Candidate Sourcing Techniques

I’ve played around with almost all known AI sourcing tools and most of them make the same mistake. They jump to a list of candidates. As a recruiter finding a list of candidates is actually not necessarily the hardest part of my sourcing. I can build a search string relatively quickly (more quickly than a natural language prompt). What I really need from an agentic sourcing tool is market mapping. I want to know who my talent competitors are, who are their competitors, what companies have the highest hiring success rate in my org, what companies fall into the right stage and have the highest talent density for us? Then I want to deeply map roles and hierarchies in those businesses to find the right talent. THEN I want my long list of candidates to approach. But only when I’ve done all those steps (and more) can I confidently say I’m engaging with the right talent. Agentic sourcing tools skip past too many first principles of sourcing and jump straight to the answer. I want to see the workings out.

Most Recruiters hit a wall mid-search because they don’t track what they’ve already done. Whenever I start a new search, I open a fresh Google Doc, which becomes my dedicated Sourcing Working Doc. This becomes the central hub for the search. I’ll drop in: • Key notes from the job briefing • Feedback and links to benchmark profiles • Competitor mapping and research • Boolean strings, organised by keyword category    This allows me to properly calibrate my understanding of the role early on, using insights from the intake call and benchmark profiles (e.g. members of the current team or profiles the client has given feedback on). Plus, it allows me to organise my Boolean strings into categories, making everything easy to manage. Let me give you an example. Last year, I ran a search for a Chief Product/Digital Officer at a Test & Instrumentation business undergoing a major digital transformation. Here’s how I structured part of my Boolean working doc: 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝟭 - 𝗝𝗼𝗯 𝗧𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲: ((“Product” OR “Digital”) AND (Director OR Global OR Head OR Chief OR Exec OR Executive) AND (Transformation OR Software)) OR (CPO OR CDO OR "Chief Product Officer" OR "Chief Digital Officer") 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝟮 - 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 & 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: (“test and measurement” OR “T&M” OR “test & measurement” OR Sensors OR Instruments OR “Test and Instrumentation” OR “Test & Instruments” OR “Test and instruments” OR “Test & instrumentation” OR “T&I” OR “Test software” OR “Test Systems” OR “Test, Verification & Validation Engineering” OR "Measurement Systems") 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝟯 - 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:  ("digital transformation" OR "digitalisation" OR "digitalization" OR "Digitised" OR "Digitized" OR "Software transformation" OR "Digital Innovation" OR "Digital Enablement" OR "Digital Strategy") As the search progressed, I naturally came across alternate keywords and synonyms, which I added under the relevant categories. Another useful feature I add to my Working Docs is a Sourcing Process Checklist. This consists of two lists: 1. Sourcing Channels - WHERE I’ve searched, or the channel I’ve sourced (ATS, LinkedIn, X-Ray, SeekOut, PeopleGPT, etc.) 2. Sourcing Techniques - HOW I’ve searched, or what technique I’ve used (Narrow First, Then Wide; Implicit Search; Natural Language Search; etc) I tick these off as I go, which stops me from retracing the same steps or repeating ineffective searches. Ultimately, the Sourcing Work Document becomes a living repository of my sourcing journey. Yes, it requires an upfront investment of time. But the payoff is worth it: better clarity, smarter sourcing, and faster turnaround on high-quality shortlists. And by keeping all my Working Docs in a central folder, I can quickly re-use them for similar roles or share them with colleagues if needed. #sourcingworkingdocs #sourcing

Remember Amelia Bedelia? The children's book character who, when asked to "draw the drapes," literally sketched a picture of curtains instead of closing them? That's exactly how AI sourcing tools work— and why most recruiters get terrible results from them. Like Amelia, AI takes your instructions literally. It can't always: - Read between the lines - Make judgment calls - Infer meaning from context - Understand subjective qualities This is why vague prompts like "find experienced backend developers" or "source high-performing sales leaders" return garbage candidates. So here’s how to write prompts that actually work: BAD PROMPT: "Find backend developers with: - Strong leadership skills - Extensive cloud experience - Proven track record of success" GOOD PROMPT: "Find backend developers who: - Led engineering teams of 5+ people for at least 2 years - Deployed and managed cloud infrastructure on AWS/Azure with budgets over $100K - Scaled systems handling 1M+ daily active users - Reduced infrastructure costs by at least 20% through optimization - Contributed to 3+ open source projects in the last 18 months" The difference? The second prompt gives AI concrete, measurable criteria it can evaluate from candidate profiles. 3 rules I follow for every AI sourcing prompt: 1. Replace subjective qualities with objective metrics "Leadership skills" → "Managed X people for Y years with Z outcomes" 2. Clarify work history "5 years of experience" → "X+ years as a financial analyst at a multi-national corporation" 3. Quantify impact wherever possible "Experienced in sales" → "X+ years of experience in SaaS sales with a consistent track record of exceeding quotas by YY%." PS: If you want to dive deeper into this, the Gem team dropped our complete playbook on mastering AI sourcing. Read it now here: https://lnkd.in/gSXeHCfV

