It is all too easy for sourcers, recruiters, HR professionals, and hiring managers/teams to develop a skewed, distorted, and decidedly one-way view of the world. Perhaps spending 99% of the time on only one side of the recruiting process is to blame.

Regardless of the cause, it is absolutely critical to regularly take the time and think about, understand, and appreciate the recruiting life cycle from the candidate’s side – the job seeker, the passive candidate, the non-job seeker, and the elusive “A+ player.”

In this article I’m going to walk you through over 10 different scenarios in which I think recruiters and hiring teams can benefit greatly by taking the candidate’s perspective into careful consideration.

If you don’t take well to being challenged to think differently from time to time, or if you don’t like long blog posts, you may not want to read any further. This one clocks in at 3700+ words.

Consider yourself warned.

The “Fantastic” Opportunity

How often do recruiters contact potential candidates about a “great opportunity?”

How can a recruiter know if it is a great opportunity without first finding out what the candidate would define as a great opportunity?

Assuming you have a “great opportunity” for someone you’ve never spoken to is presumptuous at best.

At worst – insulting.

I strongly suggest you check out this blog post – “Why are technical recruiters so clueless?“, including the 140+ comments (some not for the faint of heart).

If you perform just a little Internet research, you can find forums in which professionals express their disdain (to put it kindly) for this kind of approach from recruiters, precisely because a recruiter can’t know if their opportunity is a “fantastic match” for the them without first finding out what their current situation is and what they believe is the next step in their career.

Sourcers and recruiters – do your research before approaching candidates and be sure to only approach potential candidates with opportunities that would actually be relevant to them, in their opinion, and not just yours.

Social Recruiting

With all of the buzz surrounding social recruiting, I find it important to take a moment to recognize where all of the buzz is coming from.

It’s coming mostly from people who are in some way, shape or form selling social media/recruiting services and advice, and also from people in HR/recruiting roles.

What about the people being “socially recruited? Shouldn’t we care about what they think?

What does “social recruiting” look like from their perspective? How does it differ for active, passive, and non-job seekers?

Do they think that Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and Facebook are more effective at getting them matched to the right opportunity at the right time than any other method?

Do they even want to be approached via sites such as Facebook, Twitter, or Google+?

If you want to find out the real answers and not just the ones you like – don’t send out social recruiting-related polls solely using social media. It will yield a non-representative sample with skewed results favoring social media (hello!) – use a real random sample and multiple delivery mediums to get a more accurate representation.

As sexy as many people and organizations apparently believe social recruiting to be, there are at least some indicators that it isn’t so sexy from the perspective of the people you’re trying to recruit.

For example, when Steve Boese has asked the Gen Y/Z students in his Human Resources Technology classes about learning about organizations and engaging with company recruiters on social networks like Facebook or Twitter, almost all of them recoil – they say no way, “Facebook is for me and my friends only.”

Shouldn’t we be spending more time worrying about what our target talent pools think of using social media for employment and less time talking (and tweeting) with other recruiters about how social recruiting is “the future of all recruiting?”

Referrals

Yes, yes – we all know that employee referrals are the “holy grail” of talent acquisition.

However, have you ever been solicited for referrals? How did it feel? Do you think everyone feels the same way when being approached by a recruiter or manager for referrals? Have you always provided referrals to people asking you for them? Why or why not?

Have you ever been offered a referral bonus to refer people?

Some organizations pay for referrals – even for referrals from non core employees. Incentivizing people to provide you with referrals isn’t intrinsically a bad idea – but does anyone care about how people feel about being paid for referring their friends and peers to your organization?

I’ve heard of some people being quite offended by referral bonuses – they did not like the idea of “selling” their friends or people in their professional network.

Ultimately, I think that most people provide referrals primarily to help the person they are referring – not just (or at all, in some cases) to help the recruiter, manager, or company.

What do you think?

More importantly, what do the people you solicit referrals from think?

Messaging/Talent Engagement

How many recruiters do you think have ever wondered about what it’s like to get a 5 calls, voicemails, emails, and/or messages via social media from recruiters?

How about 10 a day? 20?

It’s a good exercise to take a moment and think about what it must be like to constantly under assault by sourcers and recruiters.

Sure, most active job seekers will return your call, respond to your email, and even pick up when their phone rings from a number they don’t recognize.

