I've talked a lot about interviews and ensuring that hiring teams work together with recruiting to make good decisions at each stage of the process. Having a strong process in place to evaluate talent is critical, but it won't matter if you don't have a system for finding talent.
Candidates are the lifeblood of recruiting. We often hear it called the "talent pipeline", like the flow of oil. If the pipeline is dry, we run a risk of meeting a business objective that require people to help execute tasks and deliver on strategies. It is the reason we bother with this song and dance at all.
Getting internal alignment on how to hire is one of the greatest challenges an organization faces. The second is actually sourcing the talent to evaluate.
Sourcing is recruiter speak for "finding candidates". Where the candidate is "found" is often referred to as a "source". Not dissimilar from talking about where we "source" raw materials from to make furniture or organic produce.
Recruiters are often valued for their ability to find candidates for roles. There's a reason they are often called "headhunters". Top recruiters are prized for their ability to find candidates that companies themselves cannot get by posting jobs alone, traditionally by investing time to "hunt" for candidates that may not be looking for jobs. Candidates with rare mixes of skills are referred to in some circles of "purple squirrels" or "unicorns", with recruiters going "in the field" to find these candidates "in the wild".
Some of the language we use around hiring is strange, isn't it?
Language aside, let's talk more about building a system to find talent. Chances are, the company and its recruiting team are building the system, or at least elements of a system, to get the hires you're already making. Rarely will this be done from scratch, and like any piece of work, it will require iteration as you learn more.
I cover building the talent evaluation system https://conifer.mataroa.blog/blog/building-the-interview-plan/. In this post, let's talk about the talent finding system.
A note on sources
Not all sources are created equal. They shouldn't be evaluated as "successful" by the same measures. While we should look at the same set of metrics for each to paint a clear picture of our activity, success in each channel may look different. Each will have different goals.
In advertising, we often talk about the journey of the customer who engages with a brand. This typically is broken down into four stages:
- Awareness: (I've never heard of this brand before until now)
- Evaluation: (I'm evaluating this brand, likely alongside other similar ones)
- Purchase/Action: (I will engage / buy from this brand)
- Loyalty: (I will make repeated purchases from this brand. If I'm particular enamored, I will advocate and recommend them to others.)
Companies will run different types of ad campaigns to meet different objectives, engaging with different types of audiences pending where they are in their "journey". At any given time, the addressable population of customers are in one of these four stages. Because of this, they require different messaging on different channels to engage with them.
Let's look at a common example: How many times can you recall hearing about a new product for the first time on a TV ad? TV is a classic "awareness" play. Many people watch TV, and traditional advertisers will buy commercial slots during these periods to get in front of a lot of people at once. Like a billboard on your screen.
TV ads have broad reach (e.g. a lot of people will see the ad), but many of those people will likely not be interested or the right fit (e.g. they won't convert, or buy the product).
Even if you don't buy the product right after seeing it on TV for the first time, you're now cognizant of the brand and that they exist. This helps grow the audience for further ads downstream on more targeted channels. Later ads, like when you're browsing on an ecommerce site, that reference the brand, will likely be more effective because you have this broad awareness from the TV ad.
I share this example because building an employer brand and finding candidates for jobs should mirror advertising strategies. Much like how different ad types, like a TV ad or an ecommerce banner, target different types of customers, your recruiting strategy should include different sources to look for talent, with different sources having candidates with varied levels of familiarity with your company.
Certain sources will be great at generating lots of traffic, while others will yield higher quality applicants. To find high quality applicants, you may need to invest in driving awareness as an employer through channels that may seem less productive in terms of the hires they directly generate, but that do a good job of getting in front of broad audiences.
Attributing success across sources and channels is a tough problem, and one advertisers are often interested in to understand the efficacy of their programs. Your recruiting team will likely not have anywhere near the same level of rigor to attribute success the same way, but we should remember this when thinking through our strategy and the budget for publishing jobs across various channels.
With that, let's get into some specific sources.
I. Company careers page / 1P Job Board
The first source I recommend everyone start with is a job board on your company's website. A careers page is a common destination for prospective candidates interested in learning more about company culture, values, and perks. Even if they see first see a job post elsewhere, having the company's career page show the job lends legitimacy to the role. There is something comforting about applying directly on the company's website versus another place, like dropping a letter off at a post office versus a mailbox.
In addition, this is space that the company owns. While it may not be the highest traffic, it's an opportunity to create a strong landing page that makes it easy for candidates to get excited about the team and opportunities. At minimum, it validates that a job they saw elsewhere is real.
Most applicant tracking systems will offer features or integrations with company websites to create a unique page to show updated "live" job postings. This saves time manually updating the site, as it can all be managed in the applicant tracking system. You will still want to build a proper "marketing" page to highlight the company culture and overarching opportunities at the company to build an employer brand.
In my experience, your careers page, or 1P job board, won't be the biggest driver or traffic or your highest quality source, but you will likely get more intentional applications from candidates who seek out the company explicitly. Although it may be difficult as the organization scales, having a careers@ email that applicants can cold apply through can also be a good way to hear from candidates interested in the company that may not fit any open roles.
