Skip to main content

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 combination of specific skills? Was it the years of experience I wanted or the education? The location in which I was looking for talent was the New York metro area, but I was not sure if it included parts of New Jersey and Connecticut. Should I have expanded the location search, or would that bring in irrelevant candidates?

I was willing to compromise on some of my requirements. For example, I could make some of my required skills “important” rather than “must have”, but I was not sure which skills to change. I was not sure which requirement will give me the biggest impact on my talent pool. I had to try it one by one, but I had too many alternatives.

This is a common experience for recruiters who spend hours trying different alternatives for Boolean searches on LinkedIn and other traditional tools.

With the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), that should no longer be the case. Technology has been used for many years to identify and optimize intangible value among alternatives being evaluated. This practice of evaluating novel goods is called “Shadow Pricing”. It is the estimated price for something that is not normally priced in the market. Shadow Pricing is inexact, as it relies on subjective assumptions.

Since it is impossible to assign a precise quantitative value to an intangible benefit or cost (such as an increased talent pool or a change in years of experience), AI assigns a shadow price to each parameter in order to evaluate cost versus benefit and optimize the benefits with minimal cost.

Software invented by Talenya can take a job description and assign a Shadow Price to each of the requirements. It can then show to the recruiter or the hiring managers a set of profiles that represent its understanding of the type of talent that they are looking for and solicit their feedback on how qualified each candidate is to the job. The software can then re-calibrate the search based on the value that the user is associating with each requirement, based on their feedback on profiles.

This allows the software to optimize the search and provide the user with possible search criteria that optimize between candidate quality and talent pool reality. It shows the user possible compromises that they may make in order to have a reasonable talent pool to pursue. A click of a button will apply such changes to the search.

When done properly, it is the story of collaboration between Sourcers and AI Bots, rather than a point of friction between recruiters and hiring managers.


Popular posts from this blog

Why companies can't hire Data Scientists?

There are about 2,500 Data Scientists in Boston. displays 1,643 job listings for Data Scientists in Boston. That means that there are around 1.5 Data Scientist jobs per candidate. But not all Data Scientists in Boston are looking to switch jobs. According to data analyzed by my company, Talenya, only 227 of the 2,500 are likely to be open to new opportunities. That’s more than 7 jobs per candidate! This is what the “the war for talent” looks like and it gets worse.
Assuming you’re a small, growing company looking to hire Data Scientists in Boston, you will be competing for talent against giants like Amazon (123 openings), Pfizer (42 openings) and Biogen (35 openings).
While the small companies are willing to pay around $120,000 for a Data Scientist with a few years of experience, the big guys are willing to pay $160,000 - $230,000.  If you’re a Data Scientist, which job are you going to take?
What can the small companies do to attract Data Scientists? To start with, they must …

Are there good candidates in the market?

Are there good candidates in the market?
A recent study published by CB Insight indicates a number of common reasons that startups fail. The
 first and second are not surprising: 42% of startups close because they found no market for their products and 29% because they ran out of money. But the most solvable reason is the third: 23% of startups fail because of an inadequate team. Obviously, these companies didn’t put the right people in place to do the job that needed doing
Entrepreneurs set up a company, develop an amazing product which the market is waiting for, raise funding and yet, one out of four startups close because the team was not suited for the tremendous challenges entrepreneurs and startups face. So even while the 3rd most common reason startups fail can be attributed to not having the right team in place, the first two reasons can also be partially attributed to having the wrong people executing those tasks. It’s sort of obvious to me. Not having the right team is arguably …

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 female…