The Fallacy of Sourcing

This is an open letter to every CEO in the world. I hope you take the time to read it, as I’m sure you, your shareholders, and your employees, would hate for you to keep pissing money away.

What? Pissing money away, you say?

Yes, every time you pay for external resources to do your sourcing or pay to have your recruiters trained to source, you are wasting every penny you spend.

There is a tremendous disconnect in understanding what the actual challenges are in recruiting. I’ve written before that the issue is not “finding people.” There is literally nothing easier in our profession than finding people. That’s right, nothing. That includes putting my shoes on in the morning.

I’ve been at this game for what amounts to now as the better part of my life. I started recruiting when the Internet was new, and even then you still had to dig deep in file cabinets or spend hours on the phone building org charts of competitors to find candidates. It was time consuming, and something I would have gladly paid someone else to do. However, that is no longer the case, nor has it been the case for at least five years, conservatively speaking.

Article Continues Below

The amount of information on the Internet coupled with how well it is catalogued makes nearly everyone in the developed world accessible. Scratch that — easily accessible. It does not take more than a few minutes to learn Boolean search, and if that troubles you, then there are ample, inexpensive and free products that can automate that for you. I have recruited for some of the most needle-in-a-haystack searches you can imagine and I’ve never had a problem sourcing candidates on my  own. Not once. Not ever. It is probably a good time to mention that I am by no means a genius, or even really smart for that matter. I do it. My team does it. You can do it.

This brings us to the root issue, the real conundrum, recruiting. If you walk away with one mantra that pertains to recruiting, let it be that “finding people is easy, recruiting people is hard.” Your talent acquisition team and your hiring managers need to know how to assess talent and provide a compelling value proposition to actually “recruit” someone to join your team. So Mrs. and Mr. CEO please understand this as well: You hear, day after day, from your TA/recruiting leaders that they just can’t find people. Fire them. Fire them immediately. You don’t want anyone on your team who cannot be honest with you. What they should be telling you is that they can’t recruit people.

At the end of the day it is a hell of lot harder to teach someone to recruit than it is to source. You are better off hiring a recruiting expert from the outside. To be clear: finding and recruiting are two different problems with two different solutions. So do your stakeholders a favor and start solving for the right problem, and stop pissing away your money on things that can be done easily for free.

Jim D'Amico is a globally recognized TA Leader, specializing in building best in class TA functions for global organizations. He is an in demand speaker, author, and mentor, with an intense passion for all things talent acquisition. Jim currently leads Global Talent Acquisition for Celanese, a Fortune 500 Chemical Innovation company based in Dallas, TX, and is a proud Board Member of the Association of Talent Acquisition Professionals.


36 Comments on “The Fallacy of Sourcing

    1. Maureen it’s not. We are growing faster than just about anyone else in our industry. Over half of the positions are filled internally, the rest are filled by my amazing team. We have over 121,000,000 candidates in our CRM, and each recruiter uses Scavado to direct recruit. Additionally we received approx. 189,000 “unsourced” applications a year.
      Not sure if you saw my preso in Chicago, but we are very high performing. The last year has seen amazing reductions in TTF, increases in QoH, HM sat, and candidate sat.

      1. But you didn’t exactly say how you go about ‘recruiting’ these folks. I think it is safe to say most of us here have been around right at the dawn of the internert and are familiar with the old ways of finding people. And yes, duh, you actually do have to recruit candidates, sell them on the position, have a compelling message etc etc.

        So now that you have gotten this off your chest, how about some actual useful advice or illustrate of your fantastic process 🙂 You know, for those only “skilled” at internet research.

  1. Here’s the other “miss” that companies make–there systems are very good at tracking throughout the life cycle of hiring but do much to impede the actual hiring process. This is not a rant about applicant tracking systems. It is criticism of the process of hiring that most companies employ that offends the people you want to attract in the first place. Is it any wonder that talent feels like they are treated like drones.

    1. Jeff, Amen! We don’t understand the value of “recruitment”. People are easy to find, but the top performers are hard to motivate to make a change. That’s the real value we add, not just finding folks, but convincing the right ones to join our teams.

