From article:
"They don’t talk about the benefits; they don’t talk about what you would get... they tell you what you need in order to be successful in the recruitment."
"Second, the services should offer more people enlistment bonuses and increase the dollar amounts of those bonuses. Research shows that enlistment bonuses expand the supply of recruits overall and have an especially large effect when targeted to recruits who choose to train in critical specialties"
And the paragraph immediately preceding that one:
"An important aspect of recruiter management is an incentive system that provides recruiters
with incentives to be productive. Research shows that these incentive systems affect recruiter
productivity in terms of the quality, number, and timing of enlistments.20 Recruiters are
incentivized to increase effort when these plans are designed properly, but the plans can have
perverse unintended effects if not designed well. For example, one study found that Army recruit
screening was poorer at the end of the recruiting month, when recruiters are incentivized to meet
their monthly recruiting missions."
One part in the article really caught my attention:
Recruiting and hiring isn’t considered a core activity
I think that once your company grows beyond a certain size, it must become so. We hired a full time in-house recruiter around 100 people and it has had enormous benefit.
How could anyone come to this contrarian conclusion, even after reading the article it is baffling.
There is a time and place for in-house recruiters and third party recruiters. This article does not identify them and obsessively takes the contrarian view with no supporting rationale for doing so.
Summary: Article about how everyone in a company should be recruiting.
Recruited/recruiting for some notable companies. Current managers are heavily engaged in recruiting and I'm quite lucky . Working with some other companies, managers were MIA(missing in action) for long periods of time. Example, present candidates, don't hear back from managers for over a month x_X.
For extremely large corporations the recruitment function is increasingly being outsourced, in fact a candidate might not even know they're talking to an outsourced company. Here's my post on this:
Use of agencies, RPOs, and high amounts of contracted recruiters gives a company more flexibility with their budget, as headcounts can change dramatically in any given year.
You may not specifically be the recruiter but it's no mystery that you guys have been aggressively hiring, and being over capacity is no doubt something somebody in your position would be acutely aware of.
So pardon me for agreeing with parent that the post sounds like it was written by somebody having a hard time finding good candidates.
Most all tech companies treat recruiting as an after thought, you would think this Trillion dollar companies would try to use their technological leverage to make recruitment more efficient but no…
reply