74% of job seekers have already completed evaluations. They're actively proving what they can do. Meanwhile, sourcing teams are still running Boolean searches for "5+ years experience" and "proven track record." The disconnect is almost comical. My team and I just wrapped up our State of Sourcing Report, and it revealed some uncomfortable truths: Only 37% of teams think their sourcing tools actually work. Yet 61% are about to invest in more of the same broken technology. It's like watching someone buy a better typewriter in the age of computers. In today's Skills Brief, I'm revealing why the most popular sourcing tools are the least effective, and what the minority of successful teams are doing completely differently. Alternative networks are outperforming LinkedIn by 24%, and in today's edition I cover why this shift is happening. Read the full issue 👇

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗱𝗜𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗦𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 Struggling to find the right leads on LinkedIn? Boolean search might be your secret weapon. It’s a simple yet powerful way to refine your searches and uncover highly relevant prospects... without scrolling through endless results. Here’s how it works: Boolean search uses a few logical operators to combine or exclude keywords. When applied to LinkedIn searches, it helps you pinpoint exactly who you’re looking for. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 1. 𝗔𝗡𝗗 – Find profiles that include all your specified terms. Example: marketing AND manager Results: Profiles containing both “marketing” and “manager.” 2. 𝗢𝗥 – Find profiles that include any of the specified terms. Example: sales OR business development Results: Profiles with either “sales” or “business development.” 3. 𝗡𝗢𝗧 – Exclude specific terms. Example: software engineer NOT intern Results: Profiles with “software engineer” but without “intern.” 4. 𝗤𝘂𝗼𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 ("") – Search for exact phrases. Example: "product manager" Results: Profiles with the exact term “product manager.” 5. 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲𝘀 () – Group terms to control the search logic. Example: (marketing OR sales) AND director Results: Profiles with “director” and either “marketing” or “sales.” 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 ➡ Looking for decision-makers: "marketing director" OR "head of marketing" ➡ Excluding irrelevant roles: "software engineer" NOT intern NOT junior ➡ Finding leads in specific locations: "digital marketing" AND "London" 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝘁 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 Instead of sifting through hundreds of irrelevant profiles, Boolean search lets you focus your efforts on more promising leads. Combine it with LinkedIn’s filters, such as location or industry, for even better results. 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 Boolean search is a game-changer for anyone serious about lead generation on LinkedIn. Why not try it out today? A few tweaks to your search will save you time and help to uncover opportunities you maybe never knew were there. Have you used Boolean search before? Share your experience in the comments! Ps. Download the document for future reference 👍

“We paused sourcing because interviews started.” …said no high-performing TA team, ever. Most teams front-load sourcing. They go hard for a week → interviews kick off → sourcing stops. Then candidates ghost, hiring managers change their minds, and—surprise—a new req shows up. Cue the chaos. Quick! Post the job. We need to move fast! (We’ll save the “speed of job postings” debate for another day…) Sound familiar? But how do you build a sourcing culture that actually lasts? Here are 3 simple (but powerful) ways: 1. Track momentum, not just hires 👉 # of relevant leads added 👉 # of passive conversations started 👉 % of sourced candidates reaching final stage Keep the pipeline visible, even when interviews are humming. 2. Time-box weekly sourcing sprints 👉 30–90 min blocks per week, even during offer stage 👉 Monthly challenge: everyone sources live together 👉 Live-share tough searches and learn from each other Non-negotiable time. No one books over it. Period. 3. Reward consistency, not just outcomes 👉 Shoutouts for Boolean brilliance 👉 Peer-nominated “pipeline builders” 👉 Celebrate sourcing wins, even if the hire doesn’t happen (yet) So, if you want to break the stop-start sourcing cycle: → Reframe the purpose → Make progress visible → Normalize the habit → Celebrate the behavior → Build before it’s urgent Because when sourcing stops too soon, you don’t just lose time, you lose momentum. What’s one thing your team does to keep sourcing consistent, even when interviews are full swing? 👇 Drop your team rituals or hacks in the comments. Let’s crowdsource some ideas.

