Anything worth doing is worth measuring, and sourcing isn’t exempt from this.

If you want to know which method of sourcing has the highest ROI in terms of enabling a person to find more of the right people more quickly, then you’re in luck – because that’s what this post is about.

Human capital data comes in many forms – resumes, social network profiles, blogs, bios, press resleases, etc. – and I have found that a key and critical aspect of sources of human capital data that many people fail to formally recognize is the depth and completeness of the data that can yield information through review and analysis.

When it comes to leveraging information systems such as the Internet, applicant tracking systems, social networking sites, job board databases, etc. for sourcing and recruiting – the operative word is “information.”

Data is the lowest level of abstraction from which information can be derived. For data to become information, it must be interpreted and take on a meaning.

Generally, the quality and amount of information that can be gleaned from any particular source is directly linked and limited to the quality and amount of data present to be reviewed and analyzed. How useful is an information system supported by only a small amount of limited data?

In this post, I will:

• Review the major sources of human capital data
• Examine sourcing return on time invested
• Explore the potential candidate’s point of view
• Ask you to take a quick sourcing test

Ready?

ATS, Job Board Resume Databases

Resumes typically represent the deepest source of human capital data.

While the accuracy of them can be argued (albeit no differently than social media profiles) – most resumes contain significant and specifically professional information about the people who wrote them.

Even when poorly written, most resumes contain:

• A summary of experience
• Objectives that can give you insight into the types of opportunities they are interested in
• A work history that can give you an idea of their capabilities based on their past responsibilities and experience at specific companies, as well as an educated guess as to their desired compensation
• A full address, which can be critical in making an educated guess at whether or not they might be open to a particular commute

LinkedIn Profiles (CV’s?)

LinkedIn is the one stand-out social networking application that has a decent number of profiles with deep human capital data.

Although not a resume database, you can typically find (and thus search for and target) more employment qualification-related information than anywhere else outside of an actual resume database.

While LinkedIn calls them “profiles,” and some contain very little information other than 1 title and 1 employer, some LinkedIn users fill their profiles out just as they would their resume.

In fact, with the employment market in relatively bad shape, there are a number of articles advising job seekers to do exactly that – fill out their profile as they would a resume.

And now, LinkedIn even offers the ability to convert your LinkedIn profile into a resume(fantastic move, by the way!).

It also doesn’t hurt that LinkedIn has a robust search interface, supporting full Boolean logic as well as a number of LinkedIn-specific advanced search operators. Great search interface + deep human capital data = highly leveragable information system for talent identification.

Of course, it can’t be overlooked that there are more incomplete and shallow LinkedIn profiles than there are complete and fully fleshed out profiles, so all is not perfect in LinkedIn land.

Additionally, while LinkedIn has started to add some more specific location options for people to select (for example, my zip code gives me the option to select Alpharetta or Atlanta), many people still use their major metro area as the location on their profile (I do).

This can make it difficult to find people who are likely to be close to the location of the job you are sourcing for and thus “recruitable.”

What About Facebook, Twitter, and Google+?

While many people in the recruiting and staffing industry get REALLY excited about Facebook, Google+ and Twitter - I don’t.

Before you recoil in absolute horror that I haven’t jumped on the bandwagon with everyone else, let me say that I’m a big fan of leveraging  any/all social networking sites (provided your target talent uses them to a good degree, of course).

Yes, I they’re cool, and yes, I use them.

However, I refuse to get so blinded by their perceived potential and the hype in the sourcing/recruiting community that I fail to see their limitations.

You can certainly use Twitter, Google+ and Facebook to identify and contact potential candidates – there’s no arguing that. While Twitter is highly searchable, supporting Boolean queries and their own set of advanced search operators, Facebook isn’t (although it does offer you access to the largest single repository of people on the planet), and Google+ isn’t nearly as searchable as it should be given that it’s a Google creation.

However, regardless of “searchability,” none of those sites offers much professional data about the people who use them, or at least not the right types of information that can help a sourcer or recruiter gain any significant insight into specific skills, experience (including precise responsibilities and capability as well as overall years and career progression), and specific location.

You might get lucky to see a title on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+, and you might find people talking about their line of work, but the people who do mention titles and in some cases even employers is the vast minority.

Lastly – when it comes to social networking sites like Google+, Facebook, and Twitter, even when people do mention something work related online that can enable you to try to guess what it is they do, in many cases they do so using non-standard terminology, which poses an additional challenge to talent identification.

Shallow Human Capital Data

Facebook, Twitter and Google+ can be effectively leveraged for employer and recruiter branding, marketing, online community development, and socializing job opportunies (that’s social media speak for “job posting”) – which are largely passive methods of talent attraction.

However, as shallow sources of human capital data, Facebook, Twitter and Google+ are not particularly effective for active candidate identification.

When I say “active candidate identification,” I’m not referral to job seeking status (people actively seeking employment) – I’m referring to the process of actively searching for and identifying candidates with specific experience and qualifications that are highly likely to match specific hiring needs.

Posting jobs is a passive method of identifying potential candidates, because you post the job and then sit and wait for people to do the work of identifying themselves.

There is no doubt you can find and contact LOADS of people using Facebook, Twitter and Google+. However, in most cases, you have no real idea how much and exactly what kind of experience these people have prior to contacting them, and in many cases, you don’t know precisely where they live.

Just because they list that they have their CPA, or that they belong to a nursing association, or they are a “fan” of a PHP developer page - it certainly does not guarantee you of anything beyond that.

Non-Resume Internet Research

Using Internet search engines such as Google, Bing, Blekko, et al, to search for and sift through human capital data can definitely produce results.

