Episode Key Takeaways
The post-pandemic talent market has flipped the needle-in-a-haystack problem. Volume of candidates is higher, but quality is harder to find because companies laid off lower performers first, leaving stronger active candidates who are now risk-averse and reluctant to move. Sourcing skill shifts from finding to persuading.
Exhaustive sourcing means building a long list of 600+ candidates before contacting anyone—not to contact all of them, but to know the market size and probability of fill. José’s teams approach 70 candidates to land one hire across mixed roles; software roles run 100–300 approaches per hire. This data informs realistic timelines and risk.
Breaking sourcing into specialist roles—one person building long lists, another doing outreach, a third screening—outperforms generalist sourcers. One long-list specialist can supply four teams; approaching is time-intensive and suits different skill profiles, including older workers strong on phone work but weaker on LinkedIn.
LinkedIn remains the primary source (60–70% of hires traced back to it), but how you search matters more than where. Simpler queries—’tester’ instead of ‘software tester,’ ‘verification’ instead of ‘verification engineer’—cast wider nets and surface candidates competitors miss because their profiles don’t match narrow keywords.
Practical automation tools that work: Phantom Buster and LinkedIn Helper for sequencing, Mixmax or Lemlist for email workflows, Propet and Connectify Social Links for profile enrichment. CV parsing and AI-driven candidate evaluation still underperform; focus on workflow efficiency, not replacement.
Frequently
Asked
Questions
How many candidates do you need to approach to hire one person?
It depends on role complexity and market. José’s mixed portfolio (IT, engineering, finance, marketing) averages 70 approaches per hire. Software development roles run 100–300 approaches per hire. The ratio matters because it lets you forecast timeline and resource need before committing to a search.
Is LinkedIn still the best sourcing platform?
Yes, if the data supports it. LinkedIn accounts for 60–70% of hires in mid-to-senior roles. Don’t be romantic about sourcing—use what works. Job boards and portals vary by market and role; test them, but don’t duplicate job advertising work your company already does in-house.
Should I hire specialist sourcers or generalists?
Specialists outperform generalists at scale. One person building long lists can supply multiple teams; another excels at outreach; a third at screening. This model is more efficient and budget-friendly because long-listing is fast and can be shared, while outreach is time-intensive and benefits from focused skill.
What automation tools actually work for sourcing?
Email sequencing (Mixmax, Lemlist), LinkedIn workflow automation (Phantom Buster, LinkedIn Helper v2), and profile enrichment (Propet, Connectify Social Links) deliver ROI. CV parsing and AI evaluation still have accuracy issues. Focus on saving time per candidate interaction—one minute saved per screen adds up across hundreds of candidates.
How do I source for diversity without changing platforms?
Diversity sourcing isn’t platform-dependent; it’s search-skill dependent. On LinkedIn, work with name patterns, location variations, and keyword combinations to surface underrepresented groups. Better: build a diverse sourcing team first—they’ll naturally know how to find and approach diverse talent because they share context and networks.