🔍 ATS vs. Human Skills: Bridging the Gap in Talent Acquisition In today's fast-paced world, ATS are widely used in recruitment, offering the benefit of quickly scanning resumes for specific skills. However, this heavy reliance on automation has its downsides, and the need for human insight in identifying a candidate's full range of skills is becoming increasingly evident. 🌐 📊 Did You Know? 75% of Indian organizations use ATS to screen talent, according to Mercer’s recent study. This can sometimes mean that valuable skills, not captured by keywords, are overlooked. Research from Harvard Business Review highlights that relying solely on ATS can contribute to a 30% higher unemployment rate due to the narrow focus of machine-based selection. This underscores the risk of missing out on great talent due to an over-dependence on technology. According to a study by Recruitment Tech, ATS systems accurately identify the right talent for a role only about 60% of the time. This indicates a significant gap where human insight is essential to ensure a perfect match between candidates and roles. 👥 The Importance of the Human Touch: While ATS can manage large volumes of applications, it often fails to recognize the nuanced skills and potential that candidates offer. Human recruiters bring the ability to assess soft skills, cultural fit, and overall potential—qualities that are vital for organizational success. 🔑 Key Takeaways: Beyond Keywords: Many candidates possess valuable skills that don't fit into predefined keywords. Human recruiters can appreciate the broader skill set and potential. Cultural Fit: Understanding a candidate's personality and alignment with company values is something an ATS can't gauge. Potential Over Experience: Humans can identify potential in candidates who may lack exact experience but demonstrate adaptability and promise. ⚖️ A Balanced Approach Using Semantic Search: Instead of relying solely on keywords, employ semantic search algorithms that understand context and variations in skill descriptions. Incorporating Skills Assessments: Use pre-employment tests and skills assessments that provide a more nuanced view of a candidate’s capabilities beyond their resume. Leveraging AI-Powered Tools: Implement AI tools that analyze a broader range of data points and predict a candidate's fit based on past hiring success and behavioral insights. 🚀 Looking Ahead: The future of talent acquisition lies in balancing technology with human insight. ATS can streamline the initial stages, but human intervention is crucial for a comprehensive evaluation process. By integrating advanced techniques and tools, we can enhance the effectiveness of ATS while ensuring no talent is overlooked. Let's move beyond just hiring resumes and focus on bringing in talented individuals with diverse skills and perspectives. 🌟 #Recruitment #TalentAcquisition #ATS #HumanSkills #HRTech #Leadership #CareerGrowth

I cost a client a £120k hire last week. Not intentionally. My AI sourcing tool did. I didn't even know. We were searching for a senior ML engineer at First2 Group. PeopleGPT generated the Boolean string in 8 seconds. I ran it without checking. 0 results. The role should have returned 400+ profiles. I rebuilt the string manually. Found 312 candidates. One of them was perfect. First-author NeurIPS paper. 6 years applied ML. Actively looking. The AI had excluded them with a single misplaced parenthesis. They got the interview. My client made the hire. If I hadn't caught it, my competitor would have placed them first. (Most recruiters don't verify AI-generated Boolean strings before running them. The syntax looks valid. The logic is broken. I've reviewed 47 profiles in a single session and found this pattern repeatedly — across 28 businesses at First2 Group, AI strings fail silently.) I've tested AI-generated Boolean strings across 28 businesses. More than half return logical errors that aren't visible until you run them. PeopleGPT claims 70% faster sourcing. LinkedIn data shows AI tools triple recruiter productivity. 𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗪𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Here is what I changed: every AI-generated Boolean string now gets a manual audit before it runs. Bracket count. Operator precedence. NOT exclusions. 90 seconds. Every time. The EU AI Act classifies automated candidate screening as high-risk from August 2026. AI-generated search strings feeding those screens sit just below that threshold. Nobody is auditing them. Boolean is not a legacy skill. It is what saves you when the AI fails in front of a client. Do you verify AI-generated Boolean strings before running them — or do you trust the output? Save this before your next sourcing brief.