  2. I’ve got agree with Maureen, it seems like a Director of Talent Acquisition with over 450 open jobs shouldn’t be chastising people about being unable to recruit talent. Tying the human capital data into something meaningful is still a serious chore, even if you have little bits and pieces across the internet.

    1. Casey, the team that fills 7000 reqs a year? It is ludicrous to attempt to correlate the number of openings we have unless you understand our team size, our growth as a system, which reqs are evergreen, our internal talent mobility, and/or how many of those positions are temporary/supplemental FTE’s. 23 years in this game, never had a problem finding anyone, no matter how “rare”. If I can do it, effectively, effeciently and with best in class results and others can’t, the shame lies with them, not me. Folks would be better suited understanding how and why we did it so easily than consfusing corralation with cause. In all honesty this is the fourth huge company, in the fourth industry I’ve implemented this at successfuly, so there must be something to it.
      Additionaly, anytime you’d like, I’d be happy to walk you through our dashboards, data and metrics, as well as discuss how my team of assessors and closers has increased out offer acceptance rate from 90% to 99.54%, our HM satisfaction to 94.3%, and our QoH across the board.

      1. Your rebuttal is the same exact argument I used above. Without knowing how many recruiters you have or how many of those 7,000 fills were simply internals, hired by agencies, interns or wage slaves, the numbers that are being thrown around don’t carry much weight. If you’re staffing 3,000 requirements with 75 recruiters, then whoopdie doo.

        This article very divisively states that all companies who can’t hire have garbage recruiters because everyone has easy to find information online. You also talk about metrics on a macro scale a ton, but you never identify what recruiting benchmarks you use. What are your recruiters producing? How many have you fired over the past two years? How much recruiting and sourcing is actually going on? Those are the important questions (to me) that haven’t been touched on at all.

        1. Casey, we have approx 30 recruiters, but that number flexes based on demand. They are supported by 1 full time sourcer, Scavdo (which automates boolean search), LinkedIn and our database to source. We consider sourcing to be proactive, something that is ongoing all the time. We define sourcing as finding, and recruting as converting. As to metrics we manage the take note of the whole funnel. Our interview to send out ratio should never exceed 4:1, our send out to hire ratio should hold at the same. We also track and monitor Time to fill, time to start, quality of hire, diversity, turndowns, etc. It is worth noting that our time to fill reduction in the last 12 months has added 21,000 productive days to our employer, and are offer acceptance rate went from 90% to 99.54%. Additionally we manage req load, sensitive to the different levels that a C lane recruiter can bear vs. an A or B lane recruiter. I have termed one recruiter in the past year, and 4 in my career. My focus is always on developing the core skills necessary to succeed, not simply punishing those who don’t.
          I’d also like to point out that I’ve worked in some of the least attractive geographies, and hired for some of the most needle in the haystack roles over the last 2+ decades, and never once has finding person been the issue. The issue is how do we align their needs/wants with our value propositions, that’s what a recruiter does that a sourcer (by our definition) does not.
          No one implied that there are “garbage recruiters” simpy that leaders solve for the right problem. I would wager they’ve had qualified prospects out there that they have not been able to convert. Additionlly the fallacy that “we can’t find people” has lead to a tragic over investment in tools, training, resources, etc. to try to solve for that problem with out changing that mantra for 20 years. How much better served would those we owe responsible development too, have been if we even took half of those dollars and invested them in the proper converstion training?

          1. So I take it you are all recruiters/talent searchers adding
            your voice to this problem of discovering that elusive specialist. I am not a recruiter but can I tell you what
            your biggest problem is, not writing back or responding to the applications
            that float across your desk. You see as
            job seeker it sometimes takes me an hour to complete complex online
            applications just to press enter and never to hear from that recruiter
            again. A simple thank you for your time
            but unfortunately you do not qualify, or even some of those standard wording
            wishing me luck for my future endeavors.
            Next time I see a job advertised from your company guess what, I won’t
            even apply.

            If I was a recruiter, every application will be a possible
            specialist for the future; I believe it is still called networking, right!