What about passive job seekers? How about non-job seekers? Why would someone who isn’t looking for a job even call you back?

Can we really blame non-job seekers for not picking up the phone or not responding to a voice mails and emails?

Do you know what most recruiters sound like in their voice mail messages and what the emails most recruiters send look like?

Do you realize how awkward it is for someone to receive an unsolicited call from a recruiter while they’re at work? In a cube? Sitting next to their lead/manager?

Do you think the highlight of anyone’s day is talking to another recruiter?

Making phone calls and sending emails and messages to potential candidates are among the highest volume activities that recruiters and some sourcers perform on a daily basis. As such, it seems to become one of the things that the least amount of thought is put into.

It is important to realize that people who don’t know you don’t call you back just because you left them a message. As I am fond of saying, “If they don’t know you, they don’t owe you.”

All Recruiters are Not Created Equal

While you might be a great sourcer or recruiter – many are not.

In fact, some very talented and good natured people view recruiters on the same level as used car salesmen (again, a little Internet research will yield a lot of information you may not want to see).

This is because some recruiters do not do the recruiting profession justice.

It’s important to realize that on any given day, you might be the 10th recruiter to try and contact the person you’re calling. Realize that the last 10 recruiters they spoke to may not have been very good at what they do.

On any given call, you may have to overcome an opinion of recruiters that’s been deservedly earned through multiple bad experiences with horrible recruiters.

You may have to fight an uphill battle to prove that you actually are better than all of the other recruiters who over-promise and under-deliver, don’t take the time to appreciate and understand the candidate’s experience and motivators, only push jobs, and never follow up.

In fact, you should assume it – you might just alter your approach a bit and get a higher response/success rate.

A little empathy goes a long way.

A Players

What defines an “A” player anyway?

The reality is that one person’s or organization’s “A” player is another’s “B” player, and vice versa – it’s all a subjective matter of perspective, and who is to judge?

It should also be recognized that specific corporate and team environments can play a huge role in whether or not someone even has the opportunity to be an “A” player.

And let’s not too hastily forget that companies are quite literally built on and by “B” players. “Research by Harvard professor Tom DeLong has shown that while A players can make enormous contributions to performance, companies’ long-term performance, even survival, depends far more on the unsung commitment and contributions of their B players.”

On the retention side – focusing heavily on retaining “A” players can give solid “B” players the feeling that they are not valued, making them more likely to leave, and certainly more easily “recruitable.”

Resumes and LinkedIn Profiles

Sourcers, recruiters, HR pros, hiring managers are quite often guilty of committing the age-old error of judging a book by its cover.

When your job consists of reviewing tons of resumes, it’s easy to get picky and judgmental, and equally easy to forget that the resumes represent real people who simply cannot be effectively represented in a resume.

That Java software engineer you’re recruiting/hiring for? Remember that you’re hiring for a Java software engineer and not a professional resume writer.

Ditto for every other role/skill that could ever be hired for.

It’s important to keep in mind that the resumes of the people you’re reviewing may be the 2nd or 3rd resume they’ve ever had to write.

How good are you at anything when you’ve only had to do it 2-3 times?

Don’t see a particular skill or experience in a resume or social media profile?

Don’t assume the person lacks the skill or experience. While the idea that everyone should have a 1 page resume (2 pages max) is still perpetuated amongst job seekers and employers alike, have you ever stopped to think about what someone is actually doing when they have more than 1-2 pages’ worth of experience?

That’s right – consciously deciding to remove information in order to reduce the length of the resume – information you can no longer search for or use to determine whether or not the person might have the skills and experience you’re looking for.

The next time you or someone you work with is getting a tad overzealous with the resumes they’re reviewing, remember that there is a real human being attached to those resumes, and that it’s better to rule people IN rather than OUT.

You’re not judging a resume writing contest – you’re trying to identify top talent. You don’t know anything about a person until you talk to them.

Talent Pipelines

We all know it’s important for recruiters to build up talent pipelines, but how many recruiters have ever wondered what it must feel like to actually be a “pipeline candidate?”

Is it some kind of an honor or a privilege?

What do they get out of it?

