recruiting is both an art as well as a science .. while the process approach works well be it sourcing or full life cycle recruiting it can only go so far ,,, tru blue recruiters or sourcer(s) are more than not kicked by the fact that it is a slow dance that one performs with candidates and more often than not, the way the dance works itself out.. leads to the best finds ,,, and closures..

posted January 13, 2008

Sourcing is a part, and the first-step of the recruiting cycle. In larger organizations, they may split the roles up. Depending on the organization, and their process, the role may be very entry-level, or in some, they value it on-par with the recruiters.

The best way to look at this is like Inside vs. Outside Sales. Just as Inside Sales does the digging for information and leads, and Outside Information takes it to presentation, and closing, Sourcing creates the leads for Recruiters. In most cases, companies' processes dictate that the recruitment side will be more valuable, hence the added pay.

posted January 14, 2008

Hello Kristen,
I do not feel that the perceptions that you describe are inherent in the positions. Generally speaking, it takes less time to teach a person how to be productive in a sourcing role vs in an account management role simply due to the differences in the volume of information that needs to be mastered. This does not mean that the sourcing role is junior, but it sounds like in your experiences the companies that you have spoken to have chosen to make it so.
I do not think either of those positions are automatically senior to the other. Both are valuable positions, both can justify having senior talent due to the impact that they can have in the business. They usually require a different set of skills which is why it makes sense to separate the role, but I do not think it is fair to say that either should be considered universally junior to the other.
I hope this helps.
Kevin

posted January 14, 2008

Kristen,

The answer to this depends entirely as to how technical or specialised the roles in question are. Someone sourcing in a high volume environment doesn't need a huge amount of training or ability, whereas a trained specialist Sourcer uses a huge amount of different techniques to profile skillsets and identify & attract potential talent. In this type of environment, Sourcers provide key competitive advantage. Full lifecycle recruiters are less creative and more process and detail-oriented

posted January 14, 2008

Hi Kristen,

I don't it's that sourcers are less skilled, I believe that it's experience that defines the difference between the two and the usual career-path in an agency is to begin as a sourcer.

But, based on the way you've phrased your question my sense is that you're also having the initial conversation with candidates. If that is the case, you're doing more than just sourcing, you're a recruiter.

The "close" is absolutely important, however that process begins way before the offer is extended.

So, if you're not only sourcing, which is usually research and name gathering, but also conducting the initial conversation, and determining who's moving forward, then youre a recruiter, maybe not yet "full-lifecycle" but you're definitely on your way.

Depending on the "level" of candidate that you're bringing into the process and how their comp is structured, closing, is just like any other skill, learned.

You'll need to get negotiation skills training which is basically feeling very comfortable talking about money and feeling good about pushing back with your candidate, which feels counter-intuitive. In my experience, this is the place when a lot of sourcers don't make it as recruiters. By the way, this skill is also a MUST on the corporate side when you're looking to bring in talent at budget or under.

Just like excellent sales people, the ability to close at the end is a skill you must have in order to succeed. That does take some training, you need to be able to articulate an offer in a way that details the entire value of the position, not just cash etc.

I hope this helps.

posted January 15, 2008

Kristen - I know that the perception abounds in the industry and the shame of it all is that this is the exactly the type of thing that drives a wedge between Sourcing and Recruiting working in a very collaborative and mutually beneficial partnership. The issues here are not solely in one camp vs another as I see issues where recruiters are fearful or sourcing making them look bad or inept. I also see Sourcers pointing fingers at recruiters on their perception that they add more value than a recruiter.

