This reviews effects of targeted and un-targeted sourcing on the selection process efficiency. All steps towards a hire are considered as “productive”- e.g. “screening” and “interviewing” - any other step – e.g. “sending communication” - as administrative. The concrete hiring situation is the filling of administration support functions with graduates. Candidates needed to be fluent in a particular forging language, willing to accept a fix term engagement and had to be available for immediate start. The Positions were posted on the company‘s website and on a popular online job board (=> “Un-targeted Sourcing”) as well as students had been directly approached on an university conducted job fair and through employee referral efforts (=> “Targeted Sourcing”).

1. Effects of targeted
Sourcing
I n f l u e n c i n g S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s
e f f i c i e n c y b y c h o o s i n g t h e
a d e q u a t e S o u r c e

2. Subject
This reviews effects of targeted and un-targeted sourcing on the selection process efficiency. All steps
towards a hire are considered as “productive”- e.g. “screening” and “interviewing” - any other step –
e.g. “sending communication” - as administrative.
The concrete hiring situation is the filling of administration support functions with graduates.
Candidates needed to be fluent in a particular forging language, willing to accept a fix term
engagement and had to be available for immediate start.
The Positions were posted on the company‘s website and on a popular online job board (=> “Un-
targeted Sourcing”) as well as students had been directly approached on an university conducted job
fair and through employee referral efforts (=> “Targeted Sourcing”).
The candidate selection took place via Pre-Screening questions (PSQs) -to be answered in the web-
based application process, Recruiter performed CV screening, online Remote Video interviewing and
Assessment Centre (AC) with short Hiring Manager interview. Candidates could be rejected at any
selection stage.
Results had been analyzed based on the monitored source of application.
For confidentiality reasons detailed data have been removed from this public post.

3. Selection Process and Related Time
Initial Screening
Reviewing incoming applications on PSQ results
Reviewing CVs of candidates with positive PSQ score
1 min per application
3 min per application
Online Assessment
Sending invitation for Remote Video Interview
Administration of time frame for Remote Video Interviews
Remote Video Interview review and evaluation
1 min per application
1 min per application
8 min per application
AC Preparation
Room booking and appointment planning
Sending of invitations
Monitoring candidates’ declination
2 min per application
1 min per application
1 min per application
Assessment Center
AC
Individual Interview
20 min per application
10 min per application
Sending rejection
Sending rejection for non selected candidates 1 min per application
Time per application refers on average time per candidate at the according selection stage.
Main influencer on total selection process time are the total number of received applications and their
initial fit for being manually reviewed by a recruiter.

4. #
Untargeted Sourcing
*Each section represents the percentage of time, spent
relatively to the total work time for candidate selection
Time investment on selection*
of all received applications fulfilled posted basic requirements
after CV screening
Productivity
Steps, related to selection progress
towards hiring decision are considered
as directly value creating.

5. #
*Each section represents the percentage of time, spent
relatively to the total work time for candidate selection
Time investment on selection*
of all received applications fulfilled posted basic requirements
after CV screening
Productivity
Steps, related to selection progress
towards hiring decision are considered
as directly value creating.
Targeted Sourcing

6. Summary
Untargeted sourcing in a general “Post & Pray” approach causes a significant in-balance between
potentially fitting and clearly not fitting applications. Especially for those positions which do not
require a clear and specific profile – such as support and assistance functions or internship programs.
Still many companies tend to “scare” not fitting candidates away by building up a burden in the
application process – e.g. due a long catalogue of pre-screening questions, urging applicants to pass a
non commented online assessment or – even worse – due a very long selection processes and / or
non-responsiveness, caused by a lag of HR resources.
In an increasing “war for talents” this traditional approach will more harm the employer’s reputation
than protect its recruitment and HR resources.
It seems wise to be more targeted in the sourcing and to have applicants given the chance to assess
their own fit for a particular function or company, in an applicant conducted, not monitored and
unconditioned self-assessment (e.g. due “recruitainment” offers).