Candidate rediscovery

Most agencies hold years of candidates they have interviewed, shortlisted or spoken to, and most new roles are sourced as if that database did not exist. The reason is practical. Searching an old database by keyword finds people by the job title they had when their record was created, and that title is often years out of date. The candidate who was a senior analyst in 2023 may be exactly the finance manager you need today, and a title search will never show them.

Rediscovered candidates are worth more than cold ones. They know the agency, they have usually been assessed already, and the consultant has notes on their motivations and salary. A placement from the database costs a few calls; the same placement from a job board or a cold approach can cost days.

A worked example. A client briefs a payroll manager role. A title search of the database returns four people, all placed or unavailable. A search across full CVs, notes and past interview feedback surfaces eleven more, including a candidate who was runner-up for a similar role eighteen months ago and whose notes say they wanted a management step. One call, one submission, one interview.

Rediscovery depends on how records are kept. Two records for the same person split their history, so the notes that would make them findable sit on the copy nobody opens. Records that store why a candidate was rejected, what they wanted next and when they said they might move are the ones that surface at the right moment. The work is done at the time of the conversation, not when the new role arrives.

Where it goes wrong: rediscovery run once a quarter as a data exercise instead of for every new role; searches limited to title and location; and records so thin, with no notes and no reason for rejection, that the database has nothing useful to rediscover.

The longer answer: Why does a recruitment database fill up with duplicate candidates?