Personally I wish all the blog posts, articles, questions and discussions on “US vs. THEM” get pushed to the side and recruiters, sourcers and leadership all get on the same page and understand that both skills/functions add value. When sourcing and recruiting work harmoniously and focused on a common goal vs. at odds all the time then results can be phenomenal!

posted January 15, 2008

Can't we all just get along? Neither is more important than the other. Both roles have an equally important place within the recruiting process. You can't place people if you have no people to place. The argument here is that all recruiters must know how to source, but in some companies the workload is such that the two functions are separated. This separation doesn't (and shouldn't) place less value on the sourcer/researcher. This is a symbiotic relationship. The recruiter must rely on the sourcer for people, and the sourcer must rely on the recruiter for the hires. The sourcer is just typically more the 'behind the scenes' person and like many other support roles, tends to be devalued because they are not in the limelight constantly. The finger-pointing happens when sourcers feel unappreciated. The easiest way for sourcers and recruiters to be kind to each other and recognize each others' strengths and weaknesses; sourcer "hey recruiter, thanks for getting my candidate through the interview process so smoothly so that I can focus on my strength which is finding people" and recruiter "hey sourcer, thanks for finding this candidate for me so that I could spend time focusing on my strenth which is building relationships".

posted January 15, 2008

I like the focus on the word "perception" vs reality. There is a perception, in some circles that a Sourcer is less skilled, however it is just that...a perception. Are all Sourcers less skilled, of course not. Junior level Sourcing roles where the person searches job boards are paid at a lower level than most recruiters.

Senior level Researchers, where your efforts reach into the Deep Web and utilize advanced technologies will pay as much or more than a "normal" recruiter salary.

Volume ? - I generated 34,000 talent leads in 2007 that's pretty hefty in my book. Researchers can generate a volumnus output of talent identification leads that are also high quality. Very targeted name generation is possible and I know this based on surveying all customers serviced in 2007. Not one cited inadequate quality of lead.

If there is no talent identified, then there is no one to recruit. The two roles compliment each other and work best synergistically. Different companies have different ways of deploying their Sourcers/Researchers based on factors which would include : their level of understanding and sophistication, their current talent pool in terms of capeabilities and their investment in and knowledge of the technologies used to tactically execute upon various means of performing research.

There is a segment of the Sourcer/Researcher population that has consciously chosen that profession because its their passion not because they are somehow less skilled. This sentiment was echoed numerous times at SourceCon 2007, its a fact.

Sourcing/Research is still in a state of relative infancy because historically the function has only been at the forefront for less than 20 years or so.

Personally, I have performed full lifecycle recruiting and transitioned into Research while going to school at night in an attempt to free up time to study. During that time my eyes were opened to what was possible and I decided to stick to the Research side of the equation. You can't recruit people you can't identify....and someone has to close the candidate once identified to make a hire. Both parts of the equation are important.

posted January 15, 2008

I think the reason that it is often seen as 'entry-level' or pays less than recruiting is because sourcing is just one piece of the puzzle and because it's expected that most recruiters can also source. Having a dedicated sourcer is often viewed as a luxury, not a necessity. Plus, it also depends on what the 'sourcer' does. Generally it means name generation and candidate identification. Once you get that passive candidate interested in the opportunity, you are then recruiting, which is a different skill set.

So, another way to look at it is that if you take the sourcer role out of the equation, the recruiter will do it and it is considered part of the full-life cycle, identification, recruiting, managing the process and closing.

If you take the recruiter out of the equation, can the sourcer do all those other steps? In most cases no. That is why you will see the pay differential.

This is just my perception as an 'old-school' recruiter who has always done all of her own sourcing.

However, I don't mean to diminish what a sourcer does. Just pointing out how it may be valued by hr as a whole, as more of a luxury item.

That said, I think there are many seasoned sourcers whose incomes greatly exceed recruiters, if they are working for themselves.

Hope this helps,
Pam

posted January 15, 2008

Is it more difficult to get a passive candidate interested in a new opportunity, than to close someone who has gone through the entire interview process. I've been a full cycle recruiter and a sourcer. I can tell you that is alot harder to engage the passive candidate, networking and to sell the company and job. If you are preclosing the candidate every step of the way then it will be alot easier to close them and get the buy in. You already spent time and romanced them. As a sourcer you are looking for new ways to network, find passive candidates and gather information on the competition. Most companies do look at the Sourcer position as junior. In my company it is not. Unfortunately, some companies use there sourcers as internet resume miners and therefore they are thought of that way elsewhere. Most closers(recruiters) don't have the skill set to do the sourcing end of the job either. Being a Sourcer or a Full Life Cycle Recruiter with that sourcing experience or understanding is and should be an asset in to any company. Being a Sourcer is a higher level skill set and should be looked at that way.

posted January 15, 2008

The two are intyer dependent.
So dont sweat...usse your skills as the situation demands.

