Evaluate a recruiting source by the useful hiring conversations it creates for a defined role. Profile volume alone does not show whether the source understands the mandate, reaches interested people, or improves the search.
Keep the review specific to the role and period. A channel that worked for one type of hire may be untested for another.
Define the experiment before outreach
Write down the candidate experience you expect the channel to reach and why. For example, a specialist professional community might expose relevant implementation work that broad job titles do not capture.
Specify what would count as learning. This could be clearer access to a scarce capability, better information about candidate motivations, or evidence that a requirement is unnecessarily restrictive.
Review the path, not just the endpoint
| Question | What to inspect |
|---|---|
| Did we reach relevant people? | Connection between their work and the essential responsibilities |
| Did they understand the opportunity? | Replies and questions, including recurring misunderstandings |
| Was interest confirmed? | Candidate agreement before an introduction |
| Did profiles support decisions? | Clear scope, contribution, and open questions |
| What effort was required? | Research, follow-up, coordination, and manager review |
| What did the channel teach us? | A role assumption that became clearer or changed |
A hire is an important outcome, but it can take time and depends on the whole process. Do not label a source ineffective simply because an unresolved offer has not closed.
Separate channel problems from process problems
If relevant people decline after hearing about the role, inspect the opportunity and expectations. If they withdraw after a long silence, inspect communication. If profiles are consistently unrelated, inspect targeting and the source brief.
Use a hiring funnel diagnosis before attributing every loss to sourcing.
Decide what changes next
Choose among continuing the same approach, narrowing the target, changing the message, pausing the channel, or gathering more evidence. Record the reason and the next review point.
Avoid precise channel rankings when the sample is small or the roles differ. Note those limitations rather than presenting a misleading league table. A useful conclusion can be “promising for this capability, but interest is still untested.”
Keep attribution consistent when several people helped introduce a candidate. Resolve duplicate introductions separately so source reporting does not become an ownership dispute.
Use the common candidate evidence record to make comparisons more consistent. Talk to Refery about a focused search.