U.S. unemployment is actually 25 – 30+%, representing a huge hidden talent pool! Where are the jobs?
Failure to find talent can be found everywhere. This Talent Gap recruitment failure appears at all employment levels, but is most costly in top leadership, management, sales, high tech and/or healthcare, but not exclusively. A Retained Search Firm is usually brought in when other sources have failed. Great Retained Search Firms, by necessity, find ideal talent quickly, quietly and confidentially for highly competitive, sensitive, confidential and/or uniquely defined roles. The right firm will produce superior results at significantly lower costs than “in-house” recruitment. This is because true total “in-house” recruitment costs are not considered, asked for, poorly defined, not fully calculated or ignored.
Companies cannot find great talent, yet want to make certain they hire the best candidate.
This is part of the “Talent Gap” challenge. WASERPA brings access to the “Best in Class” known, hidden, unknown and/or passive talent available. This is vital to all employers. Employers cannot know all candidates and/or, for ethical reasons, may not be able to talk to the ones they do know. While 94% of internal [as well as external] recruiters use Linkedin to search actively for candidates, only 34% of candidates do the same to find new employers.
Using a lack of talented applicants as an example:
Finance, CFOs or x-CFO-CEOs have HR look at the problem as the cost of not filling critical positions and the increased never ending training of hires and NEOs. Finance asks to lower the recruiting and training costs in order to keep the HR department costs aligned with the lower hire rate and “in line” (ROI) with desired projections. They cut HR staff, programs, wages and benefits to align costs and then report there is not enough talent to fill critical positions (a talent gap).
Operations, CEO, CPO or well led HR sees the same problem and asks, why and how is this happening? Through surveys, data and questionnaires they gather and analyze the data to determine the reasons for the observed outcome (i.e. time spent from starting to completing the application, matches to the job applied for, bulk analysis of the number of system-wide occurrences, possibly by position, all applications actions started vs. completed, those screened out by the ATS matching process, etc.). Educated changes are then made to improve the problem processes and results – receiving more talented applications and hires. (Usually the answer is: simplifying the process itself, enabling applicants to complete the process quickly and more easily; using accurate but more generalized job descriptions in the ATS matching process; plus, insuring informed and motivated hiring management significantly shortens the hiring process itself.)