Effects of targetedSourcing

I n f l u e n c i n g S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s e f f i c i e n c y b y c h o o s i n g t h e

a d e q u a t e S o u r c e

Subject

This reviews effects of targeted and un-targeted sourcing on the selection process efficiency. All steps towards a hire are considered as “productive”- e.g. “screening” and “interviewing” - any other step –e.g. “sending communication” - as administrative.

The concrete hiring situation is the filling of administration support functions with graduates. Candidates needed to be fluent in a particular forging language, willing to accept a fix term engagement and had to be available for immediate start.

The Positions were posted on the company‘s website and on a popular online job board (=> “Un-targeted Sourcing”) as well as students had been directly approached on an university conducted job fair and through employee referral efforts (=> “Targeted Sourcing”).

The candidate selection took place via Pre-Screening questions (PSQs) -to be answered in the web-based application process, Recruiter performed CV screening, online Remote Video interviewing and Assessment Centre (AC) with short Hiring Manager interview. Candidates could be rejected at any selection stage.

Results had been analyzed based on the monitored source of application.

For confidentiality reasons detailed data have been removed from this public post.

Selection Process and Related Time

Initial ScreeningReviewing incoming applications on PSQ resultsReviewing CVs of candidates with positive PSQ score

1 min per application3 min per application

Online AssessmentSending invitation for Remote Video InterviewAdministration of time frame for Remote Video InterviewsRemote Video Interview review and evaluation

1 min per application1 min per application8 min per application

AC PreparationRoom booking and appointment planningSending of invitations Monitoring candidates’ declination

2 min per application1 min per application1 min per application

Assessment CenterACIndividual Interview

20 min per application10 min per application

Sending rejection

Sending rejection for non selected candidates 1 min per application

Time per application refers on average time per candidate at the according selection stage.

Main influencer on total selection process time are the total number of received applications and their initial fit for being manually reviewed by a recruiter.

#

Untargeted Sourcing

*Each section represents the percentage of time, spent relatively to the total work time for candidate selection

Time investment on selection*

of all received applications fulfilled posted basic requirements after CV screening

Productivity

Steps, related to selection progress towards hiring decision are considered as directly value creating.

#

*Each section represents the percentage of time, spent relatively to the total work time for candidate selection

Time investment on selection*

of all received applications fulfilled posted basic requirements after CV screening

Productivity

Steps, related to selection progress towards hiring decision are considered as directly value creating.

Targeted Sourcing

Summary

Untargeted sourcing in a general “Post & Pray” approach causes a significant in-balance between potentially fitting and clearly not fitting applications. Especially for those positions which do not require a clear and specific profile – such as support and assistance functions or internship programs.

Still many companies tend to “scare” not fitting candidates away by building up a burden in the application process – e.g. due a long catalogue of pre-screening questions, urging applicants to pass a non commented online assessment or – even worse – due a very long selection processes and / or non-responsiveness, caused by a lag of HR resources.

In an increasing “war for talents” this traditional approach will more harm the employer’s reputation than protect its recruitment and HR resources.

It seems wise to be more targeted in the sourcing and to have applicants given the chance to assess their own fit for a particular function or company, in an applicant conducted, not monitored and unconditioned self-assessment (e.g. due “recruitainment” offers).