I won’t argue that. However, once you go beyond resumes (the deepest sources of human capital data), you quickly enter the shallow end of the human capital data pool - press releases, blog posts and comments, articles, etc.

I would never suggest that these shallow data sources can’t be leveraged for sourcing and recruiting – but my point is that the intrinsic probability that any particular non-resume search result is qualified for your hiring needs is LOW.

This is because less data means less information available to be gleaned about the potential candidate – leaving us with little to no idea as to their professional experience and qualifications, and even specific location in many cases.

Expect a Return on your Time Invested

Maybe some sourcers and recruiters like to find and contact lots of people because they get paid to just be social and make lots of friends online.

Maybe some companies think it’s productive and cost effective to sift through and contact large quantities of people who aren’t qualified for, would not be interested in, and/or would not commute (or relo!) to the opportunity they are being sourced/identified for.

I certainly don’t! Who does anyway?

Wait – please don’t raise your hand (not you – that other person).

As shallow sources of information, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and practically all sources of non-resume human capital data on the Internet simply don’t have much professional-experience/qualification-relevant information.

Less and incomplete data doesn’t really make for a heavily leverageable information system.

At least not when it comes to talent identification where it’s more than helpful to know a little bit about someone’s experience before you contact them.

Value to the Candidate?

Candidates generally appreciate being contacted for opportunities that are in their “ballpark” when it comes to location and responsibilities.

Most candidates don’t appreciate being contacted for opportunities that aren’t.

Think about this for a second – what VALUE are you providing to people that you find and contact using shallow sources of human capital data when they are in fact not even remotely qualified or interested in your opportunity?

Most people don’t appreciate being contacted by recruiters only to end up being used as a tool in your networking/referral recruiting efforts because you didn’t have enough information about them to possibly provide anything of value to them.

Yes, I remember the days of just picking up the phone and calling people with little to no information – but take a second to answer this question: Is this kind of practice and process the best and highest ROI method of sourcing and recruiting?I think not.

Critical Candidate Matching Variables

Deeper and more detailed human capital data enables more precise and controlled searches, allowing sourcers and recruiters to be able to make an educated decision to contact people based on capability and experience rather than blind faith or a guess based on perhaps a title alone.

With resumes or fully fleshed out LinkedIn profiles, a talented sourcer or recruiter can effectively control critical candidate variables such as location, potential opportunity match, and experience/capability – including years of experience, which can tie into compensation.

Sourcing Test: Which Person is More Likely to be Interested and Qualified?

Here is a dramatic and certainly more practical example of deep vs. shallow human capital data: If you were responsible for filling a position for a Business Analyst with energy industry experience and specific experience working on SAP projects and using UML, which of the following people has the higher probability of being both qualified and interested in your opportunity?

Person #1: LinkedIn Profile

Person #2: Twitter Bio

The contrast is dramatic.

The LinkedIn profile is essentially filled out as completely as a resume would be, and as such, we can feel confident when contacting this person because their experience appears to closely align with our opportunity, and even if they aren’t recruitable, they’ll have to admit the opportunity was relevant.

The Twitter profile mentions the title of “Business Analyst,” but little else – we have no idea as to this person’s industry or project experience. While we can cross reference the Twitter Bio with LinkedIn, when doing so, we can see by looking at her profile that she does not appear to have any energy industry experience, and we cannot tell if she has any SAP project or UML experience.

If you had a choice between using either an information system that had shallow data on the people contained within, or an information system that had deep data on the people contained within - and you could only choose one – which would you choose and why?

I know which one I would choose – all things being equal, I would choose the information system with the deep and more complete human capital data.

That way, I can run creative and effective queries to search for, find, and contact people based on specific experience and qualifications. Why would anyone choose any different?

Final Thoughts

You can find and hire people by searching any source of human capital data – resume or otherwise.

However, searching Facebook, Twitter, Google+, blogs, the Internet and other similarly shallow sources of human capital data requires a higher amount of effort for a smaller return – what I call low yield sourcing and recruiting.

While there is undoubtedly more shallow human capital data than deep human capital data, does it sound like a good idea to go out of your way to focus on low yield sourcing and recruiting?

When it comes to proactive candidate sourcing (e.g., searching for people and not posting jobs and waiting for responses), I’d argue that the deep sources of human capital data such as resume databases, applicant tracking systems, LinkedIn, and Internet resumes are responsible for producing 80% of the search based sourcing and recruiting results (hires).

Conversely, the shallow sources of human capital data such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and and non-resume Internet research produce 20% of the active-search based sourcing and recruiting results. You essentially have two paths:

1. Find and contact more uninterested and unqualified people
2. Find and contact more interested and qualified people

Which one will you take?

Does your employer give you a choice?

Do these quotes sound familiar?

• “People are our greatest asset.”
• “The only real sustainable competitive advantage of any company is the recruitment and retention of great people.”
• “Talent is our #1 priority as a company.”
• “Your technologies, products and structures can be copied by competitors, but your people can’t be.”
• “No matter what kind of business you are in, having the right people determines your company’s success or failure.”
• “The ability to find and hire the right people can make or break your business. It is as plain as that. No matter where you are in the life cycle of your business, bringing in great talent should always be a top priority.” – Michael Dell

How many times have you read or heard something similar?

The ubiquitous “people are our greatest asset” sentiment sounds good, and no doubt feels good to say, but whenever I hear or read it, the first question that comes to my mind is “What are you doing to ensure that you are identifying and acquiring the right people?”

If you believe that finding and acquiring top talent is your #1 priority, then I have a few questions for you.

