For those that know me and my penchant for process mapping, quality control, and all things compliance, the following blog may seem out of character. This all started after perusing an article from the Harvard Business Review, March 2009 titled, “When Should a Process Be Art, Not Science”.

Any Six Sigma professional likely knows that the enemy of process quality is variation and the push in any quality initiative is to work to identify variation in a process that results in waste, errors, or bottlenecks. However, the aforementioned article highlights another perspective in that there are many processes—namely recruiting and sales—that have an inherent element of “art” that cannot be ignored. Executors of the recruiting process wrestle with an effort to maintain consistency while at the same time addressing the nuances that come with the art of recruiting.

In a previous blog posting (http://www.sourceright.com/blog/?p=71 ), I espoused the advantages of a truly experienced recruiter in the recruiting process. Lately, I’ve been questioning the efforts of so much of the recruiting industry to standardize, standardize, standardize. More and more RPO providers are working towards a shared services center model with a strong push towards a standardized, commoditized approach to recruiting. The has been done to, ensure compliance, improve economies of scale, implement repeatable best practices, with the end goal guaranteeing process consistency. For some RPO solutions, this approach may suit the client’s specific talent acquisition needs very well. Analyzing the recruiting process and the many components that directly impact it, there are two key areas that should work towards standardization:

• ATS – Commonality of technology ensures a one-stop shop for compliance auditing and requisition tracking

• Measurements – While the individual targets may vary based on position complexity, the metrics themselves (e.g. time-to-fill, diversity of candidate pool, recruiting cost efficiency, etc.) should be the same

But should the methods and tools utilized for the Vice President of Product Development requisition differ from that of the next Customer Service call center class? Naturally, the techniques and avenues a recruiter exploits recruiting for these two categories drastically diverge. Even the people (i.e. recruiters, candidates, and hiring managers) involved in each example likely differ greatly in expectations, experience, and earnestness. Furthermore, the current job environment might impact each hiring category in very different ways, in turn, transforming the way a recruiter might approach each hiring challenge.

Going even more granular, every requisition has inherent nuances that an experienced recruiter will recognize and adjust to accordingly. I’m not suggesting that the process should evolve with each requisition nuance, but the critical to quality goal in most requisitions, is a quality hire in the shortest amount of time possible. An experienced recruiter knows where the process boundaries truly exist to maintain consistency, compliance, and client satisfaction while at the same time achieving that end goal.

Dartmouth Tuck School of Business professors’ Joseph M. Hall and M. Eric Johnson, who authored the article mentioned above, recommend some practical approaches to this Art versus Science dilemma in a business process. They conclude that each has important value development roles in many business processes. They specifically describe the role of art as “allowing for flexibility, creativity, and dynamism that a purely scientific approach cannot replicate.”

Future leading edge RPO best practices and processes will incorporate the strengths of both recruiting art and science and be measured by the appropriate customer (art) and process (science) focused metrics to determine future solution quality levels and success.