Would you like to be continually contacted and screened by recruiters who never actually produced any well-matched opportunities for you, but liked to stay in touch with you regularly anyway, if for no other reason than to solicit you for referrals and leads?

If so, how many recruiters would you or could you entertain in this fashion?

Recruiting Relationships

What is the ultimate value that a recruiter can provide a potential candidate?

Wait – before you answer, it really doesn’t matter what you think.

Only the candidate can truly answer that question, because value can only be evaluated from the perspective of the customer of a service or product.

It’s one thing for people in the recruiting profession to talk about the value of relationships – but it’s ultimately the candidate who defines the value.

So why don’t you ask them?

A while back I wrote an article that challenged the value of the traditional “relationship” between recruiters and potential candidates- I urge you to read it and let me know your thoughts.

Do we really believe that all active, passive, and non-job seekers really need another recruiter to have a relationship with? How many “relationships” can any given job seeker have and maintain anyway?

The reality is that the vast majority of people ultimately want a job that is a great fit with what they are looking for – one that is the critical next step in their career, not another “relationship.”

Talent Communities

If one of your company’s talent acquisition strategies involves building and maintaining talent communities, the theoretical value that a talent community could provide a company is obvious.

However, have you ever wondered what real value a talent community provides the people in the community? Do they even perceive it to be a community?

Perhaps you saw it coming this time, but I have to remind you that it really doesn’t matter what you think. What really matters is what the people in your talent community and the ones you are trying to attract think.

Have you asked them? Probably not.

The idea of building talent communities is a deceptively logical approach to the need of proactively identifying talent. I say “deceptively logical” because what is good in theory may actually not be in practice.

The talent community concept has issues. For example – have you ever wondered about how many talent communities the people you are looking to identify, attract and perhaps hire at some point can possibly belong to?

It may feel as if the talent universe revolves around your company, but chances are you aren’t the only company of your kind. That means your competitors and other companies are vying for the same talent you are. Your talent community is one of many that the talent you so covet can chose from.

How many talent communities can a person realistically belong to? Actually participate in? Actually want to belong to and participate in?

Bear in mind that having an interest in your corporate brand does not necessarily equate to someone’s interest in becoming a part of your “talent community.”

Gareth Jones wrote a spot-on piece about the myth of the talent community – I urge you to read it if you haven’t already. Gareth astutely points out that “Job seeking is an event, not an interest,” and that fact alone will render many corporate branded talent communities into pit stops along the career highway, frequented mostly by transients and passers-by.

My guess is that isn’t how most companies would like to view their talent communities.

While “talent community” seems to be quite the sexy term in HR and recruiting circles these days, it is important to realize that “community” is defined as “an interacting population of various kinds of individuals in a common location.”

That means that if your “talent community” doesn’t have an interacting population, by definition, it isn’t a talent community.

If you have anything to do with a company’s development of a “talent community,” please make sure it provides some real value to the people who join and that it fosters interaction, and that it doesn’t function more like a talent collection point, farm or holding pen.

A good start in that direction would be to ask the talent you are trying to attract and serve what they would like to be able to get out of the talent community.

Either that, or just stop calling it a “community” if it really isn’t one.

Effective Job Posting and Response

You may think your job postings look good, but you’re not a neutral party. What really matters is what they look like to the average job seeker.

Do they accurately reflect the opportunity? Do they have enough real content (as opposed to boilerplate mumbo-jumbo) and are they interesting and compelling enough to get a response from the right people? From a passive job seeker that doesn’t have to or need to make a change? Can a potential candidate really get a sense of what they would be doing in the role?

Even if you have the most fantastic and compelling job postings, as I recently wrote, passive and non-job seekers typically don’t even “see” job postings or employer branding content even if it’s on the same web page they’re reviewing (think Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.).

Take the time to look at your job posting/socialization strategy from the perspective of a discriminating active and/or passive job seeker who has many choices to choose from and who will only respond and take action on a select few. How can you ensure that you and your organization are among the select few? If you take the time to understand your target talent pool, you headed in the right direction. It’s not what you think is interesting and effective – it’s what they think is interesting and effective.

Last in this category, but certainly not least, is the response provided to applicants who take the often considerable time and effort to jump through the numerous flaming hoops of your applicant tracking system to respond to one of your postings.