Critical Questions for Sourcers and Recruiters

• What do you do on a consistent basis to ensure that you are finding and recruiting top talent – the best people that can be found?
• Do you have a strategy to find the best candidates?
• Once you have identified a candidate who is a match for the need you are sourcing and/or recruiting for, how do you know they are a good candidate beyond the skills and experience match?
• Are the people you find the best people you can find, or the first people you could find, or the easiest people for you to find?
• Do you think that the people who apply to your jobs posted online are the best candidates available? How would you know?
• What is your strategy to find great people that your competitors can’t and don’t find?

Critical Questions for Companies

• If talent is your #1 priority, where does your investment in talent identification and acquisition rank compared to all other corporate expenditures? (Payroll doesn’t count)
• How much does your company spend on business intelligence applications and data warehousing? (Ballpark estimate will do)
• Do you think that acquiring and analyzing customer, product, sales, etc., data in order to make better business decisions is more important to your company’s long term success than acquiring and analyzing human capital data to make better hiring decisions?
• How much does your company spend on applications and technologies that enable your company to discover and identify great people? (Most ATS’s and CRM’s don’t count)
• Do you have a budget for sourcing and recruiting technology and process R&D?
• What is your talent identification and acquisition strategy? (Posting jobs and soliciting referrals doesn’t count – more on this in a bit)

Talent Attraction & Referrals vs. Talent Discovery and Identification

Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great, has said that many companies think that a cunning strategy or great performance will attract the right applicants, but that’s backward – people must come first.

I could not agree more.

Talent attraction, whether it be in the form of employer branding efforts, posting jobs online or social recruiting via social media, is not a method of discovering and identifying talent that involves any assurance of or control over candidate quality.

Soliciting referrals from current employees is generally accepted as a sound talent discovery strategy, and many companies publish data that suggests that referrals do tend to be “higher quality” and have a higher retention rate. I think this is mostly due to the fact that people typically avoid referring others that would reflect poorly upon themselves, so the selection process does have a bit of built-in candidate quality control.

However, while we all know that referrals are a great source of hires, are referrals really the best people you or your organization are capable of finding?

Soliciting employees for referrals is one of the easiest and lowest cost methods of talent discovery, so it’s no wonder it’s so popular as a method of talent discovery. However, referral recruiting isn’t guaranteed to net you the best people available to be found if you really tried.

Referral recruiting can only yield you people that someone in your organization knows, and the right or best people are not always already known to someone in your company.

Talent attraction efforts and soliciting referrals have their place – I’m not challenging that. However, companies that claim that talent is their #1 priority need to incorporate a strategy of talent discovery and identification that involves actively researching and hunting for top talent – specifically those great people who:

1. Are not already known to someone in your company and cannot be referred to you
2. Are doing an excellent job for their current employer and won’t ever “see” employer branding or a job posting even if it was placed directly in front of them

Investing in Talent Discovery and Identification

Jim Collins has said, “People are not your most important asset. The right people are.”

Practically all technologies, products and services can be copied and rarely remain a company’s competitive advantage for long. Being able to consistently find and hire the right people is truly the only means by which a company can attain a sustainable competitive advantage, regardless of industry.

Spending time and money on posting jobs, social recruiting efforts, and executing a sound referral recruiting strategy will always yield candidates, but they are not enough to ensure that you are discovering the best people that can be found and identified.

While many companies think it’s logical and necessary to invest large sums of money and effort into business intelligence applications to analyze product, customer, sales and all other kinds of data, too few companies invest anything beyond trivial amounts of money and effort into technologies, applications and research that can help them actively acquire and analyze human capital data to make better hiring decisions and create a sustainable competitive advantage.

So what are you doing to ensure that you are identifying and acquiring the best people for your company?

Although I’ve often joked about the concept of anti-social recruiting (as if there was anything other than “social” recruiting), anti-social recruiting does exist, and it is unknowingly practiced by many people and top companies as well.

Confused?

Allow me to explain.

“Social,” as defined by Merriam Webster, is “…the interaction of the individual and the group,” and “tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships.”

What most people refer to as “social recruiting” is the use of social media and social networking sites to find, engage, communicate and build relationships with potential candidates with the intent to network and recruit.

However, simply using social media is not enough. Social media has the potential for social interaction, but is not automatically or intrinsically “social,” defined as interactive. For something to be interactive, by the very definition of the word, it must be “mutually or reciprocally active” and involve two-way communication (e.g., a phone conversation).

Not all people and not all companies using social media in their recruiting efforts are actually engaging in two-way communication with potential candidates. However, the two-way engagement, communication and relationship building is (and always has been) the ”social” part of recruiting.

Anti-Social Recruiting

To be antisocial is to not be interactive, and to not form relationships.

If, as I suggested earlier, recruiting has always been social, how can anti-social recruiting even exist? Unfortunately, quite easily. Anti-social recruiting exists whenever their is a lack of interaction.

Here are a few examples of anti-social recruiting:

• When a company fails to respond to someone posting a question or comment on their Facebook page, LinkedIn group, or Twitter stream, they are performing anti-social recruiting. Oh the irony!
• Any time an individual or organization fails to respond to or even recognize any response to one of their job postings, they are performing anti-social recruiting. Automated emails may technically be “responses,” but I don’t know of a single job seeker that would consider automated email confirmations “social.”
• Any time a person submits their resume and fills out an online application and never receives a response, the company is performing anti-social recruiting.
• When a company using Twitter has 1000′s of followers and is only following a handful of people, they are performing anti-social recruiting.
• Any time someone interviews for a position and never receives any real feedback from the recruiter or company, they are experiencing anti-social recruiting.
• Whenever someone’s resume or social networking profile is automatically captured and added to a company’s database and they are never contacted, they are experiencing anti-social recruiting.
• Any recruiter who speaks to a candidate only once, submits the candidate’s resume to their hiring manager/client and never contacts the candidate again (the #1 complaint about recruiters, BTW) is performing anti-social recruiting.

