[gumby]

> and I’ve never been able to convince a single other manager to do it.

I agree with everything you wrote, but if your company is big enough to have in house recruiters they probably don't want you doing it!

Not because they don't want to be able to hire great candidates efficiently. But because you presumably don't maintain the statistics they need to keep. For example, say (I don't know you and am just making this example up), you might without realizing it only be contacting candidates who have names that you recognize as male, while they want to make sure they are pulling from a wider pool to improve their chances of getting the best candidate They may have other reasons for collecting such statistics (SEC filings? Who knows?).

[fnordpiglet]

There are only a few bigger companies than the ones I’ve been at.

I only do the sourcing, and the HR side I leave to recruiting. The bottleneck in the process is the sourcing, and I have no desire to do HRs job.

On statistics, they only care about the statistics for their own sourcers and processes. There is no regulatory reason for collecting such stats.

Another thing to remember is HR is the weakest organization in any company, and recruiting the weakest in HR. Any manager worth their salt pushes recruiting around, not the other way around.

[gumby]

Ah, you're doing the sourcing part, which indeed is the thing i-house recruiters are worst at (despite being compensated just for that!). Sorry I misunderstood.

With reference bonuses, I think most companies do appreciate having their employees do sourcing, which makes your observation that you can't get others to do it all the stranger.

[fnordpiglet]

Almost all companies prevent hiring managers from receiving bonuses for their own referrals. I was hiring my own team, rather than using internal or external recruiters.