Its like ..what came first the chicken or the egg?
Do you havr the answer?
No?
Never mind...here is the solution.
Whatever comes first eat it.
Sate your hunger and burrrrrp!

Arun

posted January 15, 2008

As a former full life cycle recruiter who has worked on both the corporate and agency sides and subsequently moved into sourcing, I agree that the perception can be that sourcing is a more junior function. In my case, that is not so. It all depends on the definition of sourcing and the environment in which it occurs.

For example, in many search firms sourcing is a stepping stone to recruiting and a junior function. In that environment, it is the client management and candidate closing that generate the big bucks. Hence the perception that sourcing is a junior role. In those settings, sourcers scour job boards and conduct industry-specific research. They are not responsible for candidate outreach or development as they do not have the business savvy to articulate their client’s value proposition to the candidates. Most smart recent grads can do that job fairly effectively and feed information to the recruiters, who then funnel and leverage that information to attract top candidates.

Having started recruiting at a very small search firm, I was responsible for business development, sourcing, candidate and client management and closing the deal. Therefore, I am talented in all of those areas mainly because I had to be or I wouldn't get paid! However, you can't close the deal if you don't have the right candidate. Clients pay a premium for search firms and expect quality and attention (and usually a 3-6 month guarantee). The skill sets they are looking for in top candidates tend to be very specific and they want to see immediate results. If I hadn’t been in the client meetings listening directly to their needs, I would not have learned nearly as much about how the skill set of the ideal candidate fits into the client’s business. Without that knowledge, I could not have been effective in answering the candidate’s questions and getting him/her interested in moving forward in the interview process.

I moved onto the corporate side so I wouldn’t have to develop business and find/place candidates, as I felt sourcing and closing both required a lot of energy and that my strengths were exemplified in those two specific areas since they were the end results of building relationships and establishing trust. Once I realized how much time it takes to manage sourcing, the interview process, internal client issues, closing, admin and measurement, and new employees seeking counsel, I decided to pare down even further.

Luckily I have found my niche here at Waggener Edstrom, where sourcing is valued and treated as a senior role. I wish all companies could have this attitude. Here, my role is defined as research and candidate development, and I leave it in the hands of our experienced recruiters to close the deal. I am primarily working with candidates who are not on the market and need a lot of convincing to consider making a move. I am able to tell my company’s story and garner interest. This skill should never be overlooked. If we were only looking at applicants, we’d be missing out on some of the best candidates! My colleague Amybeth Hale, who is also a Sourcing Strategist here at WaggEd, is a mainly a researcher and does candidate outreach via email, telling a compelling story that is tailored to the specific candidate’s interests. A junior sourcer does not have the business savvy to take that ball and run with it.

Closing the deal can be challenging, but it is made possible by the person who was initially able to find the best candidate and get that candidate excited about the opportunity in the first place. Sourcing and recruiting have a symbiotic relationship and it should be treated as such. Never underestimate the value a career sourcing professional can add to a recruiting team, or the value a good recruiter can add in getting that candidate to accept the offer. Let’s all get along. :)

posted January 15, 2008

Recruiting is an ART and sourcing is a SKILL. Art is learned thru experience and skill can be obtained by training. Sourcing & full cycle recruiting has different set of challenges; degree of difficulty and am not saying one is good over other. I am a full cycle recruiter myself and through out my career have done my own sourcing (without using sourcers) and successfully managed both; “Candidates” & “Client managers”. They are more important to me than differences between sourcing and recruiting.

Writing a Boolean search on web can be picked up by anyone who has the access to internet; school going kid to retired person. Getting in front of the client and managing expectations needs experience. In corporate recruiting world, Speed to market is not the most important criteria so sourcing can be done whenever required by the recruiter along with client & candidate management. In an agency environment client management is done by sales and candidate management by the recruiter. So sourcing is extremely important in Agency whereas in corporate world; people management skills are of paramount importance. When I came out of agency and went into corporate world, I used this speed to market to my advantage and put that very well in corporate, which managers really like.