In all of the above cases, there is a lack of interaction and an absence of forming cooperative and interdependent relationships with potential candidates.

That’s anti-social.

Bright Shiny Object

I’ve seen people react negatively to the concept of social recruiting being compared to a bright shiny object, but I believe it to be quite apt. The term doesn’t carry an intrinsically negative connotation – being a bright and shiny object isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it simply describes attention paid to newer and more “interesting” things at the expense of being distracted from other things, typically those older and more familiar (and thus dull, I suppose).

I believe a side effect of all of the attention being paid to the use of social media in recruiting efforts is that focus has been taken away from the as-yet-to-be-resolved lack of the “social” element of more traditional recruiting methods and strategies.

I don’t think anyone or any company has ever truly “solved” the challenge of the anti-social nature of job posting and (lack of) response. Applicant Tracking Systems are by-and-large still the “black holes” from which no response escapes that they have always been.

Job seekers are still complaining that they don’t hear back from recruiters and companies after applying for positions (whether they are posted on corporate websites, Indeed, job boards, Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn), posting questions on corporate Facebook pages, tweeting comments in corporate Twitter streams, being submitted to hiring managers and even after interviewing.

I surely cannot be the only person who is scratching his head at the excitement and effort being poured into using social media for recruiting when most recruiters and corporations can’t even get the basics right with more traditional methods.

That’s the bright shiny object syndrome in effect.

People are trying to figure out how to use Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter for more effective recruiting, yet they still haven’t figured out how to effectively leverage their applicant tracking systems.

What about the tens of thousands to the millions of people (yes, many major corporations have millions of candidates in their databases) who have either already expressed interest in a company by applying and submitting their resume and application? These are people who have already taken the first step in reaching out to a company, expressing interest in becoming employees – why aren’t companies focusing on getting good at being social and reciprocating with this huge candidate population?

It seems more than a little backwards to me to focus heavily on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn when most companies haven’t figured out how to be more social and interactive with their applicants.

Final Thoughts

I think that recruiters and corporations should seek to bring more “social” (two-way interaction and engagement) to ALL of their recruiting efforts, and not solely focus on being “social” through Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

As much energy and effort should be spent on trying to figure out how to improve the historically anti-social nature of job posting and lack of response, applicants being sucked into black hole ATS’s, and poor follow up communications with candidates pre/post-submittal and interview.

No aspect of recruiting is social unless it involves “mutually or reciprocally active” two-way communication, regardless of the medium.

So the next time you’re reading about or discussing anything recruiting related – ask this simple question: Does it involve two-way, interactive communication?

If it doesn’t, it isn’t social.

While attending the Social Recruiting Summit in Minneapolis back in May, I made specific note of a common sentiment expressed by recruiting representatives of two social recruiting powerhouses – Best Buy and Facebook: They don’t have any trouble attracting people, but they do have a tough time attracting the right people.

Recruiters in attendance scoffed at the thought that these two great companies with fantastic brands would have problems attracting talent.

However, I wasn’t surprised – not in the least. And I’ll tell you why.

Talent Attraction Offers Very Little Control

Talent attraction efforts, social media-based or otherwise, offer a near-total lack of control over precisely who gets attracted.

Having a great corporate brand coupled with a great employer brand will draw strong interest and response, but it doesn’t give you the ability to choose who you attract, whether they come in the form of referrals, ad responses, or resume submissions.

Talent Attraction Efforts are Passive and Non-Selective

Talent attraction is an intrinsically passive and non-selective strategy. Even if you use a state of the art interactive recruiting solution that pushes your content all over the Internet in a highly targeted manner (inasmuch as such efforts are limited to surface-level targeting), you have no control over who actually sees, perceives, or acts upon your content (jobs, tweets, Facebook/YouTube videos, etc.).

That’s right – even if you can be guaranteed to get your content in front of precisely the right people (and you can’t), it doesn’t mean they will actually “see” your content, even if their look directly at it, let alone take action.

Why?

Passive and Non-Job Seekers Don’t “See” Employer / Employment Content

The majority of people – approximately 66% – aren’t really looking for a job, or even thinking about making a change.

People who are not really looking to make a change in their employment tend to not even perceive employment-related content.

If you just bought a vehicle, or perhaps if you just like your current vehicle – do you notice car ads? Sure – if you’re into cars. But to someone who isn’t specifically interested in cars, they will not even register a car advertisement, no matter how interesting or compelling. Even if they were to “see” a car advertisement for a vehicle that they found highly appealing – how often do you think they would take a decisive action to buy that specific vehicle if they didn’t actually need a new one?

Changing jobs is a stressful event – supposedly one of the most stressful events that can occur in your life, along with getting married, moving your home, getting divorced, and coping with the death of a loved one.

No matter how compelling the employer branding content/message, as a passive strategy, a recruiter/employer is leaving the decision to act or not to act in the hands of the potential candidate.

If changing jobs is a highly stressful event, even for active job seekers, imagine how difficult is actually is to not only get someone who really isn’t looking to make a change in their employment to #1 actually perceive employer branding/job content, and #2 take specific action on it.

It’s a shame that too few sourcers and recruiters take the time to think about what the world looks like through the eyes of a passive or non-job seeking “A” player.

Don’t Just Set Traps – Go Hunting!

Relying heavily on pushing content and hoping that the right people see it and actually take action upon it will leave you constantly struggling to attract enough of the right people. Companies need to put just as much, if not more energy and effort into taking an active role in seeking out and identifying, contacting, engaging, and recruiting the right people – whether they’re looking for a new job or not.

