A password will be e-mailed to you.

While most companies and recruiters agree that the candidate experience is an important part of any talent acquisition strategy, there seems to be less dialogue around which side has more influence over recruiting, candidates or hiring companies.

With around an 8% unemployment rate currently in the US, many employers have no issue touting to employees that there’s always someone waiting to fill their positions.  And, yet, even with the high rates of unemployment, there are close to 4 million jobs that remain unfilled in the US. [Check out Mashable’s article based on Smart Recruiter’s infographic: Why Jobs Remain Unfilled Even Though Unemployment is High]

On top of this seeming contradiction, the War for Talent has returned as a hot topic, with experts espousing future trends on how the workforce must change to meet upcoming demands and what companies must do to remain competitive and relevant within their respected industries.

And with the rise of social media affecting how candidates can influence the make or break of a brand, you would think that more companies would be listening, but then again, companies are the ones creating the jobs—so who has the upper hand when it comes to influencing what many see as a broken recruitment process?

As we get ready to move into 2013, which side’s voice do you think will have more power and influence on the War for Talent?  Will candidates have stronger negotiating power?  Will companies be able to retain talent without compromising?  Will there be a shift to an independent workforce in response to the talent war?

Pick which side you think will have more pull and share your thoughts:

No more articles
%d bloggers like this: