Companies invest a lot into sourcing. Finding candidates to fill key roles is crucial for financial success, and the current talent shortage is such that limiting the search to people not currently employed probably will not get the job done.
But getting an accurate measure on the value of sourcing can be tricky. While it might seem logical to base it strictly on the amount of hires that come as a direct result, our sourcing leader, Balazs Paroczay, has a different outlook.
He’s written a new article for SourceCon that argues the true value of sourcing is at the beginning of the process, not the end.
From the article:
“Within most organizations, the number of hires that comes from genuinely passive candidates is incredibly low. Usually, it hits a very maximum of 5-15% of all hires*. If direct sourcing, however, brings too few hires into the actual hiring mix, it can be challenging to define and defend the value of sourcing.
“Why do we need a sourcing function if the hiring ROI is so minimal?
“What the world must understand (and we appreciate this reasoning will be new for some) is that making hires is not the value of sourcing, but of recruiting. Sourcing only contributes to hiring making with its very own value categories. The context of sourcing is located where the value is created, and that is just the very first part of the recruiting process. Even more precisely: that’s the stage of the candidate slate. The values of sourcing have an ultimate role there (and only there) and not at the end of the process where hires are secured.”
Balazs goes on to provide seven categories by which organizations can measure the value of sourcing. Visit SourceCon to read the full article.