Helping people and companies maximize human and AI potential: Advisor, Trainer, Keynote speaker
What's the value of sourcing? What does it mean if you don't have a sourcing function? It means that your executives have made the conscious or unconscious decision to base the success of their company on the small sliver of the talent pool that 1) happens to be looking for work when the company opens a job, and 2) happens to find and apply to their job. What % of the total talent pool do you think that is? How likely do you think this strategy is to provide companies consistently with the strongest talent that can be found? When you invest in sourcing, you're recognizing that talent is a priority for your company and that you want the best talent that can be had, not just the best of the talent that happens to be looking for work and happens to apply to your jobs. Proactive outbound sourcing allows you to search within the 85% of the talent pool that isn't actively looking for work. Of course, the best talent sourcing strategy is a total talent strategy - encompassing both reactive inbound and proactive outbound sourcing. However, some companies struggle with the fact that a proactive outbound sourcing function will typically produce only a small % of the total number of hires in comparison to inbound efforts, and this makes some companies question the value (and cost) of sourcing. By limiting or abandoning sourcing altogether, you may save some money in the short term, but you will limit your company's only true sustainable competitive advantage in the long term - the ability to recruit top talent. Of course, talent management and retention are critical elements as well, but you can't manage and retain someone you haven't recruited in the first place. This post was inspired by recent posts from Thibault MARTIN and Denise Pereira. Thank you for continuing to provide the community with thought-provoking content. 🙏 #sourcing #talent #recruiting #strategy
Really well said. Also, why is it so difficult for executives to recognize this advantage? We have to illustrate the value but often times we don’t get the chance to make the case for it.
Brilliant perspective! Building on proactive sourcing, consider these enhancements: - Diversity: Use talent pipelines to expand reach and impact by attracting diverse talent. - Relationship nurturing: Talent pipelines simplify attracting and retaining 'warm' talent until the right opportunity arises. Glen Cathey your insights are invaluable and continuously propel us to elevate our practices!
Like many things in life, job searching, financial investments, and so forth, diversification is an excellent strategy for success. A sourcer will pay for themselves many times over. For a smaller company that isn’t ready to bring on full-time sourcing talent, a contract sourcer or agency can assist. Glen, what’s your take on the right time to add a FT sourcer to the team?
I wrote about this concept a few years ago - a company does not necessarily need a dedicated sourcing team if they do certain things well. Yet, many companies do not do these things efficiently! https://www.sourcecon.com/articles/you-dont-need-dedicated-sourcing-if-you-do-these-things-well
Well said Glen! I built a 100% Sourcing report that I shared quarterly with leadership to show the cost savings by having a TA Sourcing team in place. One company saved over $8M/Qtr, another company saved $660K/Qtr and a start-up (by having a “Sourcing Recruiter”) saved $90K in one month. Sharing this story with leadership gets buy-in. It’s all about the numbers. 😊
The entire world talks about the expansive benefits that are achieved by individuals building out their network in LinkedIn on a continual basis. Sourcing recruiters that are pipelining for their org are essentially doing the same - developing a viable talent network. If done on an continual basis, the time to fill improves, easing the woes of attrition which costs a firm more than another headcount in staffing. Not to mention, the insights, market data, and industry trends you learn by sourcing is invaluable. Opportunistic sourcing is a key ingredient to the variety every org needs during all business cycles.
Having sourcing function has paid dividends in cost saving on using firms, and being able to own and manage the market intelligence gathered through the sourcing/research process. I can't imagine not operating without this key capability. If leaders want results - then you have to be intentional. Sourcing is intentional.
You touch on this but I can't emphasize enough for niche roles with hyper specific skill requirements sourcing is crucial to understanding your total addressable talent pool. With this vital information business leaders can make informed decisions about how to solve their talent acquisition needs to grow their businesses. For example you want to hire a Civil Engineer in Wisconsin, well there are only a handful of these people in any given metro. So what do you do? Advanced talent nurturing strategies Pay more to draw people away from their current companies Offshore Build internal talent development programs Now you can start thinking strategically about how to solve the crucial talent needs to grow the business
I 100% with Amybeth, and I will also say that the size/growth rate of your employer will determine whether or not you need a sourcing function. AND, don't forget that you can outsource sourcing *projects* as needed. A 25 person startup may not need a FT sourcer, but if they have a new client with a commitment to producing XX amount of output in 6 months, it may make sense to consider either an agency or a contract sourcer for that project. If you are an enterprise company with 35K employees globally, you probably do need/want a sourcing function.
Maker/Creator of things
2wwhile I have always been an advocate for a dedicated sourcing function, I never worked for an employer that was willing to make the investment. Because of that, my recruiting teams and I conducted direct sourcing activities alongside the "post and pray" actions we all utilize. I suspect I am not alone in that practice. So the true value of a dedicated sourcing function becomes diluted by the necessary tactics of the "full desk" recruiters who make up for the absence of one. I'm certainly not suggesting that a recruiter can accomplish the same results and penetration of a dedicated sourcer because their other workload mitigates the time they can dedicate to direct sourcing. However, even the more limited results they achieve make it easier for leadership to become blinded to the need for a dedicated sourcing function.