Recruiting is an equation of numbers. So many candidates = so many applicants = so many interviews = so many new hires. This is a well known strategy in many sales organizations that the number of leads eventually results in a certain number of sales. And of course there are great parallels between recruiting and sales, so much so that many recruiters consider themselves salespeople. So if recruiting is just a numbers game, then what happens when you have problems like talent shortages?
If you think about supply and demand in economics, there is a point of equilibrium that is represented by the numbers equation. However, you can change the slope of your recruiting supply curve equation by changing your employment brand. Changing the employment brand also shifts the supply curve in your favor. In other words, shifting the supply curve gives you more applicants. Changing the slope of the curve will yield you more hires per applicant because they are more willing to accept jobs.
Basically, a good employment brand will positively effect public awareness for your organization leading more people to want to work for you. As people want to work for you, they are also willing to accept a position, holding all things equal with your competitors. Basically, people would rather work for you under similar conditions to a competitor, and this is what shifts your recruiting equation.
The problem is that we’ve know about employment branding for a long time. If you’re wondering how to hire more people, it’s either about 2 things. Get more recruiters to bring more people in the door in the first place. This is the quick and easy fix. However, the costs are large, and can’t be eliminated over time. The better long term fix is to change or enhance your employment brand. This allows you to spend (probably a significant amount of) money in the short term, but yields long term results without significant reinvestment.
4 responses to “Changing the Numbers Game”
Dubs
I agree with everything in this post but the last part – “without significant reinvestment” as it has been my experience that said investment never goes down over time. Nice thought but in practice a firm has to continually get better to retain top talent. Better benefits, better pay, better work environment, better snacks, better everything – so, IMO, the investment never goes down.
If you have a great employment brand, then you spend money keeping it and making it better. If you don’t have a great employment brand, then you should spend money on the critical initiatives that create a great brand. And, continue to spend.
J. William Tincup
Starr Tincup
starrtincup.com || jpie.com
Comment #1: I love Google Ads. Here is the one that is appearing on this post (at least for me):
Natural Libido Enhancer
Natural Remedy Increases Pleasure & Sexual Response in Women.
Not sure how it relates to your post today. 🙂
Comment #2:
I tend to agree with J. William. Branding is not a one-off activity but more of a process.
You need to invest a significant amount of resources to kick-off that process for sure, but you will also need some large amount of resources (although less than for the kick-off) to maintain that brand
Comment #3:
“So many candidates = so many applicants = so many interviews = so many new hires. ”
That’s the theory behind lead generation indeed, and the one that is used by proponents of recruiting is the same as sales (as opposed to or in complement of “recruiting is like supply chain”).
I have a question though: does the quality of candidates matter? I.e. if I am a god at sourcing quality candidates, does that equation still hold?