Is keyword searching and religious JD following, killing our chances of having diverse & dynamic teams? Written by Abigail Fitch

Keyword searching has been recruitment's savior for many years, however, could this logical, robotic recruitment method be killing our talent?

We are recruiters because we are problem solvers, we have a talent for quickly identifying people's strengths, what makes them tick, their potential, in short people are our thing.

How many times have you heard a stake-holder say "get me someone who does the same role from a competitor "or refuse a CV due to missing one specification?

I think something that’s really stuck with me is an old manager saying “Do a day in the life of who you are hiring " you have to get into the granular and detail, then you can translate what you are looking for into something simple ” This really stuck with me!

In the past I have known sourcers?who have skim read the JD ( mainly due to a massive workload ) then picked out 5 or 6 keywords, put them into a keyword search, added the job title, competitors and SHAZAM?they have the list of potential candidates ready to go. This works,?it gets bums on seats and does what it says on the tin but is this really what we want long-term? Surely a robot could do this logical repetitive, de-humanised approach?

Are we missing a trick? Once you spend some time with a person in a similar role, understand what really is a must on the JD and push back with stakeholders there could be some real hidden gems we are missing out on. Once you do this you will find yourself focusing more on the type of person and what they can offer rather than just ticking boxes from a JD. There will always be elements you can’t move on especially in tech but also ones you can be open on or even teach, however, you can’t teach hunger, passion, people skills, or different life experiences.

A diverse dynamic team that are not clones, will offer a fresh output and ensure we don’t have a team with the same life and work experiences. Companies will not only see a?new fresh output but will see things like succession, retention, and inclusion improve by default. People with different experiences have different things to offer, ways of working, problem-solving and technical skills.

I am aware that in the real world we don’t always have the time or bandwidth to do this on every role,?but as recruiters we are educating stakeholders on what’s in the market, adapting the 80/20 rule could really work. The 80/20 rule is giving the stakeholder 80 percent of candidates with all their exact requirements to the letter and?20% of something different. We often take a very quick job brief,?but small changes like asking them to re-prioritise their job specs using green, red and orange (essential, helpful and not essential ) this helps us to understand what is really essential and can really open your candidate pool.

We of course, need to build credibility, the proof is in the pudding but once a stakeholder has hired a "20 % er?" they will see the advantages in both the role and in the team as a whole and therefore will be more open going forward. As recruiters, we are not Robot’s we are trusted advisers, SME’s, problem solvers and educators in our field!?