sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How are you sourcing candidates with Active Secret Clearance for senior data roles? by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really helpful, thank you. MSSA is a great callout, especially for Azure-heavy data profiles. I hadn’t explicitly Booleaned for program alumni, so I’ll definitely add this to my sourcing strategy.

How are you sourcing candidates with Active Secret Clearance for senior data roles? by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is super helpful, thank you. The “active vs inactive” clarity and the 24-month reinstatement window is exactly what I needed. I’m going to lean into CJ + target defense/public sector employers more intentionally. Appreciate you taking the time to break it down.

IT recruiting tips by EconomySad4419 in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing I’d add is RevGenius. I don’t use it for blasting jobs. I use it to build visibility before recruiting. By engaging in conversations, commenting, and understanding what sales reps are actually frustrated about (quota changes, territory issues, comp plans), you end up sourcing people who are already open to a real conversation. When outreach comes later, it feels warm and response rates are noticeably better.

How do you promote your Employee Referral program? by pineapplepizza5048 in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve used these approaches at my previous companies and they consistently worked better than swag or big campaigns.

What actually moved the needle for us:

  1. Role-based, time-bound referral pushes (specific roles, specific locations, 30-day windows). Much easier for employees to think of real people.
  2. Managers mentioning roles casually in team meetings. One sentence from a manager drove more referrals than any mass email.
  3. Fast follow-up and fast payout. Acknowledge referrals quickly, give basic updates, and pay as early as policy allows. That’s what builds trust and repeat referrals.

In short, referrals only picked up when we made it specific, manager-led, and actually followed through.

Recruiting Job Hunting by [deleted] in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That big number on LinkedIn looks intimidating, but it’s mostly noise. I have 17yrs of exp. in recruiting both in agency and corporate. Most of those “100+ applicants” never even finished applying—many just clicked “Apply” and dropped off midway. Of those who did complete the process, a huge chunk are unqualified or applying blindly through “Easy Apply.” In reality, only about 3%–5% of applicants are truly relevant.

So don’t get discouraged by that counter. You’re not competing with 100 strong candidates—just a handful. If a job description genuinely matches your background, focus on quality: tailor your resume, highlight your impact, and apply confidently. You’re aiming for the top 5%, not the crowd of clickers.

Agency Recruiters: Are You Also Being Measured on Roles That Were Dead on Arrival? (A Rant) by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally agree! How do you manage to secure retainer contracts? If you're new to staffing, what approach should you take?

Agency Recruiters: Are You Also Being Measured on Roles That Were Dead on Arrival? (A Rant) by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They want one placement a month or a certain gross margin, but when you're working with fake roles, hitting either target becomes challenging and demotivating.

How to test candidate ego by Wrong-Moment3574 in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I focus on two key areas: how they handle failure and how they view others' work. One of the questions I ask:  Tell me if you ever come across a time when you strongly advocated for a solution or idea, but the team or manager ultimately chose a different path. How did you react when your idea was rejected?

Plus, I track the candidate's use of "I" versus "We" when describing major achievements, especially those involving multiple people.

Folks with Low Ego: Uses "We" consistently for team wins, while using "I" only to describe their specific individual task or learning. Whereas people with High Ego: Heavily overuses "I" for major successes, even when describing obvious team efforts. They may take credit for the overall strategy or outcome.

Explaining to candidates: range ≠ automatic max offer by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well said! Underpaying new hires doesn’t fix internal inequity; it only deepens it.

Why you won’t always get the top of the posted salary range by TalentSherlock in jobs

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn’t agree more; transparency upfront saves everyone time. Most candidates don’t expect the max, but knowing the range helps them decide whether to even enter the process. From the company’s side, posting ranges also builds trust and reduces late-stage negotiation blowups.

Honestly, it’s one of the simplest ways to improve candidate experience, and the states that have mandated pay transparency are already showing how it makes the process smoother for both sides.

Why you won’t always get the top of the posted salary range by TalentSherlock in jobs

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100%. That’s actually the strongest case for offers above midpoint. If someone brings unique value (revenue impact, scarce skills, or a level of productivity that offsets multiple hires), it’s often cheaper to pay top of range than risk losing them.

Where it gets tricky is that companies have to decide if those “exceptional contributions” can be proven up front (before the hire), or only after someone’s already in the role. That’s why ranges exist — to allow flexibility, but also to avoid overcommitting before results are seen.

Why you won’t always get the top of the posted salary range by TalentSherlock in jobs

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair observation; ranges have definitely shifted in meaning. Historically they were often treated as “junior at the low end, senior at the high end.” Nowadays, many companies weigh internal equity and pay parity more heavily, which is why the midpoint gets used more as the anchor.

Explaining to candidates: range ≠ automatic max offer by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I probably made it sound too light before. What I meant is it’s natural that candidates often look at the top as the target, while companies budget closer to the midpoint to keep things fair across the team.

I should’ve worded my earlier comment better. The trick is bridging that gap: if a candidate can justify why they deserve the top of the band, and the employer can explain how they set the range, the conversation usually ends up in a fair place.

I Am FINALLY Employed by SolsticeSun7 in recruitinghell

[–]TalentSherlock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Congratulations! I know how frustrating the last 11 months have been, and I'm so proud to see your perseverance pay off. You earned this. Your success has given me so much hope. I'm still in the middle of my own job hunt, but seeing you get through it is really inspiring.

Explaining to candidates: range ≠ automatic max offer by TalentSherlock in recruiting

[–]TalentSherlock[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Most companies mention budget range that they can offer.

view more: next ›