The Recruiting Rodeo🐎

Vol. 46: Why Talent Acquisition Is Broken (an ongoing series)

I reviewed a job posting this week on LinkedIn for a “Director of Recruiting” at one of the world’s most profitable technology companies (compensation range listed: mid $200s - mid $300s).

Sadly, how this global tech leader is “searching” for talent to hire its talent, its “leadership” talent, no less, and knowing the intense challenges this company is up against in the global AI, chip, and data center race, its job description posted online to find this mission-critical role, is yet one more shining example of “Why Talent Acquisition Is Broken.”

And why I could not possibly end my “Why Talent Acquisition Is Broken” series with just two episodes. There is just way too much to explain because truly, talent acquisition, how companies hire, is a mystery to most. Few job seekers understand it nor care to understand it – until it affects them directly. Until they need to hire for their team(s) and 2-3 months go by, and they see no qualified candidates being delivered by their in-house HR and talent acquisition teams or even search firms.

OR the hiring manager suddenly finds him or herself a job seeker for the first time in his or her career and gets to experience firsthand, the often illogical and communication-challenged process that is talent acquisition at most companies (certainly, not all).

So to fix it, to improve it, talent acquisition, it is critical that candidates and those working in talent acquisition, including the HR Leaders who somehow have been put in charge of hiring at most companies 🤔 (which baffles me because HR has nothing to do with talent acquisition and finding talent, HR is an internal-facing job function) -- we need to understand it. Take the time to understand it.

We need to figure out what’s not working and why, and start implementing solutions. Solutions that make the “candidate experience” better and the hiring process, whether that includes only posting jobs online to find talent or actual recruiting, more efficient and productive.

And by “efficient,” I don’t mean “operational efficiency” or “speed.”

Do you know that “time to fill” is the most common talent acquisition metric at most companies, large and small? Meaning, that is the key performance indicator (aka, “KPI”) by which a company recruiter, HR executive or talent acquisition executive’s performance is measured?

And why isn’t the number one KPI “quality of hire?” Making sure whoever is working in talent acquisition at a company, meaning, in a capacity to find and/or hire talent for the company, especially specialized or senior-level talent, why aren’t we making the #1 criteria for his or her success if she or he hired the right person for the hiring manager, his or her team, and the company, writ large?

Photo by Logan Voss on Unsplash

Back to the job description for this large, global, extremely profitable, technology company. What is the “criteria” listed in its “Director of Recruiting” position?

Well, for starters, the job description (aka, “JD”) states that the “Director of Recruiting” will be responsible for hiring talent at the company at the “leadership” level. While no exact titles are mentioned, I assume, having worked in talent acquisition for a large technology corporation, and having recruited out of pretty much every size tech company in America at some point, that this implies Director, Sr. Director, VP, SVP-, GM- and C-level positions — overseeing external search firms, as needed.

Under the JD’s “What We Need To See” section, which in hip, tech company speak means “Requirements” or “Must Haves,”I read what I would expect to read for a position where the recruiter will be sourcing, identifying, engaging with, and interviewing talent, in consideration for “leadership-level” positions:

“12+ years experience,” “leadership recruiting experience,” etc.

Below the “What We Need To See” section is another category or section:

“Ways To Stand Out From The Crowd.”

In recruiter-speak, these are “Nice To Haves” vs. “Must Haves” — a “preference” vs. a “requirement.” And from experience, I know that these preferences count A LOT. As we have covered throughout The Recruiting Rodeo🐎, companies love to hire 🍎 to 🍎.