I’ve covered this in various forms over the last few years, but I’m going to be explicit right now. From my viewpoint as a current hybrid of Sourcer and Full Lifecycle Recruiter, there are five main reasons.
- You, the employer, have unrealistic expectations of what a Sourcer can produce
- Misunderstanding of what the role of a Sourcer does
- Not emphasizing the partnerships between Sourcing and Account Management
- Lack of respect and viewing Sourcing as a senior function
- Underpaying Sourcers
First of all, before you can hire someone to fill this elusive role, you need to understand what we do and what we DON’T do.
There are two basic types of sourcing: transactional and strategic. Be clear on what you are looking for. If you are looking for someone to quickly fill up a profile pipeline, that is a transactional role. If you are looking to build talent communities and conduct in-depth competitive intelligence, that is strategic sourcing. Different recruiters have different skills and interests. Looking for someone to just go online and conduct Boolean searches for low hanging fruit such as job boards and LinkedIn profiles means you are looking for an Internet Recruiter. This is certainly a great first step in teaching someone the basics of the Sourcing function, but it is by no means the way to evaluate senior talent that is going to help build your employment brand. You have to understand the process, and create deliverable metrics that are realistic and attainable.
A truly senior professional can help you identify not just individuals but business and early market trends. They also understand who the leaders and visionaries that are blazing those trails are. They are hooked into all social media channels, are early adopters of new tools and techniques, they think outside the box when it comes to ways of connecting with candidates, and most importantly you trust them to *pick up the phone* and form personal relationships with potential candidates. These are the recruiters that keep a personal CRM or LinkedIn list that follows them throughout their careers and benefits their employers with referrals and calls when a rock star first thinks of making a career change.
I’ve worked on many teams comprised of Account Management and Sourcing Recruiters. And notice that I consider both of them to be the same profession: recruiters. Unless a Sourcer is employed in a centralized team, if they are working with Account Managers, they need to be involved in the recruiting lifecycle from the outset when a requisition is opened. The most successful roles I have filled were equal partnerships, with a clearly delineated “hand off” process (usually at the point after I had conducted a phone screen). I had access to the hiring manager for questions and had a thorough understanding of the position, team and product/service and was involved from the first requisition review in strategizing. The most ineffective sourcing roles involved Account Managers that just expected me to hand them a bunch of resumes every week.
In an interview I had as a candidate, I spoke to a Global Director of Recruiting. One of the topics we discussed was the perception that Sourcing was somehow less complex or demanding an aspect of recruiting than account management and closing candidates. I’ve seen this time and again. Local Seattle companies cannot hire enough contract Sourcers, but they only allocate a very small percentage of their actual full time headcount for Sourcing. Those companies that DO hire full time Sourcers level them lower and pay them less money. When I see announcements for Sourcers with ranges that pay less for a Sourcer than for a full lifecycle professional, I will often call them out on it. It’s an insult, quite frankly. If you don’t value the person that is building that first all-important employment impression with a candidate, how can you believe they will evangelize your company or organization to the best of their abilities?