How would you like to apply for a position that you feel you are well qualified for and never get a response? Would you be impressed with an auto-response sent via email confirming your resume/application has been received? How about the same snail-mail postcard that you know everyone else who applied also received?

The bar for what is “acceptable” has been set incredibly and embarrassingly low.

Interview Process and Feedback

Imagine you’re a job seeker for a moment.

You successfully landed an interview with a prestigious and well-respected company and arrive on time and fully prepared. How would you feel if no one who interviewed you was on time or prepared? Yes, this actually happens.

What if all the interviewers seemed interested in was how well you fit into their predefined job description, rather than looking for ways to fully leverage your talent, skills, and experience? How would you feel if the only questions you were asked were the “standard” interview questions?

How would you feel about not being selected for a role you interviewed for, and all you were given in response was that “you were not a fit for the role,” with no further explanation?

My guess is that you wouldn’t like it. So please make an effort to treat others as you would like to treated.

Active/Passive Candidates

Active candidates are okay, but passive candidates are better, right?

We all know that as soon as someone posts their resume on a job board or responds to a job posting, they can magically transform from a highly sought after “A” player passive candidate to just another “B” player active job seeker.

After all, “A” players don’t need to post their resume anywhere, right?

Ridiculous. The reality is that the subjective perception of any particular job-seeking status has nothing to do with the objective quality of candidate.

Nothing.

Active candidates are not plague-stricken, desperate “unemployables.”

Active, passive, not looking – who cares?!?! Let’s stop labeling/classifying people – anyone can be a candidate for the right opportunity.

Non-Competitive Offers

If you and your organization are looking to hire top talent, make sure that your offers and total compensation packages accurately and directly reflect that desire to the people to whom it matters most – the candidates.

When you’re dealing with people who don’t need to leave their current employer, you’re not going to get ”A” players and not even solid “B” players with significant talent, skills, and experience who can make a large positive impact on your team and in your company to leave without some incentive.

Don’t get too comfortable with your prestigious employer/company brand and assume anyone would be honored to work for your company for a lateral compensation move.

It is critical for hiring managers and HR to always keep in mind what it’s like to be on the other side of the hiring process, but it seems that not enough do. I’ve seen hiring managers that get so confident with their corporate/employment brand that they will extend offers under a very good candidate’s current pay.

I have a few questions for managers who extent these kinds of offers – how would you feel receiving such an offer, what kind of message does that send to you, and what would you do/how would you react? Would you seek to interview elsewhere?

Take the time to think (and care!) about how your offers will be received and perceived by the top talent you are trying to acquire. The best candidates invariably have choices in the market, and no one likes to feel undervalued and unappreciated.

And they talk.

Do you care if the word on the street about your company is that you’re a good employer to work for, but you don’t pay competitively? How about developing a reputation as a “cheap” employer?

Gen Y/Millennials

I daresay that the amount of time spent writing and talking about recruiting and managing Gen Y candidates comes close to the amount of time spent writing and talking about Social Recruiting.

I know and understand (and loathe) the human need for labels and categorization, but the fact of the matter is that you simply cannot generalize and stereotype everyone that’s been born in the 80′s or 90′s.

There are Gen Y people who actually think and behave more like Gen X, and vice versa. There are even Gen Y’ers who are more like Baby Boomers than the traditional “Trophy Kid.”

I know I don’t like being lumped in with anyone or any group simply because of when I was born – it’s absurd and insulting. I’m pretty sure most “Millennials” feel the same way.

Each person is a unique individual.

Take the care to recruit and manage people for who they are as individuals, not as a member of any particular generation.

Final Thoughts

Sitting on one side of the recruiting and hiring process can lead to the development of a distorted and disconnected view of the talent identification and acquisition process.

I strongly urge you to take the time and think about, understand, and appreciate the recruiting life cycle from the candidate’s side – the job seeker, the passive candidate, the non-job seeker, and the elusive “A+ player.”

I don’t think you can be a top recruiter or employer without the desire and ability to understand and appreciate the perspective of the people you are trying to recruit.

That’s the human element to the recruiting process.

While no company has a flawless recruiting system, process or solution, there is a glaring problem shared by many corporate recruiting functions from which the Fortune 500 and the Big 4 are not immune.

