Skip to main content

Knock, knock knocking on Talent‘s Door

Imagine you were looking to buy a house in a specific neighborhood. The problem, however, is that you have no idea how many houses are in the neighborhood, how many are for sale, the going prices and the demand for these houses. You could post an ad online and ask people to call you. But this strategy is unlikely to generate the response you are looking for. You could retain a realtor but realtors have no information which people are considering listing their house.
I am giving you this analogy because the challenges in recruitment are not very different. 95% of the people that companies look to hire for critical jobs are not looking for a job.
Traditional recruitment doesn’t work because it’s like roaming around the neighborhood knocking on doors, seeing if the owners are interested in selling. Recruiters typically search for talent on LinkedIn and contact people that seem like a good fit. They contact them one by one, hoping one of them will be interested in their offer.
It is sad to acknowledge that after almost 60 years of traditional recruiting (since employers started to pay placement fees) and more than 15 years since LinkedIn was founded, nothing dramatic has changed in the traditional recruitment industry. Recruiters - external and internal - are still roaming around the neighborhood, knocking on doors.
I believe that change is around the corner. New technologies based on AI and machine learning are changing the recruitment landscape. With all information available online, especially on social networks, technology can provide a picture of the talent marketplace for jobs, particularly hard-to-fill jobs.
To start a search, a company should know the available talent pool for its jobs. It should be able to tell how that talent pool is likely to grow or shrink if some of the requirements for the job were to change. For example, how many more candidates would be added to the potential pool if years of experience were reduced from 7 to 5. What would happen if they accepted a candidate who is lacking one skill that can be learned on the job?
Companies should not start a blind search with the hope of striking gold. They should be able to identify the talent that is more likely to change a job and pursue them first. Technology today can help do that.  In my company we often turn down recruitment projects because the data shows us that there are not enough candidates in the market for a particular job that justify our efforts and the companies are unwilling to compromise on their requirements. Sometimes it takes them 6 months for such companies to face reality.
Having the data to pursue an intelligent search is a must but not enough. At 4.1% unemployment rate, there are not enough candidates to fill critical jobs, especially in the tech sector. Still, many companies have not developed recruitment strategies and processes necessary in this reality. Many of them behave as if we are still in 2010 when talent was abundant.
Unfortunately, it is not. The war for talent is over and the talent has won. They dictate the terms of engagement and expect to be treated like celebrities. I have found that the many recruitment processed are flawed, starting with the way companies qualify talent. Often, companies bring candidates to an interview to form an opinion on what kind of candidate they want to hire. There may be several opinions in the organization. HR may have one opinion and the hiring manager another. Rather than developing a dialogue between HR and hiring managers, many companies write job descriptions that are often not in alignment with the current talent pool. One of our clients disqualified a candidate that we submitted just because they were missing one out the 10 skills that the company required. We found this candidate another job in a week and the client had the job unfilled for another 6 months.  
This is a strategy that is likely to lengthen the process and frustrate all stakeholders, including, hiring managers, candidates, and recruiters who work hard to find candidates and bring them to an interview.
I believe the recruitment market is ripe for disruption. With AI and machine learning, internal recruiters and hiring managers no longer need to be experts in search. Instead, they can focus on other mission-critical tasks.
But technology can’t do it alone. Recruitment still needs the human touch. After all, we are dealing with people. We still need human expertise to pre-qualify candidates or even help them put their best foot forward by refining resumes, salary negotiation or interview techniques.
In a market with a serious talent scarcity like we have today, we need to start thinking about how to re-invent recruitment by combining big data tools with human expertise. The time is now to win the war for talent so companies can grow, compete and be successful.

Gal Almog is the CEO and co-founder of Talenya, a technology company that disrupts the recruitment industry using big data, machine learning, and a revolutionary, new business model. www.talenya.com. 



Popular posts from this blog

The Limitation of "Boolean" in Talent Sourcing

I did a search on LinkedIn for a “Java Software Engineer” in New York City. I entered that job title as a keyword (under Job Titles) and LinkedIn suggested that my talent pool was 2,059 candidates. Then I added a skill and my talent pool decreased to 1,956 candidates. When I added another skill, my pool increased. This is the nature of Boolean search. Every candidate that has at least one of the requirements is brought up in the search results. If you want the skills to be additive (X and Y), you need to write a compound Boolean search string rather than just adding the skills from the LinkedIn menu. I wanted to reduce my targeted talent pool and added “years of experience” range. The pool tanked. The same happened when I added “education requirements”. It was not clear what I should do at this point. I didn’t know what to change in my search in order to maximize my pool while maintaining the quality of the candidates in my search results. Was it a specific skill or the combin

Diversity in the workforce – Artificial Intelligence (AI) comes to the rescue

According to a  study  published by McKinsey & Company, every 1% rise in the rate of diversity is associated with an increase in revenues of between 3% and 9%. We all know how important it is to have diversity and inclusion in the workforce, and not only for financial reasons. Yet in the US, some 97% of companies fail to reflect the demographic composition of the country in their senior leadership and workforce.  Most companies want to increase diversity, but unfortunately, the talent sourcing tools that are available today are highly limited, and even discriminatory. There are several reasons for that:  Limited talent pool  - Traditional talent sourcing tools (like LinkedIn) have a limited reach to talent. Candidates are often active on multiple sites and leave important data, to which single source tools lack access. Diversity specific job sites and resume databases are limited to active job seekers, eliminating passive, qualified, and diverse talent. Discriminatory search techni

Why Men Still Get An Unfair Advantage Finding New Jobs

A large scale research of 10 million candidate profiles conducted by Talenya reveals why men still get an unfair advantage finding new job opportunities.   It’s 2020, and women are still being paid 79 cents to the dollar as compared to men, with women making up only 40% of managers. Deep structural problems exist, starting with the hiring process. The problem is twofold - arising both from the way candidates are recruited as well as the presence of implicit bias when viewing candidates. It isn’t that there aren’t qualified women in the pipeline, it’s that recruiters find and accept candidates who write resumes and professional networking profiles in a certain way -- the male way. Discrimination based on how people write their resumes is apparent in both human recruitment and improperly trained AI-powered recruitment systems. Amazon scrapped their recruiting AI after finding that there was gender bias, specifically related to certain language used by male candidates as opposed to fema