Jim Stroud wins

Have you ever seen an adventure series about sourcing passive candidates before? If not, check out “The Sourcing Duel” series below.

With the mission to find 10 data analysts in the quickest time, Randstad Sourceright’s @TheBalazs and @JimStroud take on each other in a sourcing duel. Who will win? Tweet #TheBalazswins or #JimStroudwins

So in this second talent sourcing mission, we put our human intelligence to the test to find a rare skill in the quickest time. Randstad Sourceright’s @TheBalazs and @JimStroud take on each other in an exciting sourcing duel. Who will win? Tweet #TheBalazswins or #JimStroudwins

Did you listen carefully to hear all of the sourcing tips coming in rapid succession? I look forward to reading your comments below.


When you look at a typical job description, what do you see? Most likely a description of job duties, position requirements, preferred qualifications and a company description. However, there is something missing in this scenario which is, “What happens next?” Can I make a suggestion? Why not add a “Potential Careerpath” section? It could look something like this…

Potential Careerpath:

We want you to join us. We want you to stay. Consider the possibilities.

  • 65% of employees who joined our company as a [insert job title here] have progressed to [insert job title here] in three years.
  • 48% of senior leadership had the position of [insert job title] at some point in their career
  • 26% of those who joined our company as a [insert job title here] have increased their salary 30% over the past 4 years.
  • 35% of those with the job title [insert job title here] tend to stay with the company for a minimum of 3 years

I imagine seeing this type of data on a job description would attract candidates with a long-term vision of their career.

I imagine this information would help HR attract candidates needed for future succession planning.

I also imagine that adding this information would create industry buzz and position the company advertising jobs this way as forward thinking organization with an eye on the future and not simply reacting to present-day needs.

So, what do you think of this? Leave your comments below.


I just read an interesting article on recruiting metrics and it made me wonder all the things I should have measured in my young and impetuous sourcing/recruiting youth. As a matter of fact, if I could’ve snapped a finger and have certain metrics back in the day (and the will to leverage them), I would’ve been the most productive recruiter (or sourcer) who ever lived.

Metrics like…

1. How many leads did the sourcer find?
2. How many leads did the sourcer deem qualified, interested and available?
3. How many leads did the recruiter accept?
4. How many leads did the recruiter follow-up on?
5. How many leads had a second interview?
6. How many leads were hired?
7. How long did it take to make first contact with a lead that was ruled qualified, interested and available?
8. How long did it take to tell each contact that they were no longer being considered for the role?
9. How many alternative jobs were they being considered for?
10. What were the reasons why they were not hired?
11. What specific companies did we hire from the most?
12. What industries, outside of our own, did we hire from the most?
13. Which managers hired the most in the past year?
14. Which managers hired the quickest in the past year?
15. Which managers hired the slowest in the past year?
16. What is the typical profile of the candidates hired by each hiring manager? (To include: schools attended, professional experience and size of company)
17. Which managers retain the most staff?
18. Which managers lose the most staff?
19. Which managers review the most resumes and offer immediate feedback?
20. What skills are needed to meet the next business initiative?
21. What skills are presently available to meet present and future needs?

If I had the answer to those questions, I would know…

1. How much quantity the sourcer can produce
2. How well the sourcer can engage passive candidates
3. How much quality the sourcer can produce
4. How well the recruiter can manage his desk
5. How much quality the sourcer can produce
6. How in-sync the recruiter and sourcer are
7. How well the recruiting process is working
8. How important candidate engagement is to the company
9. How resourceful the recruiter and sourcer are
10. What about our company needs to change to appeal to more candidates
11. Which companies should we be targeting
12. Which companies should we be paying more attention to
13. Which managers I should give the most attention to
14. Which managers I should give the most attention to
15. Which managers I would connect with to pipeline talent for future reference
16. Which passive candidates would be most appealing to whom
17. Which managers know their needs the best
18. Which managers to avoid
19. Which managers to give surprise gifts to (wink)
20. What skills to pipeline for
21. What skills to pipeline for

From all of that data, I would also know…

1. My stats as a sourcer (for example: 50 leads sourced > 12 qualified, interested and available > 10 accepted by recruiter > 1 hire)
2. My stats as a recruiter (for example: 10 qualified, interested and available leads > 8 Interviews > 1 hire)
3. Which of my fellow sourcers are best at finding a certain profile
4. Which of my fellow recruiters are best at closing leads they have accepted
5. As a manager, I know which sourcing projects to assign to whom
6. As a manager, I would know how to predict when jobs would be filled

And yet, with all of this information one measure has been overlooked – retention. Shouldn’t how long a person stays with a company be the ultimate test of a recruiter? To put it another way, isn’t it better to judge a matchmaker by the number of divorces that have resulted from their handiwork vs the marriages they have influenced? Wouldn’t you think that a matchmaker with 50 marriages and 1 divorce to their credit is better than a matchmaker with 75 marriages and 33 divorces accredited to them? With this in mind, in a perfect world, I would probably add a few more metrics to my overall recruiting process.

In order to rate our recruiting organization overall, I would ask:
# How many people did our recruiting org hire in the past year?
# Of the people our recruiting org hired, how many are still with the company?

In order to rate the hiring managers overall, I would ask:
# Which office locations retain their staff the longest?
# Which managers retain their staff the longest?

My guess is that these types of stats would work anywhere in the world in order to measure the effectiveness of recruiter and sourcer alike. But, I could be wrong. What do you think? Leave your comments below. :-)