As some of the most respected companies in the world invest quite a bit of time, energy and money into social recruiting efforts, interactive recruiting solutions, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and career site optimization, one critical piece of the recruiting puzzle seems to be all but completely overlooked.

Before you read any further – do you believe you have an idea of what I might be talking about?

From the conversations I’ve had over the years with many corporate recruiters and recruiting leaders from small companies all the way to the Fortune 500 and the Big 4, as well as the contract recruiters who are hired to help these companies source and recruit talent, I believe that the #1 mistake in corporate recruiting is the failure to fully realize and take appropriate action on the value of the human capital data they already possess.

The #1 Mistake in Corporate Recruiting

In my opinion, the single biggest corporate recruiting flunk is the failure to accurately value and appropriately leverage the human capital data they have in their applicant tracking and/or CRM systems.

Let me show you the depth and complexity of some of the contributing factors of this issue.

The Shiny New Candidate Syndrome

A bachelor’s degree in psychology certainly doesn’t make me a psychologist – but it doesn’t take an advanced degree to recognize that it seems to be human nature to want what they don’t already have.

Certainly I cannot be the only person to be confused by companies investing a large amount of time, focus, energy and money into social recruiting, fancy and high-tech job posting systems and optimized career sites in order to identify and attract new candidates when they might already have the best candidate sitting in their ATS.

Getting a shiny new candidate via your Facebook advertising campaign or your LinkedIn Recruiter account is perceived by some to be “cutting edge,” sexy and seems to afford bragging rights at recruiting conferences. Heck, anything recruiting related that can be tagged as “social” is certainly cooler than ATS mining (for those few companies that can and actually do mine their ATS!).

However, who is to say you don’t actually have faster and lower cost access to better qualified candidates already in your database?

To be sure, the most recently identified candidate is not necessarily the best candidate, and I can speak from experience when I say that some of the best candidates I have ever placed came from “old” resumes – some as old as 4 years since the last update. Someone I recently trained was happy to report he had made a placement by calling a candidate whose resume had not been updated in over 6 years!

Instead of focusing so heavily on trying to find “new” candidates from external sources, companies should spend more time leveraging the candidates they already have at their fingertips.

Resumes acquired in the past that were never reviewed by someone are essentially new candidates – they might be “old” in your ATS, but they’re new to you when you finally dig them up and review them for the first time! There are plenty of “new,” unidentified candidates in corporate ATS/CRM resume databases – you just have to look for them!

The Big Fat Ugly Assumption

Why are so many companies and recruiters focused on looking outside their own database in places like LinkedIn, Monster, Twitter, Facebook, etc. for talent?

I’ll tell you why.

Although largely unspoken and unrecognized, the big fat ugly assumption in recruiting is that every candidate captured in an ATS/CRM has been reviewed, and that if a candidate fits for any position, someone would know.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

I’d estimate that a good portion of every ATS consists of candidates whose resumes have been acquired, but not reviewed, and thus not identified. If that sounds a bit backward, that’s because it is.

When relying on job posting for the majority of the acquisition of candidate resumes, you can actually acquire a resume that is not reviewed. And if you haven’t reviewed a candidate’s resume, you can’t identify them as a potential match for any position, let alone the one they responded to.

If your organization isn’t putting enough emphasis on searching your resume database, you can be assured you have plenty of candidates that have technically been “acquired” because you’ve captured their resume, but have not been identified because no one reviewed them, and thus they cannot be matched to any position.

Even if a company does review 100% of all applicants for the positions they apply to, many great candidates are still overlooked, are not properly identified and are never matched to positions they are qualified for. See “Right Candidate, Wrong Job,” and “The Time Value of Resumes” below.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that someone has searched for and reviewed every possible candidate match in your corporate ATS/CRM. As I said above, there are plenty of “new,” unidentified candidates in corporate ATS/CRM resume databases – you just have to search for them.

A Heavy Reliance On Posting Jobs

Many companies rely heavily on posting jobs for talent attraction and acquisition. I’m aware that some companies get such a high volume of responses from their online job postings and career sites that their recruiters are so buried with reactively processing applicants that they practically have no time to proactively source candidates from their own ATS.

