Sourcing metrics may be one of the hardest things to define. The question of course always arises, how effective is my sourcer and how much value do they add. There are so many considerations that come to mind when thinking about this. We know that we must be held accountable, but what is fair?
There is sometimes a misconception that sourcing can be measured by the number of candidates that are sourced for a job. But shouldn’t quality come before quantity? After all, we as sourcers are the experts in our field searching for the best of the best. Sourcing has become a very specialized function and precision is key. Furthermore, all jobs are not created equal.
Though I may find 25 candidates per hour for a marketing specialist requiring a bachelor’s degree with 2-3 years of sales experience, I may only find 4-5 candidates per hour for a director of organizational development requiring a master’s degree in OD with 10+ years of experience.
Bottom line, at least from my perspective, quality outweighs quantity. It fosters positive relationships with those that we support because we provide more candidates that are actually on target.
That leads me to my next thought, sSourcers are sometimes held accountable to the number of sourced candidates hired to the number of jobs we have worked on. How can this be considered fair? The unfortunate reality is that once we source a candidate and deem them a fit, even if they have expressed interest, we lose control. Once the candidate is passed to the recruiter or hiring manager, it is up to them to move them through the interview process, at which time the sourcer has no influence.
How do we define metrics that are fair for a Sourcer? That boils down to what sourcers really have control over, sourced candidate acceptance ratio. The total number of candidates sourced compared to the number of candidates that are actually accepted by the recruiter/hiring. If we find that the acceptance ratios are below 90%, then we know that we there is a problem and we should dig into it further to understand whether we have an effective sourcer.
I recently opened a discussion in regards to this topic. How should a Sourcer be evaluated? The consensus was a mixed bag. The statistic was 70% in favor of a KPI that measured the quality of candidates sourced and accepted by Recruiter. 30% in favor of a KPI that held sourcers accountable to the quality, as well as the number that made it HM interviews.
One valid point brought up in my discussion was Sourcers should be evaluated on the effectiveness of their sourcing strategy and how well they know the market. This point I agree with. We as sourcers should be the market and competitive intel experts, we should know what is going on with competitors within our space. Execution of an effective Sourcing Strategy will in return lead to more qualified prospects.
The verdict may still be out on this one, though I think we can all agree that good Sourcers have become strategic market intelligence experts that have become a supportive backbone in the overall recruitment process.