The biggest challenge for a client facing recruiter is managing candidates & hiring group managers. This is after sourcer has identified a good candidate. Honestly sourcing is more of managing search queries and different techniques to identify profiles/resumes wherever on the web. I always feel managing tough clients is more challenging than finding resume because human nature is so different in each individual. Finding resume on web is like similar to writing SQL query into database. As long as you know the syntax and operators you can get resumes on web, but no matter how experienced the recruiter is, managing personalities is tough and challenging every single moment. I have no disrespect for sourcing expertise but certainly recruiting full cycle is tougher & exhaustive.

Coming to; closing candidate v/s getting candidate interested, I think getting candidate closed after interview is tougher than getting interested for interviews for :

1) Great companies can generate interest and attract candidates without much effort.
2) Money, counter offers, can make candidate joining situation tougher for client facing recruiter but it does not cost candidate anything to interview at multiple places at the same time.
2) There are few things which a recruiter has no control over personal & professional changes to potential candidate/s.
3) After the interview stage candidates tend to be more elusive than they were at the beginning. Further the candidate goes in hiring cycle; recruiter has to be very attentive & proactive Although sourcer has found a great candidate for principal recruiter, sourcer becomes virtually hands off in the cycle of dealing with candidate mood behaviors, counter offer negotiations, candidates disappearing acts & no shows. Here recruiter plays a very important role in delivering candidate to the hiring group. Recruiter’s credibility is on the line in the final stages of hiring process.

I have great respect for those sourcing professionals who partner with recruiters; share the success and failure in same stride.

To me personally full cycle is more fun, challenging than ONLY sourcing. I enjoy facing client managers, setting expectations and delivering what I committed to them. I had amazing time at Microsoft because their standard of hiring was so high, that I enjoyed challenge of getting high quality people in fairly quick time and thereby creating positive image for staffing. I got and experienced best of both the worlds while at Microsoft, speed similar to an agency and people management of corporate world

posted January 15, 2008

Kristen -- I look at the entire recruiting lifecycle as a long supply-chain event. It all starts with sourcing. Information gets passed along to a variety of different functions, each just as valuable as the next. The disconnect that I have seen in recruiting organizations is the flow of information and the communication between the functions of the recruiting supply-chain. The only way a recruiting supply-chain model works is if there is accountibility at each function.

I agree with Mr. McIntosh, once we can push the "us vs. them" mentality aside, the industry as a whole will be better for it.

My advice for you is to determine which route you want to take because they are two different jobs. I have met some very succesful sourcers that are extremly passionate about their job. I also know recruiters who are equally passionate about their role and are great at closing candidates. If it is about seniority of one position over the other, every company is different and value these roles differently. You just have to find the one that fits best with what you are looking for in your next opportunity.

I wish there was a better answer to give, but this is the world we live. Good luck!

posted January 15, 2008

Wow, fantastic answers here!

I do believe that there are two types of sourcers:

(1) Those that focus on generating resumes and names *without* calling candidates

(2) Those that generate names, referrals and networking sources *by* calling candidates

These, to me, are two very different people.

The first is more of a researcher - could be a stepping stone or a very important job in its own right depending on your organizational setup.

The second person, the one who is on the phone, absolutely MUST have a knowledge of full cycle recruiting and closing. This person MUST have the confidence, clarity of the role and knowledge of the job-strech to even begin to have a conversation with a passive candidate. This person MUST inspire confidence in his or her professionalism in order to elicit referrals. That is *NOT* a beginner skill.

posted January 16, 2008

Hi Kirsten

Essentially the Hunter Vs Gatherer debate.

The most important thing is to identify who is who and which consultants have the mix of both. Sourcers - Gatherers, should be on a higher basic salary with a smaller commission structure, the Hunters - Closers should be on a lower basic higher/uncapped commission structure. Ruling out any perception - reality nonsense.

A full life cycle consultant - to me has to have both in fairly equal amounts, or they will not be the full package, lacking in one area or the other.

The two business models, one seperating the two functions, the other bundling them together, can both produce sucess.

The important thing is you can identify the traits in your consultantsand reward them suitably.

Good luck!

posted January 17, 2008