          2. Kobus, if there were a phone number you could call, say, on a certain day (or days) at a certain time (a window of time, say, within a five hour time frame) and you knew a recruiter or company representative would answer that could answer your questions about a particular opportunity, would you call it and how would you feel about such a service?

          3. Maureen often there is a telephone number to call a representative but to be honest I have never used it. Then maybe that is so because the job adds were clear enough anyway. An absolutely great service could be where I can get feedback as to why an invitation was not extended to me. When I read a job spec and get
            excited and happy because I know this job is made for me, but I never get an interview, then that leaves me baffled. I understand that not everything can be said in a job spec such, as the company’s culture for instance, and therefore I may not be a fit even though I think I am. So that feedback could be used for future job applications or even just to start understanding why I don’t get interviews for certain jobs that I thought fit me like a glove. I also understand that such a service will be an added cost to the company. It would be very valuable though for applicants. I have applied to more than 100 positions with just two telephone
            interviews so yeah it would be nice to know where I am going wrong.

  3. Jim, thanks for the article. We have been in talks with a few people at Spectrum in regards to automating/socializing your employee referral program but I don’t believe you have seen our demo. Let me know if you’d be interested, otherwise hopefully we can find some time to meet at Peoplefluent’s WISDOM Conference in March; we’ll be attending as a vendor/partner.

    -Kevin Nelson

  4. There are a number of interesting and accurate comments made in this article, and here is my 2c:

    1. Having 450 job openings when you’re a company with over 10K employees is probably not an issue. That’s fewer than 5%. The question that should be asked is how long are those jobs open?
    2. Given that healthcare as an industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the US because of people living longer and the ACA, is it really that hard for a blind squirrel to find a nut in a sea of acorns?

    1. Carol, thanks for the comments. Most of our positions are in that sea of acorns, as I beleive most in the country are, however we also have a larger IS organization that is building out amazing new products, and because we operate several specialized hospitals there are many specialist roles that are unique or first of their kind in our market.
      This is actually why we reorganized our TA function is three lanes. One supports the purely transactional roles (think Nutrition Services, MA’s, entry level nursing), one lane supports the bulk of our professional roles (some in the sea, some you need to dig on), and then the final lane is pure headhunting for those truly hard to find.
      Because we pipeline and direct source on our own, in my year here we have reduced the time to fill accross all roles, but most particularly those purple squirels.

  5. I believe that sourcing is integral to a fully functioning recruiting team, but would agree that the ability engage candidates is pivotal. It’s been my experience – as an in-house TA leader and as an outside consultant – that you need both functions to manage TA well. There are indeed industries in which sourcing is exceptionally challenging and time-consuming – hardly ‘easy’. These are specialty niches in which many candidates simply do not wish to make their information readily available. (To name a few: academia, specialty engineering functions, quant analysts, foreign language specialists, copywriters, graphic artists.) Yes, most people are findable these days. But I’d rather use a very good deep sourcing partner to ferret out the hard-to-find folks….. so the recruiters can then engage the candidates…..who are probably far more receptive as they aren’t inundated with recruiter calls…..since they are hard to find. To me, it’s about highest and best use of my team’s talents.

  6. I love a feisty contributor who will mix it up in the comments. I believe (and I may be wrong about this) that Maureen actually speaks with her targets.
    If so, that means there are two (or more) definitions of “sourcing” in play. Certainly that first conversation is key to set the auspices for all to come; I would consider that part of “recruiting”, not sourcing.

    In any case, no doubt in my mind recruiters are the most elite mass market sales reps. Selling piles of sticks, a hunks of metal, or snake oil is one thing, but a job is a person’s identity, community, and security is a whole other thing….

    So: does sourcing include phone contact, or not?

    1. Martin, are you asking me to comment? I’ll tell you what my process is. I have two products:
      1. Phone Sourcing: I call into companies and find out who does what (particular companies/particular titles.) I might have a name or two of someone in a department or I may have nobody. Sometimes my customer gives me someone and wants to know who all the person’s team members are. I go get them. I don’t like to leave anyone behind.

      I’ve written a good deal on my techniques – if you’re interested google my name (in quotes) and the word gatekeeper to get started reading some of my stuff.

