Dear 40+ recruiters, remember the good old days, when there were candidates a plenty and all we had to do was just lift a finger to attract them into our nets. In those days, we spent more time negotiating agency media fees for publishing our ads in the papers, and then waiting patiently until Monday for the résumés to land on our desks. No e-mail, no social networks and certainly no database systems. The two must-have tools in those days were the Rolodex (for those of you born after 1980, this was the granddaddy of Outlook contacts) and the Filofax (for the first group and those born after 1985, the granddaddy of the electronic organizer). There was no voice mail but we had an assistant—a precious ally during days passed in selection interviews or meetings with suppliers or managers. At the time, the concept of “internal client” and “employer of choice” didn’t exist, and even less so “candidate experience.”

One candidate lost and ten gained! That was how we thought. Headhunters only took senior managers’ files, and had several months to fill an assignment. No racing against the clock, only healthy competition—but nothing too aggressive. .  . and above all, the “aura” from which internal and external recruiters benefitted, which positioned them as all-powerful demigods. Big mahogany desks, a feeling of superiority, and marked respect shown by everyone. Headhunters and recruiters were as venerated as they were feared. . . You didn’t dare get on their wrong side, for fear they would strike you off their candidate list forever—goodbye, career advancement! Yes, the world has changed. In fact, technology has forced the change more than the desire of organizations and recruiters to change. While the economic context and demographics have caused great upheaval, it is technological innovation that has really affected the job of recruiters.

Innovation will no doubt continue with new software, systems, and highly advanced social networks being developed. But what about innovation as regards the recruiter’s job and our processes? Are we really that advanced compared to 20 years ago? While sophisticated databases have replaced the Rolodex, has the way we search for candidates really been transformed? Although it has become automated, we have not really innovated that much. The proof is that when we talk about creating pools of talent (potential target candidates), few organizations can brag about mapping their talent or their “community of talents.” We continue to turn to the good old tried and true direct approach methods via agencies or headhunters, and publishing ads or postings on the new social networking platforms and the web in general. Yes, recruiting via LinkedIn or Facebook may seem innovative, but actually we have just incorporated a new technology, and nothing fundamental has changed.

Human relationships by definition cannot be modelled; they continue to be unpredictable and can therefore elude us. Recruiting is not a science, it’s an art. While science is a perpetual quest for innovation, art remains vague and sometimes imperfect since everything is a question of appreciation. Recruiting is not scientific because no one can predict its success exactly. There will always be a part of uncertainty, or frailty linked to being human and the instinct or intuition of the recruiter, which, despite all most sophisticated tools will allow him or her to find THE right candidate. So you think I’m getting esoteric? Perhaps. But after trying for years to rationalize my recruiting decisions, model profiles and automate the process, I think that it is time to dwell on organizational innovation.

The way to go is by transferring the responsibility for recruiting to operations, training managers on recruiting, identifying top talent and treating them like potential clients (prospects), reviewing compensation programs for corporate recruiters, along with their roles and responsibilities, and compensating the best managers for their management style using indicators on their ability to attract, retain and develop the best talent.

Why not be inspired by new models of how sales and marketing departments operate to build an innovative recruiting function, with “brand recruiters” in charge of the employer brand image, and recruiters operating by job and industry dedicated to a particular region or business unit?

Rethinking the act of recruiting to incorporate it into our organizations’ business plan and strategy is certainly the best way of going from transactional to relational mode. Recruiting is a lot of things, but certainly not a commodity, so let’s act accordingly.

Nathalie Francisci, 
Board Director, Speaker and Colomnist
www.nathaliefrancisci.com