Friday, May 16, 2008
Sourcing - where its at
So, after a lot of thinking, we've gone into the sourcing business. It seems like the right time to offer this service to the recruiting world. Sourcing involves the research and screening calls to potential candidates. More to the point, we dig up names of potential candidates, then call to see if they'd be interested in applying for the job. The research is pretty straightforward, but there are lots and lots of calls. This is different from what the common recruiter does. We don't run ads. Not on job boards, and not on our website. We actively source people. We go out and find them.
This is the kind of never-ending, repetitive work that burns out recruiters. So they find ways to avoid it. It seems that when a recruiter can't fill a requisition, they either call a headhunter, a temp agency, or a contractor. This means the first reaction after failing to hire is the most expensive one.
If a headhunter charges 25-30% of first year salary, then a mid level professional hire at $75K costs between $18-22K. We think there's a big opportunity to outsource the sourcing effort to us, sparing the recruiter the worst part of his job. We send the candidates to them and they take it from there. The cost? Around $6K for most positions. That's a significant savings. And it enables the corporate recruiter to add more complex values in the hiring process (like preserving the company culture) while keeping their job...
Seems to me this should be the recruiter's first call for help.
This is the kind of never-ending, repetitive work that burns out recruiters. So they find ways to avoid it. It seems that when a recruiter can't fill a requisition, they either call a headhunter, a temp agency, or a contractor. This means the first reaction after failing to hire is the most expensive one.
If a headhunter charges 25-30% of first year salary, then a mid level professional hire at $75K costs between $18-22K. We think there's a big opportunity to outsource the sourcing effort to us, sparing the recruiter the worst part of his job. We send the candidates to them and they take it from there. The cost? Around $6K for most positions. That's a significant savings. And it enables the corporate recruiter to add more complex values in the hiring process (like preserving the company culture) while keeping their job...
Seems to me this should be the recruiter's first call for help.
Thoughts on Immigration
I'm curious as to how we, as a nation, are against more generous immigration policies while we strive to improve diversity in the work force. These two values seem to conflict, even though they're applied at different levels.
What would our forbears think if they saw our immigration policies today? The majority of us are descendants of the beneficiaries of an open door policy. So we're acting in conflict with one of the nation's original values. Not to mention needing the labor pool.
The immigration conservatives make a good point. There is something to be said for preserving, or at least slowing change in our existing culture. Learning the language, and obeying our laws is not asking too much of immigrants. Tribes entering our country vary in their willingness to assimilate. We don't find much backlash against those who do it well. We perceive them as wanting to become Americans, as opposed to annexing our neighborhoods and cities, turning them into something foreign.
But our immigration policies need to balance these two core American values: an open door immigration policy (or at least more open than it is now), and pride in our culture. The key lies in balancing these.
Perhaps immigration policy should reflect each group's historical capacity to integrate with the existing culture. That would open the door wider for those striving to assimilate, and slow down those resisting integration. Sure, there would be all kinds of argument about measurment, but the notion balances an open door policy with the need to integrate.
What would our forbears think if they saw our immigration policies today? The majority of us are descendants of the beneficiaries of an open door policy. So we're acting in conflict with one of the nation's original values. Not to mention needing the labor pool.
The immigration conservatives make a good point. There is something to be said for preserving, or at least slowing change in our existing culture. Learning the language, and obeying our laws is not asking too much of immigrants. Tribes entering our country vary in their willingness to assimilate. We don't find much backlash against those who do it well. We perceive them as wanting to become Americans, as opposed to annexing our neighborhoods and cities, turning them into something foreign.
But our immigration policies need to balance these two core American values: an open door immigration policy (or at least more open than it is now), and pride in our culture. The key lies in balancing these.
Perhaps immigration policy should reflect each group's historical capacity to integrate with the existing culture. That would open the door wider for those striving to assimilate, and slow down those resisting integration. Sure, there would be all kinds of argument about measurment, but the notion balances an open door policy with the need to integrate.
