Follow up on the sources of talent report

It has been an interesting week or so since Phillip and I released the sources of talent report for Australia. We have had both positive and negative feedback, which is to be expected.

Some of the commentary available online:

I would like to review some of the concerns raised over the accuracy of the data, the process we used and the outcomes.

One concern was how do you define the original source of talent. A very good queston. If an candidate sees an add on job board, then contacts an agency directly is this an agency hire or a job board?

Another concern raised was were we double counting hires? Were agencies providing information on the same candidates that employers were? Our survey did not cover this, but it is a great question, although solving this is not easy either.

Carey Eaton from Seek wold like to see us separating the tools, and resources, from the processes used by organisations.

There were also questions around should all of the organisations who participated been allowed to participate. My understanding is some people would like us to only looking at large employers, like the US report. Unfortunately in the Australian marketplace there are a huge number of employers in the sub 250 employee bracket.

To be honest I agree with most these concerns. However the fact is, we can now have conversations about these issues and work as an industry to resolve them. Generating this conversation was one of the underlying goals of the survey.

Phillip and I will be starting plans for the 2010 report while we are at RecruitTech this week in Canberra so if you have some thoughts leave a comment or drop us an email.

2 thoughts on “Follow up on the sources of talent report

  1. Hi Michael, although I appreciate the limitations of any research of this type, I enjoyed the survey’s surprising points and I particularly enjoyed much of the commentary it catalysed. Hats off to you and Phillip for a job well done, thanks.

    (For the purposes of disclosure, I work for TMP, but I blog/comment as a ‘somewhat biased’ individual. Make of that what you will.)

    In my view, your research could be as perfect as possible, but only ever succeed in generating a discussion around common trends – it could never truly uncover the right, or the most successful, solution for any one organisation.

    Some employers I know have a protocol around how they recruit.

    For instance, X organisation may have a culture that dictates a disproportionately large use recruiters; whereas Y organisation may use no recruiters but advertise jobs internally first, on a job board second, and in print third. The translation from your survey is that X and Y organisations get most successful hires with these methods, when in fact all we’re seeing is an organisation’s disproportionate use of that particular method.

    It doesn’t really show the full picture behind what drives success, does it.

    A good ERP works wonders where the org. culture fits the method (I know one Aussie company that gets 40% plus this way, yet offers no incentive). On the other hand, some organisations won’t even have an ERP.

    Some employers invest in – and measure – their social media strategies. They’ll of course be attributing some success there – but most employers simply aren’t even at the starting blocks here.

    I’d much rather be researching and discussing the most successful method of hire, rather than the most common.

  2. Thanks for the comment, I like where your thoughts are heading, what is the most effective source of hire is very important.

    We started to look at this with our perception vs reality questions. We wanted to see if respondents perceptions on the most successful sources matched where they were getting their hires from. Of course it did not, job boards ranked number 4 on a perception scale.

    Exploring the cultural aspects of hiring practices would also be very interesting.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: