Take a second and think about recruitment twenty years ago, before the Internet. How did people build their talent pools?
They could put an ad in a newspaper or promote from within or ask people they knew; maybe go to a job fair. Or they could hire a recruitment firm and that firm generally had more connections or would go to colleges, etc. But yet all of those methods had their limits, such as geography, who the people knew, etc.
Then, the Monsters and Indeeds of the world sprang up and job postings became available to everyone who had an Internet connection. And today, even that has begun to change, as many more jobs are being posted or recruited via social media sites, such as LinkedIn and Facebook.
So what are the effects of these changes? First off, the hiring process certainly became more democratic, as now many more people had a chance at a particular job. That helps employers as well, because more people means companies can have high standards and theoretically hire better people.
However, all of this could lead to a very common problem in today’s digital age: information overload. With the vast reach of the Internet, hundreds of people are applying for highly-desirable jobs, many of whom are at least somewhat qualified. How is a hiring team expected to screen though all those candidates to discover who truly is the best fit for the position?
Right now, the screening process for most employers or recruiters is based around a resume glance. If the person seems like a good fit on paper or has the desired years of experience, they move on. This is fine, except that studies show experience in the field and success at a new job have little correlation.
The other common option today is to have a recruiter call the people and do a quick screening interview. This is fine, but now one or two people are privy to that information and are whittling down the candidate pool, instead of the entire hiring team. Also, this is a time-consuming and expensive process.