles, skills, and technologies could possibly be mentioned, or even if they would be mentioned at all. By doing so, you can find more qualified candidates for your positions – sometimes by as much as 60%! – and perhaps even more importantly, find candidates that your competitors can not find.
How’s that for a competitive advantage?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Hi,
Thanks for the interesting write up.It is very logical and effective.
I have a question though. With unending and continuously evolving technologies/skills/skill combinations in every requirement , how do we- as sourcers search and learn what/how different titles/skill/stechnologies may be mentioend on a relevant candidate’s resume. Kindly suggest some techniques/process/reads.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Rashmi
Glen,
As always, thanks for the insight. A few questions… When I use + or AND in a google search, it returns different results. The same rings true when I use | or OR. I thought these were one in the same? Also, what search engines/job boards support the weighing factor? It doesn’t seem to be working for me on google. Lastly, what exactly does the ~ symbol do?
Thanks,
Derrick
I posted it to my blog it was so good – looking forward to others. Thanks!