According to him, they only exist to filter out the mass of unwashed humanity that is banging away at the hiring manager's door. Most don't have any skill at finding people beyond crusing Monster.com and they will be swept away by new recruiting technologies which will return recruiting power to the hiring manager where it belongs.
Back in January, I asked: 1. Will the expansion of online databases like LinkedIn spell the end of sourcing? 2. Would that limit recruiting to selling publicly listed candidates on jobs?
I have summarized some of the replies:
Double Dubs, SystematicHR:
Recruiting technology has enhanced the way we recruit, but it has not removed recruiting jobs. LinkedIn doesn't replace the act of recruitment. "There is so far no replacement for the intuitive nature of a good interviewer." The qualitative nature of recruiting can't be automated.
Shannon from PowerHires.com:
Automation will handle the menial tasks like reading all your resumes and posting your email address in job postings. Then you can spend your time in higher value activities like interviewing and networking. These will not be automated.
HJ Cummins, Scripps Howard, Eagle-Tribune:
Online systems can post jobs, collect resumes, vet candidates and pick a winner without involving a single human being on the hiring side. The counter-trend, however, is the need of corporations to hire ever-more-specialized employees and professionals. That means recruiters will have to listen very carefully to what a client wants.
Shally Elvis Steckerl, Job Machine:
There are 160 million working Americans but the biggest databases have only a few million leads worldwide.
Even if one single database contained all the leads, someone still would have to sort through them and figure out which ones match the requirements.
Dirty Jimmy Stroud, Microsoft Sourcer:
As soon as the people listed in online databses get tired of being contacted over and overr again by recruiters they will remove their information. Or, severely limit how they are contacted. This might reduce sourcing to looking in hundreds of other places and following up on candidate referrals and networking and everything else we do. "I am not worried."
Harry Joiner, The Marketing Headhunter:
20% third-party recruiting assignments for unspecialized line-level positions will evaporate. Recruiters will fill highly-specialized line-level jobs OR very high-level general management positions. "The days of simply throwing resumes over the fence to the client are coming to an end. Recruiters of all stripes will need to become very sharp business people with a teachable point of view on leadership, marketing, operations, and finance."
St Jimmy Durbin, Durbin Media:
The only way that recruiters need to worry is if the employment process creates a 100% effective solution. Chances of that happening when human beings run an operation? 0%.
Peggy McKee, Medical Sales Recruiter:
Tools cannot replace the recruiter who picks up the phone, asks for the referal, calls the referal, determines the fit and sells the opportunity. Work the jobs that will present the greatest challenge for the HR group and you will never be replaced.
All of them had very interesting things to say. But, in the end, they had some sort of zombie-like attraction to the idea that recruiting blogs are a big deal in the recruiting business as a whole -- even though everything they said proved that was wrong.
I'll show you what I mean with quotes from the cheerleaders on Bully's own blog.
Come on, peoples. Join the fun. The bad guys need you.
Poor Carlton the Restaurant Doorman. He's being hung out to dry by the rest of the blog boosters. They know that their blather can't stand the least bit of scrutiny, so all of a sudden they're all busy at 12 o'clock noon.
And, that leaves poor ol' Carlton all on his own. Now, this guy might make a mean pizza but when it comes to arguing about blogs, well, he's going down faster than a fat man on a plate of chips.
The question is the influence of recruiting blogs on the recruiting industry as a whole. And, on technology vendors. I've been reading his blog and he just doesn't get it.
Joe Schmoe testifies that Carlton had a big influence on him and Carlo says, "See, I'm a somebody." That's true, Carlton. In your own little world, you are. But that's not what we're talking about.
So, if you find it in your heart to help poor Carlo, meet me at NOON, EST, today, March 7, 2007 for the first online call in recruiting radio show in all of history.
USE THIS LINK.
You listen on Windows Media Player which everyone has built into Windows.
And you can call the number listed on the site and talk to me.
Date & Time: March 07, 12:00 Noon EST Segment ID: 14974 Dial In Number: (646) 652-2754 (see below to confirm) Home Page:Click here or on icon above
Carlton the Restaurant Doorman is claiming that recruiting blogs are already a major force in the recruiting business. I don't think so. So, I'm going to prove him wrong on-air and you can call in and have a piece of him too.
Where did Carlton get his ideas? Bull Doza published a bunch of comments from names in the Recruitosphere and the gullible think that these deliver some sort of meaningful message.
But of course they don't. The writers who replied to Bull Doza didn't understand what he was trying to do or figured they'd just toss off some mindless blather as a favour to a friend.
And, come Wednesday, I'm going to take this nonsense and hang it out to dry.
You have been chosen to participate in a survey being conducted by The Recruiting Animal.
QUESTION: Will automation kill recruiting?
Systematic HR recently posted a warning that automation rather than China will vaporize American jobs.
So, will a huge expansion of online databases like LinkedIn spell the end of sourcing? Would that limit recruiting to an attempt by sales people to cajole publicly listed candidates into seeing the value of a new job? The Recruiting Animal wants to know.
Naturally, not everyone will want to participate and that's just fine. But if you do comment no vague, wordy answers are desired. Make your case clear and hard. That means evidence.
A simple "I don't know" is fine, too. A bunch of meaningless gobbledy-gook isn't (unless of course, it's really funny).
Your answers will be published under your name. Email me here. Or, if you can't wait, answer below.
Vin Dieselevey, aka Steve Levy, gave me a quick tour yesterday of a new eBay style site that allows hiring managers to sell their searches to recruiters. It seemed exciting to me.
Company X posts a job and a fee for filling it. Recruiter X says "I know someone like that" and offers to work it. The company then decides, based upon the performance data for that recruiter, if they want to engage the recruiter for the search.
Bountyjobs.com takes a 25% cut of the recruiting fee (for having brought in the business) when the recruiter makes a placement.
The fees can be good (into the 15-20K range) and can be negotiated higher once your online reputation as a supplier puts your services in great demand.
Problem for Bounty: What would stop anyone from discovering an employer via the site and then doing future business offline? Deez says that isn't a problem (and he can explain in the comments because I didn't get it).
I found the rating system limited. For recruiters, you see the number of jobs worked against number of placements. And for employers you see the number of jobs posted against the number of jobs filled.
I'd like to see comments that tell you that employer X moves so slowly on the interviews that you lost your candidate to another offer before she could hire and pay you a fee.
Deez claims, reasonably, that lousy hiring managers will have poor jobs-posted to jobs-filled ratios and this will send enough of a warning to the recruiting public.
Still, if I was a regular participant I might start a blog offsite called The Bountyjobs Backchannel. And, Deez says, "Go right ahead."