Searching for people is an active strategy that is a selective process which affords you the ability to precisely control who you find, engage and recruit. Directly messaging and calling the right people who you’ve specifically searched for and identified puts the power of action in the hands of the sourcer/recruiter.

Well over half of the people I’ve recruited were “not looking” when I found them and made contact. Those are hires that would never have happened had I waited for them to notice my content and take action (or not!) or be referred to me.

Final Thoughts

While the “war for talent” would be a whole lot easier if simply placing employer branding content and jobs in front of people via social media and traditional channels would net you large quantities of the right talent, it simply doesn’t work that way, nor will it ever.

It can’t.

Talent attraction strategies and tactics, regardless of the medium utilized, are passive and non-selective strategies and afford no control over who is attracted.

Of course, every employer should post jobs and publish employer branding content via social media to attract talent – it works, especially for people who are actively and casually looking for new employment opportunities.

But if you’re having trouble attracting enough of the right people, don’t just sit back and hope for them to notice and take action in response to your posting or your Twitter/LinkedIn/Facebook content, or to be referred to you – take initiative and control and go find and engage them.

Because the majority of the right people won’t come to you, and they’re certainly not seriously thinking of taking action to make a change in employment.

I feel a moral obligation to weigh in on “social recruiting” again.

I’m not trying to be a buzzkill – but with the continuing swell of momentum and hype that social recruiting is building up, someone has to play the devil’s advocate, refuse to become a victim of BSO (Bright Shiny Object) syndrome, and jump off of the bandwagon to be the voice of objective reason amidst the din of social recruiting cheerleading.

From the many blog posts I am seeing on the subject to the webinars I see popping up frequently, it’s clear that many people see social recruiting as a branding and/or money making opportunity for them.

On the flip side of the coin, there are many people who seem ready to view social recruiting as “the next big thing” and are eager to absorb (and pay for) the message that if you’re not performing “social recruiting” you’re behind the curve, you’ll be left behind, your competitors will laugh at your antiquated recruiting methods, and you’ll never make another hire.

Okay, maybe I’m getting a little dramatic with the last part(s).

But you get the point.

While social media/networking has undeniably added a new dimension to recruiting, it’s important to know that the emergence and evolution of LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and other sites have not changed many fundamental aspects of recruiting.

First, You Should Know That…

I use social media – I blog, use LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook, and I’ve made and facilitated hires using them. I train recruiters on how to successfully recruit using every tool and resource available to them – including social media. I work with many recruiters who regularly use LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook to identify, engage, and recruit candidates – and yes…get results. One recruiter recently made 3 placements in a month using Facebook. 

So I am no stranger to “social recruiting.” I just don’t like to call it that.

What Social Networks HAVE Changed In Recruiting

Access and Engagement

It’s never been easier in the history of recruiting to find and communicate with potential candidates and we’ve never had such easy access to them. The “Big 3″ social networks afford recruiters with unfettered access to 10′s to 100′s of millions of people that they can find, communicate with, engage, and build relationships with. 

For free. That’s a BIG deal.

Listening

Social media allows recruiters the unprecedented ability to listen to/observe their target talent pool prior to making contact or engaging them.

Marketing

While social networks give companies fantastic new opportunities and mediums for employer branding – that’s social media marketing - NOT social recruiting, as far as I am concerned. Although marketing and recruiting often go hand in hand, they are two very separate and distinct concepts.

Talent Communities

LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and other online social networks can easily and effectively be used to create and/or tap into talent communities of like-skilled/minded professionals.

However, one could easily argue that this isn’t a new concept at all (let’s not forget about BBS’s) – but social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and others definitely put a sexier spin on it along with more functionality. 

What Social Networks Have NOT Changed In Recruiting

Job Posting

Yes – you have many options for posting jobs today aside from the job boards (which are supposed to be dying or dead, just as job boards were supposed to have killed recruiting agencies and executive search 10+ years ago).

You can post jobs on Facebook (manually, through services, and apps), on LinkedIn (paid or free in groups and status updates), and Twitter (manually, automatically through feeds, and through services).

So who cares?

Yes – you should be posting your jobs wherever they can be potentially seen by your target talent population.

However, posting jobs is posting jobs, regardless of where or how they are posted.

As I have written before, posting jobs is a passive and reactive talent acquisition strategy, affords no control over candidate qualifications, attracts active and casual job seekers only (the minority of all people), and is ineffective at snagging passive and non-job seekers.

Plus, posting jobs to social networks via social media is not ”social recruiting,” it’s social job posting.

Would you even say that job posting is really “recruiting” anyway?

Engagement

While social media and social networks do give recruiters a new medium through which they can engage and interact with potential candidates, communicating electronically/digitally is not revolutionary and is definitely not limited to social networks. 

Is an InMail, Twitter DM, or Facebook message any more “social” and engaging than an email? And where do most of those social media messages end up? In the person’s email inbox.

Which would you say is more engaging – a Twitter conversation, or a phone conversation?

You Still Have to Talk to People

Social media gives recruiters and employers one more medium through which they can interact with potential candidates. However, social networking sites such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook are neither replacements nor prerequisites for telephonic or in-person communication.

Just because you can, is it really necessary to use a social network to message or interact with a potential candidate before speaking with them over the phone?

Social

Recruiting has always been social – social networks did NOT put the “social” into recruiting.

Which is more “social” – having an exchange via Facebook/LinkedIn group or Twitter chat, or talking to someone on the phone or in person?

Talent Identification

While LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and other social networking/media sites afford sourcers, recruiters and employers with unprecedented access to millions of potential candidates, some sites aren’t very searchable and most social profiles are very shallow sources of professional information.

