The Recruitment Model – Death of the Database?
When the first recruitment agencies opened their doors in the United States in the late 19th century a business model was put into operation that has remained constant for most of the last 100 years. There have been developments; such as the provision of temporary workers by recruitment agencies from the late 1940s onwards but for the most part the basic model has not changed.
In essence an agency builds a database of candidates usually via advertising but also perhaps via headhunting that it then relies on to supply the companies it recruits for with viable candidates for open positions. This database therefore, becomes all important. It becomes an agency’s unique selling point – that their database is more extensive, more developed, more relevant than any of their competitors. There have always been issues with this such as, if in a particular sector all agencies advertised in the same publications then surely their databases would be similar? However, database management has become the pervading ideology across the recruitment industry.
It should be noted that this model does differ greatly from high end executive search, where, for the most part, potential candidates are only sought when an engagement has commenced i.e. a large retailer requires a new Chief Executive – the Search Consultant would, upon assignment, begin interaction with suitable propositions. As these roles would arise rarely and appropriate contacts are easily found then a ‘database’ is not required (although a network of contacts to build credibility and facilitate contact almost certainly is).
With typical high staff turnover within the recruitment profession as a whole and the obvious difficulties of maintaining accurate data from an ever changing target data pool then claims over the veracity of a database are largely exaggerated. In fact in many cases the majority of candidates are found via advertising to the extent that whilst some of these candidates might already exist on a database owned by an agency it is not until a candidate applies to a position that a consultant would be reminded of them (or learn of them for the first time). Where this is not the case the candidates supplied are not those generally found by utilising the entire network but those within an individual consultant’s stream of consciousness. If a consultant registered a candidate a year ago with a specific skill set then the consultant might be reminded of that person when a job arises requiring that skill set. However if another consultant within a business registered this candidate then the chances of them being found are greatly reduced. Whilst it is of course possible to search a database the data is often inaccurate, recorded by multiple users no longer with a business or coded in a way that has become redundant. The very volume of data makes searching it cumbersome, time consuming and less likely to be the most efficient way of sourcing a correct and useful record.
These frailties are of course a caricature of a complex issue and some consultancies may adopt strategies such as regularly discussing newly registered candidates to try to reduce these concerns. However, the greater the number of consultants that are employed and/or the higher their own staff turnover the reality of these meetings having any significant results are massively reduced.
To this background is added a further issue – a database is no longer exclusive. Where many consultants have access to the same data (such as searchable CV databases from the major job boards, or the online CIPA register) the veracity of one’s own data becomes far less important in comparison to the ability to use the online tools available. If everyone has access to the same data; then what is important is ones ability as a consultant. If the entirety of a market is aware of the data that one has access to then it is how one engages with potential candidates that becomes all important. Candidates use the services of one consultant over another because the quality of advice is more extensive or that the range of opportunities they can facilitate is more significant. Likewise for clients, if all consultants potentially have access to the same data then it is how a consultant engages with their candidates that will become important – the ability of a consultant to effectively but credibly and honestly sell the firm they represent to a candidate will be a key differential.
Technology has had a revolutionary affect on the industry as a whole and only those recruiters that realise that this necessarily facilitates a change in working methodology are likely to survive in the long term. Databases generated by the consultancy will gradually give way to user generated content based data such as a network on Linkedin. If your data stream’s accuracy is governed by its users and not the owner of the database then its veracity is likely to be much more thorough. An online network allows for much greater contact on a casual basis between recruiter and potential candidate – it can improve information flow, it can generate new candidates from an expanded contact base and it can help build the credibility of the recruiter for all to see. The data becomes independently verifiable.
Technology has changed and will continue to change the recruitment industry in fundamental ways. It is up to us as recruiters to ensure we are taking advantage of it to benefit our clients and candidates and to ensure our own survival. This is; Fellows and Associates’ Mission Statement.
Fellows and Associates.