I know I shouldn’t generalize but I can’t help myself in pointing out that readers of online recruiting stuff fall into one of three categories:

• The first are those who scan the content, hardly pay attention to it and leave feeling that they have just made an earnest attempt to improve their effectiveness as recruiters. In so doing, they believe they actually have;
• The second are those who read the content and decide as a result to act on it — invariably doing nothing;
• Third are those who mean to read their favorite gurus, get distracted and never come back, missing something that might help them become more successful — like understanding why we get distracted in the first place.

Interesting thing number one: Thought leaders cannot only get away with reposting stuff they published months ago but I see now that we should encourage them to do it:

• The readers in category one can reflect — just for a minute now — on what they have achieved in real terms since their first reading and go on with their accelerated development toward top-performerdom, unphased;
• The readers in category two either a) congratulate themselves for having had the exact same idea ages ago, deciding to finally take some action now it is being popularized, or b) acknowledge that they didn’t do what they were supposed to do and reaffirm to take action on this second reading. Again, invariably, nothing happens.
• The readers in category three see the article published for the first time, scan it and leave feeling they have made an earnest attempt to improve their effectiveness as recruiters. In so doing, they believe they actually have — or — they read the content and decide as a result to act on it, well, you know the rest…it’s the insanity defense.

I can’t think of a better reason to start writing stuff that I can repost at a later date. I will start doing it tomorrow.

Interesting thing number two: As one who reads a lot of what gets published in our space — and straddling all three categories of reader, I admit it — I get confused about what I read, when I read it and even who the blazes wrote it, had the idea before me.

Bothered by my befuddlement with Lou Adler’s repost I started digging around. I resurfaced Jeff Hunter’s gem Job Descriptions are Part of What is Killing Recruiting. Comparing Jeff Hunter’s point of view with Lou Adler’s I realize that I could synthesize the two and come up with something “original,” something that would make me look like a veritable genius!

Interesting thing number three: We should not overlook the huge number of places where sample job descriptions are available for plug-and-play recruiters the world over. There is obviously a huge appetite out there for job descriptions that come ready-made, requiring little or no thought, work or accountability.

This lazy approach to working with job descriptions suggests to me that while the thought leadership provided by Lou Adler [tactical] and Jeff Hunter [strategic] is compelling it could be one of the underlying reasons why so many readers end up falling into categories one and two to start with, left behind from one post to the next.

I think if we are to serve the causes of recruiting talent, managing a lean process, and for the abandonment of job descriptions too, the industry would be better served by arguing that job descriptions should be properly understood and managed from the get-go. You know, from the unglamorous task analysis to the one-dimensional candidate profile.

With the same passion Lou Adler and Jeff Hunter express in their posts insisting that everything is done by the book, as opposed to not doing it all — and reposting about it every six months — that should work like a charm if you want to get rid of job descriptions and those pesky one-size-fits-all job description sites, don’t you think?

Amitai offers a different take, predicting that early adopters of social media for recruiting will remain in the minority. Too few frontline recruiters will risk the perils of transparency in corporate environments that need to mitigate risk and innovation and apply bottom-line metrics instead. As the economics of recruiting come under closer scrutiny with a softening economy and an inability to quantify the ROI on social media, there will be a slowdown in the rate of adoption by recruiters.

As the competition in the Web 2.0 market intensifies Ami foresees a proliferation of new applications, platforms, widgets and whiz-bang technology along with increasing usability issues in existing social networks. What was once fun will turn into drudgery with multiple logins and communities of “friends” to manage — detracting from core recruiting activities.

Against this backdrop, Ami predicts a general backlash among the industry’s early adopters. They will increasingly default to using proven resources like online sourcing, direct recruiting and building their personal networks.

For the rest, the gap between those who “get it” and those who “don’t even know” will widen. The real opportunity that Ami sees for established vendors and service providers lies in helping close the gap as the front runners start to slow down and the early majority catches up.

And to be included with such luminaries as Gerry Crispin, Lou Adler, Jason Davis and Shally Steckerl! Mother would be pleased.