Facebook is well-nigh unsearchable, for all practical intents and purposes (at least for anything more specific than a keyword or phrase), and very few people list employers, titles, and other information that would give you any sense of what a person does, how much experience they have, and what they are capable of doing.

Twitter has 160 character bios where some people will give away clues as to what they do professionally, but many don’t. Also, a great many people simply don’t tweet about what they do for a living. 

Categorized as the most “professional” social network, while some LinkedIn profiles are fleshed out nearly as well as a typical resume, most contain employers and titles and little-to-nothing else. While that level of information can certainly be used for some degree of talent identification, it’s not as effective, efficient, nor as accurate as using deeper sources of data such as resumes (like the ones in your ATS/CRM – you know, the ones from people who at some point expressed interest in your company?).

While social networks have given recruiters unprecedented access to more people than ever in the history of recruitment – simply having access does not grant the ability to find and identify the right (and best!) people easily, quickly, or at all. If anything, having more access to more potential candidates only stresses the importance of good search skills.

Point to ponder – just because a recruiter uses a social network to find a potential candidate, does that mean they are performing “social recruiting?” For example, if you search LinkedIn, find a potential candidate, join a group they are in and send them a message – is that any more “social recruiting” than searching your ATS/CRM or an online resume database and emailing the candidate? 

What if you find someone on LinkedIn and you research the main number for the company listed as their current employer and give them a call – is that any more “social recruiting” than searching your ATS/CRM or an online resume database and calling a candidate?

Is one of those methods more effective than the other?

Final Thoughts

Social media and social networks that enable and facilitate social interaction have unquestionably given recruiters unprecedented access to and the ability communicate with large populations of potential candidates where they live online, but social media is no more “social” than attending a user group/networking event or simply picking up the phone and speaking with a potential candidate.

The “human element” of recruiting – effectively communicating and building relationships with candidates, understanding candidate motivators, consultative selling, etc. – none of these have been changed or altered by the emergence of social media.

I fear that “Social Recruiting” has become it’s own box that recruiters and employers need to think outside of.

Hasn’t recruiting always been social?

Do you really need to use Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn to be a “social recruiter?”

I say that recruiting is recruiting – by any means available, applicable, and necessary, no matter how it is accomplished (ethically, professionally, and respectably – of course) or through which tool/medium. I don’t see how anything is gained by slapping another label on it.

Imagine that you were just assigned a position to recruit for and that you needed to present 2 fully screened, highly qualified and well matched candidates within 5 business days.

Your manager/client is requesting candidates with:

• 3-5 years of related work experience (your choice – something not too vanilla/easy/common, but not ”purple squirrel” either)
• Experience in a specific industry, and experience working in a similar environment (size/scale/team/software, etc.)  to the manager’s/client’s
• Bachelor’s degree in a related discipline

Furthermore, let’s say that you don’t have any qualified candidates in your pipeline, so you are essentially starting from scratch.

Under those conditions and assumptions, if you were limited to only 1 method/specific source for identifying candidates to contact, engage and recruit, which would you choose, and why? 

Please Respond to the (100% Anonymous!) Poll

Why Would You Choose That Method/Source?

Okay, this part isn’t so anonymous.

I’m interested to know exactly why you would choose that specific source/method of talent identification.

I believe the question ultimately boils down to which source/method do you believe has the highest probability of enabling you to produce the 2 fully screened, highly qualified and well matched candidates within 5 business days.

Would your answer be the same if you had to produce the candidates within 48 hours?

What about 24 hours?

How about same-day?

What – does that sound crazy to you? If you’ve never had a manager or client ask you to produce candidates same-day before, it actually happens quite often (to me, more times than I can count!).

I’m looking forward to your responses and supporting arguments as to which source/method you would use and why, and you can expect me to challenge them. If I get a good number of responses - I’ll share with you what MY answer would be.

Bring it!

Overwhelmed by the sheer volume of sourcing, recruiting, social recruiting and HR blogs?

I know I am - a new recruiting blog seems to pop up almost daily!

So how can anyone possibly stay on top of all of them? Subscribing via email? Using an RSS reader?  

My initial approach to not missing a post from my favorite recruiting bloggers was to use Google’s Reader. However, I found that over time, I simply stopped reviewing all of the posts and articles that were piling up.  Admittedly, my Google Reader is now essentially a dumping ground.

I switched to email subscriptions, but I found that to be equally unmanageable.

Then, not too long ago, I stumbled across a couple of interesting sites - Alltop and POPURLS - and I started to think…why not create a similar site that is focused 100% on aggregating sourcing, recruiting, social recruiting, and HR blogs?

So I did create one - and thus Recruiting Pulse was born.

Recruiting Pulse features the most recent 3 posts from over 50 sourcing, recruiting, social recruiting, HR, and UK recruiting blogs. On the main page, you will find a mix of 40+ blogs from all categories.

At the bottom of the page, you will find links to pages where blogs are arranged by category:

• HR Blogs
• Recruiting Blogs
• Social Recruiting Blogs
• Sourcing Blogs
• UK Recruiting Blogs

So What’s the Big Deal?

I didn’t say it was a big deal. :-)

I simply created the site as a blog post dashboard of sorts to enable people (including myself, I must admit) to easily stay on top of the content generated by over 50 of the top sourcing, recruiting, social recruiting and UK recruiting blogs.

Mouse over a link and you can see the beginning of each post.

If you like what you see, you can click the link to be taken directly to the entire post.

It’s that easy.

A Work In Progress

I did not intend to make Recruiting Pulse a site that tracks every last sourcing, recruiting and HR blog in existence – that would defeat the purpose of what I am trying to accomplish.

To keep it manageable, I chose a combination of blogs from HR Examiner’s Top 25 lists and some blogs I read on a regular basis written by people I respect.

However, I am open to suggestions – so please feel free to let me know if there is a high quality sourcing, recruiting, or HR blog you think should be added to the site and I will take it into consideration.

I must say there are a few well known sourcing/recruiting blogs that I wanted to add to Recruiting Pulse, but I could not find an RSS feed for their blog (which is odd), and I found some Ning-based sites that only offered a “recent activity” feed as opposed to feeds for posts or discussions.

If you are a blog author and don’t see your blog on any of the pages of Recruiting Pulse – please let me know if you would like to be added. I can’t promise to add every blog/site as I am looking to keep Recruiting Pulse to a relatively reasonable size. However, I am open to adding blogs with quality content and at least weekly posts.

I do plan to modify the site in the future to feature even more specialized categories (e.g., global recruiting) – so let me know if you have any ideas there.

I hope at least a few people find the site helpful!

You’re on LinkedIn – congratulations!

So, how big is your network?

Without going into a rant on quality vs. quantity (who says we can’t have BOTH?), let’s take a different angle on the size of your LinkedIn network…at your current company, where do you rank in terms of number of connections?

Do you know off the top of your head? Why not?

If you don’t know where you rank at your current company in terms of LinkedIn network connections, here’s how to find out:

How to Find Out Where You Rank In Your Current Company

Go to LinkedIn advanced search and enter in your company in the company field and select “current.”

Then, change the “sort by” from the default of “relevance” to “connections” and hit “search.”

Voila! Now you know where you stand in your company in terms of LinkedIn network size. When I perform that exercise, I can see I am currently the most connected person in my firm.

It’s actually kind of fun to check on other companies to see who the most connected person is:

For example – Deloitte. No surprise here.

Try it yourself – check out some companies, peers, and competitors and see who the top 10 most connected are. You’ll find it’s not alway who you would expect!

If someone claims to be a social recruiting “expert,” IMHO they had better be #1 in their company, or at the very least not behind anyone NOT in recruiting.

How Do YOU Rank?

So, I ask again – where do you rank in terms of number of connections with regard to other people in your organization?

Are you #1? If yes – nice work! It means you’ve taken an active role in building your LinkedIn network. Of course, it could also simply be that no one else in your organization leverages LinkedIn effectively.

If you’re NOT #1 in your company, why not, and who is?

Free LinkedIn Accounts vs. Premium LinkedIn Accounts

As a reader of my blog, I’m assuming you fit somewhere in the sourcing/recruiting/talent acquisition space – and having a decent sized network on LinkedIn allows you to run searches taking full advantage of LinkedIn’s search interface instead of having to resort to the imprecise science of X-Ray searching LinkedIn to view results of people outside of your network.

I say imprecise science because when you attempt to target current titles and/or companies via an X-Ray search of LinkedIn, you’re not actually finding all of the available results. Trust me – you’re not.

Of course, if you have a premium account with LinkedIn or you have access to LinkedIn Recruiter or LinkedIn Recruiter Professional Services,  you may be able to see more (even all) search results.

However, that still doesn’t answer the question as to why you don’t have the largest LinkedIn network of connections when compared to your peers in your current organization.

It’s Not a Contest

No – it’s not a contest to see who can build the biggest LinkedIn network, and there is no magic number of connections you need to have. 

However, LinkedIn isn’t Facebook – it’s primarily a professional networking site. You don’t have to be best friends with someone to include them in your network. In fact, many would argue that it’s beneficial to network with people on LinkedIn you don’t know personally because of the simple fact that it expands your network reach and view.

Is connecting with someone you don’t personally know really any different than going to a live, in-person networking event (or seminar, or conference, etc.) and receiving a list of the contact information of everyone who attended, whether you had a chance to mingle with them or not?

Is having the ability to easily reach out to and network with people you don’t know any less “social” than networking only with people you already know?

It could easily be argued that it’s anti-social to not connect with people you haven’t already met, spoken with, or exchanged online messages with.

Not connecting with someone unless you already “know” them just like having a rule that you won’t talk to someone over the phone unless you’ve already met them in person. Who is to judge what connection has to be made first (phone/in-person/email/LinkedIn)?

Final Thoughts

Do you have to be the most connected person in your company when it comes to LinkedIn? Of course not.

However, it’s a worthy excerise to examine why and how someone else in your company has a bigger network than you, especially if they aren’t in some kind of talent identification and acquisition role (doh!).

If you happen to benefit from an employer that affords you premium access to LinkedIn (e.g., LinkedIn Recruiter) – what happens if you leave your current employer and join a company that doesn’t have LinkedIn Recruiter?

For those who only have a free account on LinkedIn – having a large network can mean not having to run an X-Ray search 95% of the time, regardless of location or skillset searched for. Without a premium account, the question may ultimately be what percent of the LinkedIn database do you want to be able to “see” without having to resort to X-Ray searching?

Connecting with people on LinkedIn with relevant skills and experience (i.e., your target talent pool), whether you already ”know” them or not, has obvious benefits.

However, the benefits of connecting with people who don’t have relevant skills and experience (i.e., NOT your target talent pool) aren’t so obvious. In fact – some people would say it doesn’t make sense to connect with people who aren’t in your target talent pool.

Those people obviously don’t understand the nature of LinkedIn’s 3 degrees of separation – which works magic in many cases! Sometimes it takes connecting to the “wrong people” to get connected to the “right people.”

Contemplate.

I’m very much an anti-hype, anti-bandwagon person.

I neither like to nor want to get caught in the undertow of the emotional rush associated with being excited about something that nearly everyone else seems to be excited about, where everyone celebrates the new and “cool factor” with little-to-no critical thought.