To make a careers page effective, I recommend partnering with website marketing experts to craft strong landing pages. Don't be afraid to take inspiration from others (A lot of pages use similar formats, which I assume speaks to their efficacy. Either that or it's a prime opportunity to do zig while they all zag).
In general, my guidance is to keep the page informative yet easy to navigate, while also making it as easy as possible to apply in as few clicks possible.
II. 3P Job Boards
Third-party job boards, or 3P job boards, are the broad bucket of any other website where you may post a job. Common ones include places like (https://www.indeed.com/)[Indeed] or (https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/)[LinkedIn], but this could also include more niche and specialized sites, like https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs or https://www.designjobsboard.com/. These can also be university job boards through their career services center or alumni networks.
3P Job boards are diverse and have different costs associated. Pending which boards are part of your strategy, you may want to break these out in reporting in your ATS since the types of traffic you'll get will vary.
For example, in my experience, more generalized job boards tend to attract the masses -- a ton of volume, but very little of it qualified. It's not uncommon to receive spam or people blindly "spraying and praying" applications everywhere. More specialized boards may have lower volume, but reach a more targeted community that is more relevant. As such, they may have higher costs associated.
In general, 3P job boards can be a mixed bag, but they're going to be the best way to get reach and get the company's name out there. Even if each individual post yields little fruit, think of 3P job boards like "Awareness" ads, that reach people who are not familiar with your company. Many may not ever be interested or a good fit, but you're increasing the total size of your audience, slowly, and that can help down the road. Be strategic about this channel and don't think of it the same way as you do other sources.
III. Referrals
Referrals are often cited as one of the best sources for finding qualified candidates. The adage "game recognizes game" comes to play, as talented individuals usually associate with other talented folks, who also want to work together. In addition, referrals can often help you get access to talent that isn't actively on the market. If I'm content in my current role and not actively looking, but my friend or former colleague reaches out to talk about an opportunity I could be great for, I may not just listen -- but be excited by the chance to work together again.
Referral systems are usually through word-of-mouth and provide an incentive to the employee completing the referral. In exchange for an employee introducing a candidate to the company, they receive some sort of monetary bonus if the candidate is hired. I've also awarded smaller, "thank you" bonuses to employees who submit many referrals that get deep into the process, even if we end up not hiring them.
Referral bonuses provide an incentive for employees to go out of their way to connect with their networks and advertise for the company on your behalf. Pending the company and role, referral bonuses can range considerably. I've seen teams do different tiers of bonus pending how difficult the job would be to fill otherwise, putting people at senior levels as worth a greater bonus than a junior person, or paying more if the referral is for a more specialized, hard-to-fill job, like an engineer.
Some leaders may balk at the idea of paying out a referral bonus to employees for referring people to the organization, but it's often cheaper to pay the employee this "finder's fee", versus what it would cost to use an outsourced agency or post a job. Referral bonuses are often fixed amounts, such as a few thousand dollars per job, versus an agency recruiting fee, which is often a percentage of the candidate's salary.
Regardless of the quality of candidate referred, you should still evaluate them the same way as any other candidate that comes through. The negative aspect to referrals is that our familiarity can lead to less thorough evaluation of their suitability for the job role, which can lead to poor hires. Another aspect to consider with referrals: diversity. There are strong network effects in the corporate world, and relying too heavily on referrals as you scale can lead to a lack of diversity in thinking. It's important to ensure referrals are part of the mix, but not the only source you hire from.
When handling referral candidates, extra care is crucial. Referring employees will inevitably inquire about their friend's interview experience, and any negative interactions can quickly erode trust. This doesn't mean treating referrals differently or being less rigorous, but rather maintaining transparency and professionalism. The key is to provide an excellent candidate experience, recognizing that the cost of mishandling a referral can be higher than with other candidates. Be clear, fair, and consistent.
IV. Outsourced Agency
Outsourced recruiting agencies are external services specializing in candidate sourcing. While typically expensive—charging a percentage fee per hire—they can be valuable for niche, entry-level, or high-turnover roles. For organizations with in-house recruiting teams, these agencies should be reserved for the most challenging or critical searches.
These agencies often yield fewer but higher-quality candidates, justifying their higher cost by potentially accelerating hiring for crucial positions. Being strategic is key: carefully budget for outsourced help and identify which roles will most benefit from external recruitment partnerships. The right agency can be a strategic advantage in talent acquisition.
Recruiting teams should aim to keep a few external agency contacts in their rolodex. As companies mature, having preferred partnerships, or contracts in place to lock in rates, can also be beneficial to reduce and better forecast costs throughout the year.
V. Active Sourcing
Active sourcing is the process of recruiters reaching out to candidates directly. Typically, this is via LinkedIn, but could be through other channels as well. For example, finding a great portfolio online and sending the person an email would be another way to conduct "direct sourcing".
This method is critical for engaging relevant talent -- especially talent that isn't perusing job boards and actively applying to roles. An intriguing note to a candidate who is "open to a chat" can kickstart a positive relationship that leads to a hire.