While it may sound like a good thing to have a steady stream of people interested in joining your company and applying to your job postings, no matter what technology or solution you use, there are some serious limitations and universal truths to using job postings to identify talent:

• Posting jobs is a passive candidate identification and acquisition strategy – you are 100% reliant on the right people finding or stumbling across your opening.
• Posting jobs offers no control over the qualifications of the candidates who apply – the phrase “post and pray” is quite accurate, because it comes from the fact that you are essentially hoping that the people you want and need actually find and apply to your opening.
• While 100% of the people who apply to online job postings are interested in the positions they are applying to, a good portion aren’t actually qualified for them (which is both a bad and a good thing – more on this later).
• Posting jobs – via web 1.0, 2.0, or x.0 – primarily attracts the attention of active job seekers only, which is the minority of all people. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimates that approximately 14% of all people are “actively” seeking a new job. Even if you add in the estimated 20% of people who are “casually” looking for a new job, you are still missing nearly 66% of the workforce if you rely heavily on posting jobs to find your next great hire.
• Passive and non-job seekers simply do not “see” job postings, even if you place them on their Facebook or LinkedIn pages. Sorry.

It is a HUGE mistake to place a large amount of the control over your talent acquisition strategy in the hands of others – the talent you’re hunting.

Without a strong focus on proactive ATS/resume database mining, you’re primarily in reactive mode, waiting for the people you want and need to come to you, and you can simply cannot target and tap into the elusive and highly valued “passive candidates.”

Right Candidate, Wrong Job

Assuming that every resume submitted into an ATS is reviewed (remember what I said earlier about this assumption), what happens to all of the people who apply online to job postings who are great people, but just aren’t qualified for the specific position they apply to?

If a person doesn’t meet the basic qualifications of the position they directly applied to, does that mean they don’t meet the basic qualifications of other open positions?

Of course not.

The unfortunate reality is that every company in existence is sitting on a pile of people who are a great match for a position other than what they directly applied to. Unless a recruiting organization focuses specifically on mining their resume database, a great many of these people will never be matched to the positions they actually are qualified for.

The Time Value of Resumes

What happens to all of the people who apply to positions that they are not yet fully qualified for, but will be in 1-3 years?

Unfortunately, in most cases the answer to the above question is absolutely nothing, which is both unacceptable and a significant opportunity for all companies.

If I had $1 for every time I have heard a recruiter say that it’s a waste of time to search “old” resumes because they’re old and “out of date,” I’d be a millionaire. Resumes don’t spoil, and they don’t have a “best used by” date – I cannot stress enough how shortsighted it is, as well as just plain wrong, to believe that a resume over 1 year old is worthless.

Just as a point of reference – not too long ago I spoke with someone in a recruiting leadership function from a Big 4 firm that mentioned their organization “purged” millions of resumes during a migration to a new ATS. Ouch!

Failing to search your resume database for people who applied to positions 1-3 or even more years ago is an epic #fail.

While I could write a small book on the many reasons as to why, for the sake of this post, let me just say that it’s quite easy to calculate a person’s career trajectory, and calling people with “old” resumes is a very effective way of recruiting passive candidates – including non-job seekers that you simply cannot identify and acquire through any other means.

Resumes do not lose their value as they age – they actually do gain value over time.

If your organization is burdened by a large collection of worthless old resumes – I will gladly give them a good home.

Black Hole ATS

Practically every company has an internal database filled with actionable information on thousands to literally tens of millions of applicants, candidates, and professionals.

You would think that a private internal database of people that an organization has actively and passively, tactically and strategically collected over the years would be a prized possession and be viewed and leveraged as a significant resource and competitive advantage.

However, this post on Weddles gives us a glimpse of just how wrong we would be to think such a thing. An Online Sourcing Survey conducted by TalentDrive found that almost two-thirds (64%) of the employers represented by the survey’s participants did not know how many qualified candidates were in their own ATS databases.

Yes – you read that correctly. Most companies don’t even know how many people are in their Applicant Tracking Systems.

Surprised?

While that is an especially disturbing statistic and a sad reality, I’m actually not that surprised.

Many Applicant Tracking Systems have horrible search interfaces and extremely limited search capability. Prospective candidates go in, but they don’t come back out. If you can’t easily search your internal database, how can you find the top talent hidden within, let alone determine the total candidate population?

This problem is not isolated to small companies with home-grown Applicant Tracking Systems. I recently spoke with a corporate recruiter from a well-known and highly visible Fortune 500 brand who told me that it’s easier for her to find candidates on Monster and then cross reference the names in her ATS than it is to actually source candidates from her ATS.

Epic #fail!

If you’re sitting on a stockpile of resumes and applicants, you should be able to quickly, easily, and precisely retrieve exactly what you need. If your ATS/CRM doesn’t have advanced information retrieval capability – it’s time you took action to remedy that so you can begin to fully leverage all of the human capital information you’ve harvested, likely at significant cost.

You Don’t Need LinkedIn to Leverage 3 Degrees of Separation

One of the great features of LinkedIn is that it is easy to see beyond your direct connections and to leverage 3 degrees of separation.

However, you don’t need LinkedIn to leverage degrees of separation. To think the value of an ATS resume database is limited solely to the direct access to the people contained within is a serious mistake.

Every person in an ATS database knows other people, who also know other people.

The resumes you have direct access to essentially represent 1st degree connections, through which you can reach 2nd and 3rd degree connections and beyond.

You’d be surprised what happens when you call people from your ATS simply to network with them and ask for help. Why more companies don’t realize that the value of their ATS goes FAR beyond just the people contained within is a mystery to me.

Lessons to be Learned

While it is a huge mistake for companies and recruiters to fail to fully realize and take appropriate action on the value of the human capital data they already possess, mistakes are simply opportunities to learn.

It won’t take much effort for recruiters and the companies they work for to begin to fully leverage the human capital data buried in their ATS databases.

Lessen the obsession with finding the next “new” candidate via external sources and bright shiny social channels and focus more time extracting the value from candidates that are already in your possession but have yet to be truly identified or acted upon. Not fully leveraging an internal resume/candidate database, which has likely been built through significant time, effort and money is a serious flaw in any talent acquisition plan. In some way, shape or form, every candidate record in an ATS has been paid for, and there is simply no sense in paying for something that you don’t use.

Recognize that while posting jobs online can open the candidate floodgates, posting jobs to attract talent some serious limitations, not the least of which is the fact that it is a completely passive talent acquisition strategy offering no control over candidate qualification variables. Also, don’t forget that job postings can only attract active and casual job seekers, limiting you to only 1/3rd of the talent pool available at best.

Mining your ATS is a proactive sourcing and recruitment strategy which affords you significant control over critical candidate qualification variables, and you can specifically and strategically target and tap into the other 66% of the talent pool by searching for resumes that have not been updated or acquired in over 6 months. If you get “too many” applicants to your job postings, make sure there is at least 1 person (ideally more!) who doesn’t have anything to do with processing applicants – you need to have resources that spend 100% of their time proactively mining your ATS as well as external sources.

Ensure your ATS/CRM is highly searchable – if your ATS/CRM is as easy to search as it is to put candidates in, you will be able to fill more of your company’s openings from talent you’ve already sourced. Any opening you can fill with candidates already in your internal system saves you the time, effort, and cost of advertising and searching for “new” candidates. Filling openings with candidates already in your ATS can afford you significant and measurable cost-per-hire, time-to-identify, and time-to-fill benefits.

Having a highly searchable ATS/CRM can help you reduce your reliance on paid resources if you currently use them (LinkedIn, Monster, etc.). Strive to ensure that your ATS/CRM is more searchable than LinkedIn, Monster and even the Internet itself. It should not be easier to search and identify potential candidates via external sources than it is to mine your own private candidate database!

In addition to high searchability, your ATS/CRM should have robust and easy to use contact management functionality to enable recruiters to stay in touch with the people who enter the ATS. Maintaining regular communications with candidates, regardless of their job search status, allows an organization to be ready to take appropriate action when the candidate’s status changes, or when a new position opens for which the person is an excellent fit. Plus, staying in touch with candidates ensures that resumes never get too out of date (if you’re bothered by that sort of thing)  - it’s easy to request an updated resume each year using solid contact management functionality.

And last but certainly not least – be sure to recognize that the value of your ATS database goes well beyond the people contained within. Every person in your internal database knows people, who in turn know other people. Leverage those degrees of separation for professional networking and ask for help in the form of referrals.

Now that one year has passed since I wrote the original post, I have decided to significantly update and repost it – you can find it here.