      2. Profiling Once I have the field identified I’ll contact each person and pitch the job to each and discern interest and gather basic info and then patch candidate to customer for further discussion.

      I charge on a per name basis – and only for results.

      I don’t do the two activities together – I’ll do the sourcing on one day and the profiling on another.

      I hope this answers your question!

      Maureen Sharib
      Phone Sourcer
      513 646 7306

      1. Hi Maureen thanks for the reply. It sort of answers the question; you consider “sourcing” to be mere identification of a person/role, so in that sense, everyone is on the same page as to the meaning of the term.

        You term “profiling” as the step where contact is made- I think the rest of the audience would consider that activity “recruiting”, as you note.

        We have a saying around here: wrong information is WAY worse than no information. The data whale- or volume of wrong information in the world- is increasing exponentially.

        That’s why your personal tagging of data gives it the most reliability. Tagging used to be confined to private internal databases, but that is changing too…..

      2. Maureen – you are the first and the original. No need to justify, but thanks for the process here. It’s a nice reminder for me too 🙂

  7. Jim

    Well done. Your article is spot on. Finding is easy, selling is the really hard part of recruiting


    1. Sir, thank you. You made my year just knowing you read my article.
      Thank you as well for your presentation at ERE this year. We have taken that information and are beginning a robust, quanatative quality of hire project.

    2. His article didn’t say enough, only that. So yes in that simplistic form it is spot on, but the hubris rather discounted the message. Geesh you guys.

  8. Depending upon your req or targeted skill set, I’m not so sure “finding” people is that easy as Jim says but I am in complete agreement with Jim’s point that finding people and recruiting people are two different things… or “actions” in my world. They are two different skill sets and having one doesn’t ensure the other.

    Here is a simple and basic workflow staffing leaders can implement with their team to see where their recruiters stand….


    1) Get the Req and have your Hiring Manager meeting.

    2) Do your searching (finding as Jim calls it) and create a target list of the talent you found. It can be as simple as a spreadsheet or a campaign in a CRM. That list tells how good you are at finding people.

    3) Send that list to the Hiring Manager before you do any calling or emailing. Include name, title, company, and location of the targeted talent if you have it. Give the Hiring Manager a chance to line item veto people if they want to, but not much time because you have work to do.

    4) Start engaging that list and track person by person the outcome including candidate declines and the reasons why. Update your list and send it to the hiring manager and cc your staffing leader at the end of each week. If you can recruit, you’ll be creating candidates / applications in your ATS…if, as Jim points out the issue is recruiting…your original target list will look a lot like it did in the beginning.

    Again, this is just very basic, easy to implement process that staffing leaders can do with their teams but it begins the conversation around recruiter accountability that focuses on sourcing activities that happen prior to application records being created in your ATS. It’s the difference between recruiters who practice outbound engagement vs. applicant processers who call themselves recruiters.

    I do disagree with Jim on one other thing though, I think he jumped a step between finding and recruiting…and that’s getting people to respond (response rate metric) to you with either a phone call or email. I can’t believe how many recruiters will send just one LinkedIn inmail and that’s their whole effort around sourcing someone.

    So, to me, its Find/Engage/Recruit and not just Find/Recruit. This allows for another very important recruiting metric to be tracked, called lead conversion, that backs Jim belief that recruiters earn their pay recruiting talent. In other words, you found X people and of those you spoke with Y people and of those you created Z applicants. This allows for conversion % numbers along with quantity vs. quality.

    It’s from “Y to Z” that you measure a recruiter’s ability to recruit candidates into your company’s hiring process.

    1. That’s a great step-by-step recommendation model Sean in which I recognize the subtle sleight-of-hand; as one lithe twenty-something recently was overheard to screech, sitting at her desk:

      “I wasn’t hired to call people on the phone all day.”

      “Really?” her frightened and confused manager asked me. “What did I hire her for?”

      Sometimes I feel like I have to play CareerCoach for Recruiting Managers and Directors in these company recruiting departments I work for.

      “Scare ’em,” I tell them, remembering the scene in Bull Durham where the same advice is given to the coach of the North Carolina Bulls by Kevin Costner’s character, Crash Davis after which the minor-league baseball coach throws a bag of bats onto the tiled wet shower floor startling the young naked players into attention. “They’re young.”

