The myriad of headlines in the talent acquisition and space are misleading and, at times, spellbinding. With the social sharing features on many web sites, the headlines go viral and become truth (for many).
That was one of the topics at the webinar last week “recruiting secrets overheard in a dark alley”, in addition to not believing everything you see online. The slides to the webinar are below, and we’re working on including the recording which will be added soon.
Here is an example used which included 4 recent headlines (none of which are true in my book) and I’m sure could somehow be justified or validated depending on how the data is sliced. They all completely contradict each other.
- Facebook is the #1 recruiting source, accounting for 78% of hires
- Employee referrals are the #1 recruiting source, accounting for nearly ½ of all hires
- Job boards are not dead, they are alive and well – accounting for nearly 40% of all hires
- Nearly 2/3 of hires found their job through “internal sources”
And as I stated during the call, even though Bush had some issues pronouncing the word nuclear, he could have figured this out..
As far as the webinar, we included a list of questions as part of the registration which included hundreds of recruiters from 20 countries and 49 states. We also asked a couple of questions (via polling) during the webinar, which are listed below but are not included in the slides.
Here are 5 examples of the responses from attendees, the practitioners:
- 71% of recruiters have not hired 1 person via twitter
- 64% of recruiters have not hired 1 person via Facebook
- 82% of recruiters HAVE hired from LinkedIn, and
- A vast majority would refer fewer than 10 people they know to a job (re-defining referrals)
- 50% do not have a personal or company twitter account which primary use is for recruiting
So what’s the #1 recruiting source? LinkedIn was the #1 most effective recruiting source selected.
I’m not saying social recruiting doesn’t work, or that it doesn’t make sense. What I am saying is the headlines floating around are at times, laughable. That, and we still see time after time anti-social recruiting attempts at social recruiting.
Enjoy the show..
Data sources include: CLC Recruiting, International Association of Employment Websites, Applied HRM Research, Workforce, Branchout, LinkedIn, Monster.com, CareerBuilder, The Sourcing Institue, Journal of Applied Business Research, Google, Foursquare, Google+, Slideshare, YouTube, Forbes, ERE, TechCrunch, Mashable, iCIMS, SilkRoad, jobs2web, JobVite, Workforce.com, Corporate Executive Board, Webinar Participant Polling – Recruiting Secrets, Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, SlideShare, TechCrunch, YouTube, Mashable, Pinterest, Comscore, Xavier.edu, International Personnel Management Association.
What is social recruiting? Is it social sourcing? What is the experience for any talent interested post post? Has anyone walked into a restaurant and used a bull horn to announce a position and ask for candidates? No, why not?
It is time to align proven recruiting techniques with proven technology productivity gains and get away from words like social that describe what’s hot today.
Social sourcing – yes…Social recruiting – no.
I agree that we cannot believe every headline re: social recruiting but what makes the responses to your survey any more authentic? Without knowing how the questions were framed, it appears on the surface your questions are one-sided. While recruiters may not have made a hire through Twitter or Facebook, how many candidates LEARNED about an opportunity through a social site? Or how many ppl engaged with an employee of the company through a social site?
Completely understand the need to report actual results but social expands the reach for companies that use it, whether they realize it or not.
Cathy, thanks for the comments. To clarify, the questions I asked were as simple as whether or not there have been successes with these channels and the % of hires as a result of effort. The main difference between the headlines that are contradictory is that they were manufactured by consultants, experts, and vendors selling a product. I am not selling anything, and the questions I asked were to practitioners (recruiters). No, my numbers aren’t scientific, the intent is to show the significant gap that exists with the information that is floating around. I agree that candidates may learn about opportunities or engage on social channels, however, my opinion is that a majority of what is being called “social” is “anti-social” – there is little engagement happening when you look at the “pages”, “feeds”, and “accounts”. Social channels can absolutely be a major asset, when deployed with a sound strategy.
Working only in continental Europe – social recruiting is not that advanced or progressed as in the USA. However we are of course reading the same headlines, articles etc. But so far I am still missing some facts from the recruiting software vendor showing a solid ROI case that people getting in via social recruiting is better performers, cheaper recruited compared to other recruitment channels etc. There should be enough data in the USA to make a business case like this with all the software being used and sold.
And if you have a solid business case I will happy to promote your company in Europe but so far what I have seen it is assumptions and a lot of hot air…..even from the big recruiting software vendors. I need facts.