Numerous Internet sites allow job seekers to search discreetly for positions -- anytime, anywhere – and respond to postings quickly. There are apps that help with career planning, organize the job search process, alert job seekers to compatible positions, and can even upload and send resumes to job postings.
So why isn’t there a cloud-based service that searches talent pools to find the best available job applicants; i.e., finds the ideal job applicants with the highest probability of hire?
Is there a better way to match employee with employer – to know which applicants have the skills to deliver desired outcomes within the startup’s work environment; which applicants can perform at the desired level; which applicants can work well with current employees; or, which applicants’ personality fits within the startup’s unique culture?
I mean that the current approach, and derivatives of the current approach in the form of boolean searches (keyword searches with AND / OR/ EXCEPT sort of logic) isn't going to be able to solve against the problem presented.
Real disruption has to take the form of what you're touching on - a revamp of process and doing things that just make sense (like mentioning start times, pay rates, etc up front). Focusing on who to empower (candidate vs hiring manager vs recruiter) is going to be another key differentiator in how you approach the solution.
With your individual case study, that was clearly a recruiter failure - but don't paint all recruiters with the same brush - a good deal of them are figuring it out as they go - and the more seasoned ones definitely learn how to screen up front. A solution for them would be huge - These poor folks are looking at a funnel where they start with 300 people just to present 3 to the hiring manager, and where time is of the essence.
And really, without question, a good solution is going to appeal to all three parties mentioned above. Ease of use, appropriate customization, and trust for the candidate, better pre-contact screening for the recruiter, and solid top-tier options for the hiring party.
I am actually working on this now.
The short answer is, the sites are asking the wrong questions. Everything now is all about resumes and keywords, but not about matching and understanding how ppl think. There was a site called bright.com but they sold to linkedin for 120 million.
Thats possible !! Machine learning algorithms can possibly enhance the possibility of finding ideal job applicant for a company . Past hires can be used a learning data. Features like scanning keywords in CV , pulling Git details , fetching info from Linkedin , Facebook etc... can be added and fed to ML algo which can determine the alignment of the candidate with the employer.
The tech stack looks like in the area of BigData and Machine Learning.
This is a very very hard problem to solve. My last position was at an incubator attached to a major HR company (one of the largest in the world). And after looking at this and other options - we thought that it was such a multi-faceted problem that it would have been hard to pursue.
I agree with Joshua! It's definitely something that can be solved, but it will not be a simple solution. Boolean searches aren't going to pull it off. And you have to really get a good handle on what an ideal startup employee looks like - surely this doesn't look the same as a person you'd hire in to a 50+ person org during horizontal growth.
There's some seriously hard questions around quantifying the things you list good culture fit, appropriate skill level, appropriate personality profile. In the immediate - I think the best solution is still 100% human driven. At least until Joshua launches his product :-)
Yes, there is : I am working on it ;) Join me !
If you have spent time dealing with candidates and hiring managers, you surely noticed that no matter what you do, the whole thing about keywords matching, however 'smart' is flawed right from the start.
The reason is two fold :
- If you have looked at a CV and spoken to the person, you see that a CV is merely the description a teenager would make of him/herself by looking in the mirror : it is just flawed.
- If you look at a job description, you can smell the copy/paste and understand there is actually very, very little information relevant to make a choice.
Also, INTENT is key here, and it is not written on a CV.
So recruiters spam candidates, candidates spam recruiters : relevance is low, and mashups won't help a tiny bit here.
Then, on top of that, most 'hard skills' are pretty much irrelevant to any business looking to get someone onboard in the long run : if the gap isn't crazy, hard skills are very cheap to acquire (rarely over a quarter worth of salary), compared to making the wrong hire.
"Wrong" here means for instance : the hire which will bomb your teams.
Get your key people to resign, taking others with them in the following year.
Slow down the business by creating conflicts, or innovating when you're looking for a doer, etc.
As much as human-only solutions are doomed costly and plain wrong for their bias, machine-only approach is a developer or 'scale fast' investor's fantasy. Hybrid approaches, such as hired.com, are providing far more value than the SW-only LinkedIns-like of this world.
So, there are approaches to make things much, much, MUCH better : let's talk about it ? ;)
If you're talking about a kind of aggregator with special search algorithms, they already exist. Like a yippit for recruitment. There's aa lot of solutions out there. Not sure how valuable the cloud based portion willl be. Maybe you could do it and show us the value
@greg what do you mean by boolean searches? I think ultimately you will need a recruiter or person to give the extra push for the company to decide on an employee (because thats human nature) but the process can be much easier with asking the right questions. Recently, i spoke to a recruiter about a recruiter position for myself. After 30 minutes of speaking to him on the phone, he said he would line to meet me in his office in nyc. I said sure, what time? He said the office hours start at 830. I said the earliest i can be there is 845 to 9 depending on the bus. He said that wont work. My point is, why couldnt he say in the position the hours before i applied? Why do they leave out so many details? I have a form that has 51 basic questions that will verify a persons basic profile. With this profile, hr managers can hopefully filter the list of potential candidates. But ultimately, you need that human selling the candidate.
Wait for a few years see if Linkedin can get this problem solved
I hope so.