Digg-Style of Recruiting

Digg-Style of Recruiting
(Or, the best resume review process - EVER!)
© 2006 by: Jim Stroud

Are you hip to Digg?  Probably so… Digg is an online phenomenon that has sprouted several clones after only one and a half years of operation. What it is and how it works is simplistic genius.  In a nutshell, Digg allows users (anybody with an internet connection) to submit stories (usually links to online articles), which is turn get “dugg” (reviewed) by editors (aka “diggers”).  Once stories receive enough votes, they appear on the front page of the Digg website and after appearing there, (most likely) they will be discussed on multiple blogs throughout the blogosphere.

What makes Digg so cool?  Mostly it’s a win-win-win situation for all concerned; bloggers use it as a gateway to publicity, diggers delight in being the first to discover and report on hot stories and Digg readers get to read the best reviewed stories.  Moreover, Digg users can bookmark stories for future reference.

(Here is a partial list of the copycats Digg has inspired: Reddit, Blinklist, Listible, Pligg and Gabbr.)

When I considered Digg’s popularity and its many clones, I thought that this system works.  (Well, duh…)  I also began to speculate on how this system of discovery and review could be applied to recruiting, specifically the recruiting of active candidates.  And then, "Eurethra!" I had an idea.  Consider this for a process...

1. Jobseekers apply for positions and enter their resumes into an Applicant Tracking System.
2. Recruiters look up resumes via keywords so that a minimal criterion is met; afterwards recruiters begin tagging and categorizing these resumes. For example, John Doe’s resume could be tagged with “software engineer” “grad student” “entry-level” “video” and “graphics.” Once tagged with these keywords, these resumes are categorized under Technology and submitted for voting.
3. Employees who work in the Technology department vote on which applicants are best for their department based on their resume alone. (Contact information is suppressed to preserve the privacy of the applicant.)
4. Hiring manager selects potential hires based on the votes of employees currently working in that department. Of course, those resumes receiving the most votes rise to the top of the list. At this point, the hiring manager clicks a link (probably a thumbs-up icon).
5. The recruiter receives notification of all the applicants receiving a thumbs-up from the hiring manager and pursues these applicants for the open position. 

You know what’s cool about this type of approach?  With advanced buy-in from people already working in the position (or a similar role) and the hiring manager giving a thumbs-up, the chances of making a hire just increases exponentially.  Furthermore, the staffing organization gets better “street credibility.” What if, every applicant a recruiter calls is cleared for hire before they are even contacted, much less interviewed?  How much faster could the hiring process be?  Can you imagine the buzz and referrals generated by new-hires who move quickly through a process like this?

Most importantly, can you Digg it?

• Jim Stroud
• Recruiter-Sourcer-Blogger-Podcaster-Author-Cartoonist-Nice Guy
• Blog: All you wanted to know about my blog but were afraid to ask
• Web:  www.JimStroud.com
• Sourcing Tips: http://jimstroud.com/digability

Comments

[Lawrence]

I will afford will disagree, any reasoning should be supported with the facts! All the same what to tell, I love people at which there is a cheep airfare tickets
. Lets think about it ;)

[Halina]

Your site is very very cool !! I love it :) Respect !
;)

[dan]

i think this is a bad idea. isn't the job of a recruiter - a retained one, at least - to provide an actual service to the client, rather than increase the client's workload?

[anon]

I think you meant Eureka.

[Jim Stroud]

Jeepers! Thanks for the kudos! I really appreciate that. But you know what? (Dramatic pause) Now that I think about it, why not add another component to it? Why not have it so that the general public rates the resumes as well. Imagine this, you apply for job, the general public (who operate in your space) see a sanitized version of your resume (no name, company name or dates of employment -only number of years there) and begin rating your profile. In the end, the hiring manager sees reviews of your resume from internal workers and external peers before rendering his/her decision for a recruiter to call them. (Pause a moment as I shake my head in thought) Of course, the Hiring Manager can also review the voting history of external voters to see who is being jealous vs objective. (Another dramatic pause - last one) Yeah, that could work - maybe. Just a thought...

-Jim Stroud
Recruiter-Sourcer-Blogger-Podcaster-Author-Cartoonist-Nice Guy
www.JimStroud.com

[Michael Specht]

I like it a lot! Very cool idea.

Why not take it a step further use it to rate passive seekers before you approach them.