When that next bright and shiny object comes along, it’s all too easy to be blinded by it.

Rest assured I have not been blinded by #socialrecruiting. I’ve been using social media for a little while now (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and blogging), purposefully remaining calm and collected on the subject - choosing to explore the true potential rather than get caught up in the hype. 

So whether you’re a social recruiting evangelist, hater or n00b (I’ve been all 3, not necessarily in that order), you’ll find some value in this post because I am going to strip away all of the hype surrounding social recruiting, demystify it, and cut straight to the heart of the real opportunities associated with using social media for sourcing and recruiting.

So What’s the Big Deal About Social Media and Recruiting?

Many people want to know - what exactly IS the big deal?

Well, from my perspective, the advent of social media affords sourcers and recruiters with easy and unprecented levels of access to more people than ever in the history of recruiting.

For free.

Using just the “Big 3” social networks, recruiters have the ability to find, communicate with, engage, and build relationships with well over 100,000,000 million in the U.S. alone.

That’s kind of a big deal.

Hasn’t Recruiting Always Been “Social?”

That’s always been my question! As if there ever was antisocial recruiting?

“Social recruiting” is simply the use of social media and social networking sites to find, engage, communicate and build relationships with potential candidates with the intent to network and recruit.

Yep, it’s that simple.

However, using social media to communicate and build relationships with potential candidates is no more “social” than using the phone to do the same thing, or actually doing it live and in person (that still happens, right?).

To demystify social recruiting, it is simply the use of specialized Internet-based technologies and websites to perform the same standard and basic recruiting practices that have been conducted over the phone and in person for decades - finding candidates, initiating contact and engaging candidates, and building relationships with candidates.

Social Recruiting: Finding vs. Attracting

Suppose you only use a social network such as LinkedIn to find potential candidates, and you use other means to initiate contact and engage them - isn’t that social recruiting?

Social recruiting purists would say no – that using social media only to identify candidates but not to communicate with them isn’t “social recruiting.”

I don’t think it’s so black-and-white an issue.

If I identify a potential candidate on Facebook or Twitter, cross reference them on LinkedIn to find out where they might currently work, use the phone to initiate contact with them, then invite them to connect with me on Twitter and LinkedIn as an additional way for me to stay in touch with them - is that not social recruiting?

I’ll let you decide, but I think the answer is obvious.

Isn’t Social Media Just a Big Waste of Time?

Can a recruiter waste a lot of time using social networking sites? Most definitely. But don’t be silly – social networks don’t waste time, people do.

Carol Rozewell, a VP/Distinguished Analyst at Gartner, explained brilliantly in her “Resisting Social Media is Futile” blog post that, “An employee wasting time on social media is a performance problem. Don’t blame it on social media. Productive employees are too busy with work to spend lots of time in social media having personal conversations. Instead, they use social media as a means to get their work done.”

Enough said.

Social Recruiting Doesn’t Work For Everyone

When it comes to social recruiting – one size does not fit all.

If you’re hiring Information Technology professionals, you can easily use social media for recruiting and get results.   That’s because there are many I.T. professionals using social media.

However, social recruiting won’t work so well for you if a large percentage of your target talent pool isn’t using social media. For example, Jerry Albright has observed that many groups of candidates seem nowhere to be found on Twitter. Jerry’s a recruiter, he’s social, he blogs, he’s on Twitter- and yet recruiting with Twitter still eludes him for one simple reason: the kinds of people he typically recruits for are scarce on Twitter.

When it comes to fishing – you go where the fish are.

When it comes to recruiting – you need to go where the people are. If the people you need to recruit aren’t on certain social networks, you obviously don’t need to go there to be a successful recruiter and to get results.

Social Recruiting at the Corporate Level

Companies have an unprecendented ability to engage millions of potential candidates where they live online – at little to no cost.

As I said before – when you’re recruiting, you go where the candidates are. When you can create a Facebook Fan Page to represent your corporate brand, socialize your hiring needs, communicate hiring events and post videos to attract talent for free on a site where there are over 130,000,000 monthly unique visitors from the U.S. alone (sorry, www.compete.com only shows U.S. data), why wouldn’t you?

When you can create a corporate Twitter profile for free to communicate in real time with 1,000′s of people who are interested in your company, why wouldn’t you? 

No-brainers.

However, companies that limit their “social recruiting” efforts largely to posting jobs on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn aren’t really performing social recruiting in my opinion. Job posting is job posting – there’s nothing “social” about it.  

Final Thoughts

Social media and social networks that enable and facilitate social interaction have without a doubt given recruiters unprecedented access to large populations of potential candidates where they live online, but social media is no more “social” than attending a user group/networking event or simply picking up the phone and speaking with a potential candidate.

Social media simply gives sourcers, recruiters, and employers one more way to find and interact with potential candidates - sites such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook are not replacements for in-person or telephonic interaction.

The basics of the “human element” of recruiting - effectively communicating and building relationships with candidates, understanding candidate motivators, consultative selling, etc. – none of these have been changed or altered by the emergence of social media.

Social media and social networks merely give recruiters a 3rd medium through which they can perform the same thing all good recruiters have been doing over the phone and in person for decades. Having said that, I do think that a recruiter or recruiting organization that effectively leverages all 3 mediums (in-person, over the phone, online) will outperform anyone who is only leveraging any 2 of the 3.

If you happen to be a social recruiting non-believer, please know that you aren’t qualified to say that social recruiting doesn’t work for you or your organization unless you’ve actually tried it in the first place, beyond posting jobs on Twitter and LinkedIn groups and creating a Facebook Fan Page.

Bottom line – you should use recruiting methods that work for you and produce the best results - not what the industry is buzzing about.