Benjamin Todd

The referral is more likely to work, because the person has already been vouched for.

It's less effort.

Screening 20 people you know nothing about is hard.

Referrals also come from a better pool of applicants.

The most employable people already have lots of offers, so they rarely respond to job listings.

For these reasons, many recruiters consider referrals to be the best method of finding candidates.

But job seekers usually get things backwards.

They start with the methods that recruiters least like.

Here's a diagram titled, many if not most employers hunt for job seekers in the exact opposite way from how most job seekers hunt for them.

The diagram's an inverted pyramid.

At the bottom, at the pointy bit, we have the way a typical job seeker prefers to fill a vacancy.

And then in the reverse direction, starting from the broad end and heading towards the point, we have the way a typical employer prefers to fill a vacancy.

And then the pyramid is divided into steps, such that the final step for the employer is the first step for the job seeker and vice versa.

So the first step for the employer, from within, promotion of a full-time employee, or promotion of a present part-time employee, or hiring a former consultant for in-house or contract work, or hiring a former temp full-time.

Employers' thoughts?

I want to hire someone whose work I have already seen, a low-risk strategy for the employer.

The implication for job seekers?

See if you can get hired at an organisation you have chosen as a temp, contract worker or consultant, aiming at a full-time position only later, or not at all.

Now the second step for an employer, and the second last step for the typical job seeker, using proof.

Hiring an unknown job seeker who brings proof of what he or she can do with regard to the skills needed.