I've observed over the years that top people enter the job market in predictable ways depending on how satisfied they are with their current jobs. Here's a short video highlighting the job-hunting psychology of the top performer. Obviously, the more anxious they are about the quality of their current jobs, the more aggressive they'll be in looking for something else. Ten classic job-hunting styles stand out, from those who are simply open to talk about possible opportunities to those who are ready to accept a reasonable offer in a few days. From a consumer marketing perspective these would be called customer personas. Knowing the type of person you're seeking can help you develop a targeted sourcing strategy, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. Segmenting your candidate pool this way will become more and more necessary in order to increase the quantity and quality of top performers you're seeing.

"Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there."
– Will Rogers

"If everything is under control,
you are going too slow."
– Mario Andretti

It is a cliché these days to say that the only constant in the business world is change, but that doesn't make it any less true. Here are some great statements about the way conventional wisdom gets turned on its head:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
– Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Patent Office, 1899

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
– Harry Morris Warner, co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1927

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
– Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
– Bill Gates, 1981

If these guys can get it so wrong, is it any wonder that the rest of us poor mortals have trouble predicting what's going to happen next? Who could have foreseen the depth and breadth of the current housing slump and its affect on the economy 12 months ago? How often do you see a merger or acquisition coming from down in the trenches? How many of us have seen our companies go from a hiring frenzy to a hiring freeze in just a few months?

Here's what I see as the fundamental ground rules for sourcing top talent, circa 2010. Implementing them now will give you a reasonable head start.

Over the past 30+ years I've been involved in thousands of searches, worked with hundreds of different hiring managers, trained 3,000 to 4,000 recruiters, and worked closely with dozens of major companies. Following are the common threads among the best techniques, processes, and tools I've seen and used. Collectively, they add up to a business process for hiring top people. While Performance-based Hiring provides a simplified high-level summary of these, it's the details and execution that will ultimately determine success.

As you review each of the factors below rank yourself on the following 1-5 scale, with a Level 5 representing super star performance and a Level 1 representing absolute incompetence. On this scale a 2.5 would be considered adequate or average.

Level 1: Has no ability whatsoever, or doesn't want to do it under any circumstance.

Level 2: Has some ability, but needs urging or hasn't done it, but has the potential to learn.

Level 3: Has strong ability, has proven results, and is self-motivated to do it consistently.

Level 4: Has very strong ability with proven results and does it faster or does a lot more of it. Often trains others.

Level 5: Is one of the best in the business in this area. So good, in fact, is sought out to train others.

- Bob Dylan

As most of you would agree, how companies market and advertise jobs to top people is changing at an accelerating pace; in most cases, more rapidly than companies can respond. Simply put, the winners in the ongoing war for talent will be those who can establish nimble and targeted programs designed to both anticipate and subsequently lead these changes.

Understanding where sourcing has come from and where it's going can help you get the needed jump-start as you begin developing your sourcing strategies for the recovery just about to start.

In the Olden Days of Sourcing – considered anything before 1995, or pre-Internet – print media and the telephone were the primary sourcing tools of choice. This was the era of the hidden job market, classified ads, company loyalty, and where networking was largely Rolodex-based. Big display ads dominated the Sunday Times and Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Job changes were fewer, but each decision meant more.

If you were able to answer these questions with some degree of specificity, you may now proceed to the next six sins. All good sourcing activities require deep job knowledge, so it amazes me how many recruiters expect to attract top talent without it. Your ability to create a compelling pitch, post a killer ad, or convince a candidate who's on the fence to move forward all comes from job knowledge. Job knowledge also allows a recruiter to understand what the benefits are for the candidate (i.e., opportunity, growth, stretch). Otherwise, all you have left is compensation and benefits, and in this market, that's not nearly enough.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss this topic as a panelist on a Human Capital Institute web program with Cathy Lee Gibson, the former Director of the Human Resources Program at Cornell's Industrial and Labor Relations School. The focus was on how to better "manage" hiring managers. This is a point of significant interest to any of the recruiters among us who have lost a good candidate because one of our clients made an incorrect assessment. It should also be a point of major interest to any hiring manager who is at odds with their recruiting or HR group regarding how to best measure candidate quality.

During the webcast I described the evidenced-based assessment approach we've developed as part of Performance-based Hiring^sm to specifically address this all-too-common problem. Our solution was to change the method used by the interviewing team to decide whether to hire someone or not. Rather than add up a bunch of superficial or biased yes/no votes, the idea was to delay the assessment until all of the interviewers could present their findings. Once this is completed, the group collectively makes the hiring decision based on all of the evidence presented. Cathy summarized this whole point succinctly by saying it was akin to being "a juror, not a judge," during the interview.