Active sourcing, as such, is labor intensive. Recruiters can spend the bulk of their time focused on actively searching for candidates. This is why some companies hire dedicated "sourcers" who spend the bulk of their time curating profiles and reaching out to passive candidates directly through LinkedIn or other channels. This gives time back to full-cycle recruiters who can instead manage active candidates.
Active sourcing will likely be a lower volume channel, but have a high rate of success. Because recruiters are picking candidates to apply, everyone who responds will be moved to a phone screen (unless the candidate says "no thanks").
For a recruiting team, especially in a smaller company with a less known brand, active sourcing is where the team should spend a large part of their time.
VI. 1P Events
1P Events are events that the company itself hosts. Events do not need to be explicitly for hiring, but should be used to build community. This could be as simple as using office space to host a meetup for a relevant community, such as developers that build in the same tech stack as your company, or an affinity group for your broader industry.
If no such group exists, there could be merit in putting effort behind building a community event that you can own and mold. At minimum, this can build goodwill for your brand and establish your company as a leader in the niche the event series serves. It may not yield job applicants immediately, but can be a good long term play to build interest with talented folks in your space.
VII. 3P Events / Job Fairs
3P Events are events hosted by others. Typically, this is a job fair hosted by a private organization or a university where each company sets up a little table to talk to people actively searching for jobs.
I recommend job fairs as part of your mix to find entry-level talent. I've had success at university fairs for junior sales and engineering roles. Set aside budget to experiment here a few times a year and see what you get out of them.
VIII. Internal Hire
"We're sorry, but we decided to fill the role internally" is almost a meme at this point for job seekers, but it speaks to the power of internal mobility in organizations and the value of your existing employee base.
Internal mobility programs are important. We'll cover the specifics of these later, but for the purposes of this post, it is a source we will want to track. From a recruiting perspective, internal hires have the benefit of having familiarity with the company and ways of working, and may also be an expert in customer problems, even if they lack the role-specific knowledge or functional skillset that you'd look for in an external hire.
Beyond continuing to grow employees and leverage their expertise built from working at the company, you also move employees upwards or laterally -- typically from an easier-to-fill job to a harder-to-fill job. For example, if you promote a sales development representative to an account executive, you're now backfilling the SDR role instead of the AE role -- this role is traditionally more junior and requires less direct experience, making it easier to fill in the future.
Keep track of how many open jobs you fill with internal hires. It can be a great way to highlight how other parts of the company, like L&D and performance management, are building up talent to solve for new needs of the company.
Closing thoughts
The above are all suggestions. You should adjust and label based on your company's needs so that it can be tracked over time. Like a financial advisor, recruiters should look at this as a portfolio and determine the appropriate amount of investment to make in each source based on its overall effectiveness. You should not only track which sources lead to high success rates at hire, but also longer term performance outcomes for employees, such as tenure, performance ratings, and so forth. While the source cannot be attributed to everything the person does once they're on board, it is a data point to refer to that can help justify investment.
When I was recruiting at a growing technology company, I did a similar exercise where I evaluated the last one hundred or so hires the company made and looked at where they were coming from, which departments they filled, and their level of seniority. We learned the most significant source of candidates for us was referrals -- not only in terms of volume of hires, but also in success rate. Very few referrals ended up not getting hired relative to the total volume of referrals made. While this intuitively makes sense, it was also powerful to put on a slide and show leaders that referrals were definitively our most productive source. This helped justify increasing referral bonuses and referencing the policy in our town hall meetings to help drive incremental referrals with the team.
Here are a few specific metrics I'd track here, by each source. I'd filter for job type, seniority level, and geography as well to look into trends across these dimensions. The splits can adjust pending your needs, but this is a good starting point.
All metrics are "per source". I'd create a table with each source as the Y axis, with the X axis representing the below metrics over time, probably quarterly to illustrate changes over time.
- Total candidates: How many candidates were entered into the system from each source? This could be the total number of applicants or profiles engaged in an active search
- % of candidates interviewed: Of the applicant pool, how many were invited to a recruiter phone screen? This is a good top-level metric to gauge if the source is helping you find relevant candidates that are good enough to invest time interviewing.
- % of candidates hired: This is a good measure of how often candidates from the source are both willing to see the interview process through the end and are also strong enough to get hired.
- Cost: Understand how much money was spent on the source. For some sources, costs may be baked in elsewhere, while others are more direct: like paying to attend a job fair or the subscription to LinkedIn Recruiter.
As mentioned above, not all sources should be expected to perform the same way. Having a mix, like a diverse portfolio of stocks and bonds or series of advertising campaigns to meet customers at different points in their buying journey, is crucial for building a strong employer brand that makes it easier and easier to attract top talent to the company over time.
Continue to evaluate sources and their effectiveness. Don't be afraid to experiment and try something new, too. Where candidates spend their time and how people look for jobs is constantly shifting, and knowing the types of candidates you're looking for and how to engage them is critical for building a steady pipeline of talent to consider for open job roles.