In IT recruiting, I’ve seen this more times than I can count. A hiring manager says: ❌ “The candidate rate is too high.” ❌ “We already have this profile from different vendor.” ❌ “No feedback. or Sudden New Update” ❌ “We’ll keep the resume for different role .” Many recruiters stop there. They see the rejection… and move on. But the real opportunity? It’s beneath the surface. Instead of negotiating blindly or just “checking back later,” change the approach: ✔ Ask what skill gaps the current team is struggling with ✔ Understand the business impact of the role staying open ✔ Identify what the current vendor isn’t delivering ✔ Reframe the conversation from rate to ROI (time-to-fill, quality, retention, project delay cost) Now let’s talk about the other side — candidate challenges. Because sometimes the issue isn’t budget. It’s market reality. In today’s IT hiring market: ❌ Niche tech stacks have a limited talent pool ❌ Strong candidates have 3–4 offers in hand ❌ Candidates reject onsite/hybrid roles ❌ Visa constraints shrink the available pool ❌ Long interview cycles cause offer drop-offs ❌ Unrealistic rate vs. skill expectations create mismatch If we don’t address these realities upfront, we waste weeks sourcing profiles that won’t convert. So instead of just “finding candidates,” shift the conversation: ✔ Calibrate must-have vs. good-to-have skills ✔ Align budget with market rates ✔ Shorten interview turnaround ✔ Sell the opportunity, not just screen resumes ✔ Position the role competitively against other offers Same goal: closing the position. Different approach: solving the hiring challenge on both sides. In IT recruiting, the real value isn’t in sending 10 resumes. It’s in aligning business expectations with market reality. Dig deeper. That’s where the real placements happen. 🚀 #ITRecruiting #TechRecruiter #TalentAcquisition #StaffingLife #HiringChallenges #RecruitmentStrategy

Most job seekers are searching the wrong way—typing job titles into search bars and hoping for the best. 🚨 There’s a better way. It’s called *Boolean search* It’s the exact method recruiters use to find top candidates - faster But, YOU can use it to reverse engineer their search or to find *better* jobs—faster. 👇10 Boolean Search Basics (that could save you hours of scrolling) 🎯 Find jobs in a specific industry & city → "sales director" AND ("tech" OR "software") AND "San Francisco" Only shows sales director roles in tech/software companies in SF. 🎯Exclude job types you don’t want → "project manager" AND "Los Angeles" NOT "contract" Filters out contract roles, so you only see full-time positions. 🎯Find remote jobs (and ignore entry-level roles) → ("data analyst" AND "remote") NOT ("internship" OR "junior") Focuses on remote data analyst jobs while avoiding entry-level roles. 🎯Search multiple job titles at once → ("product manager" OR "program manager" OR "project manager") AND "Seattle" Expands your search to three similar job titles in Seattle. 🎯Find recruiters in your field → (recruiter OR "talent acquisition") AND ("finance" OR "investment banking") Connects you with recruiters who specialize in finance & banking. 🎯Locate hiring managers at a specific company → ("hiring manager" OR "team lead") AND "Tesla" AND "engineering" Helps you find decision-makers at Tesla in the engineering department. 🎯Search for companies currently hiring → "We're hiring" AND ("cybersecurity" OR "network security") AND ("remote" OR "hybrid") Finds job posts from companies actively looking for cybersecurity professionals. 🎯 Discover networking events in your industry → ("digital marketing" OR "SEO") AND ("conference" OR "webinar" OR "networking event") NOT "paid" Finds relevant events for digital marketers without paid ads cluttering results. 🎯Find companies growing fast (new jobs soon!) → "hiring surge" OR "expanding team" OR "new office" AND "biotech" Targets biotech companies that are scaling up—new roles are coming. 🎯Boolean search combo → ( ("UX designer" AND "Austin") OR ("Google" AND ("hiring manager" OR "design lead")) OR (recruiter AND "user experience") ) NOT ("junior" OR "assistant") A power search for UX jobs in Austin, hiring managers at Google, and UX recruiters—while skipping junior-level roles. Better searching = better results ______ ♻ Share this with someone who could use the tip 💬 Drop a comment if you’d like to hear more about this and I'll cover it on my YouTube Channel