      So when you say make a list and check it at the end of each week and it’s pretty much not gonna much change if the issue is recruitment I so hear you.

      I agree that it’s Find/Engage/Recruit and that the Engage part is pretty much being skipped in what they’re calling “engagement” in most recruiting departments today (InMail/email) and IF they’d do what Marvin suggested (add MEANINGFUL training) they’d up their tallies overnight.

      I have another observation about engagement and it’s a give on my part about how I feel about the same and soiled data most recruiting departments are churning through relentlessly: IF engagement techniques could be refined even some of that dirty snow could be captured, cleared and crystallized into clean ice cubes of candidates.

      To do all that, though, you’re gonna have to turn up the heat.

      You’re gonna have to scare somebody.

      @MaureenSharib <- Follow me on Twitter
      Phone Sourcer
      513 646 7306
      maureen at

  9. Jim thanks for the post and sharing your ideas. I think the mantra is better stated; finding people is hard, recruiting people is hard.

    While I agree that the Internet, combined with the social age has made talent identification much easier, there are some talent segments that are very challenging. Prior to coming
    to Lockheed, I would have agreed with most of your article. However,
    one of the lessons of the last two years is finding people is hard. This is especially true when one attempts to
    find talent with certain levels of clearance, they are not visible and take
    steps not to be found (and I imagine most Aerospace & Defense sourcers/recruiters
    would agree). And to be candid, I work with some bright and experience
    recruiters/sourcers that have tried every free tool and most paid tools and
    resources and as yet we have not discovered a silver bullet as yet.

    I do agree with
    you in a couple of areas; first that we are wasting a lot of money in talent
    sourcing. In my opinion, a primary reason is that we are trying to
    advertise our way to success. I have a hunch that we are spending a lot
    of money on duplicate efforts adverting on the major job boards &
    aggregators. I believe we are chasing the same 18-25% of the workforce
    that is reading job ads; the remainder needs a different approach. I also completely agree with the last
    part of your mantra that recruiting people is hard. Given the competitive nature of most talent
    markets, talent engagement is a skill and at times an art form.

    In conclusion, I
    hope organizations would opt for training rather than firing people that do not
    have the right skills for this marketplace.

    1. Marvin, I don’t think you’re alone in coming to a realization in the last couple years that things are changing; I used this expression yesterday in a remark on Facebook and I’ll use it again here tonight: the rack and ruin of the rotting bloated data whale lying on the bottom of the sea is ever-quickening; data ages and it ages fast and the mass that accumulated lightening fast over the last decade is mostly a mess pretty much edged out that isn’t going to keep itself cleansed or propel itself indefinitely forward. Add to that its increasing propensity to “take steps not to be found” and you have a population turning increasingly gun-shy away from the tools that so many in the recruitersphere use and have come to find themselves so hopelessly hooked on.

      Yes, I think a lot of money is being wasted in talent sourcing and I think it’s being wasted in chasing the same “candidates” in the belief that “everyone” is on a certain social network that some companies are spending between half a million and a million dollars EACH on to find the same “candidates” that can be found by spending NOTHING. Those few of us who KNOW FOR CERTAIN what you say is true (that some people are not visible/are not findable) are laughed at when we say this for the sole reason that nobody really wants to believe this. Nobody has the right to laugh at this or to dispute this fact unless they can disprove it and they can’t UNLESS they are working in the theatre of phone sourcing and so few are. I have to this day dared anyone to prove me wrong on this and nobody has risen to this challenge.

      They’ve not risen to the challenge because they can’t.

      I am saying it here unequivocally and I am saying it loudly and in opposition to what Jim says in his article:

      Everyone is NOT catalogued and findable on the Internet; those that are have mostly been found, weighed and measured and found wanting (by someone) and if you want “the good stuff” you have to go elsewhere. You have to go deeper. You have to reach within; behind closed doors and if you don’t want to (or can’t) do it yourself spend your sourcing dollars on someone who can do it for you. There’s where the sourcing value is. There’s where the gold lies hidden.

      @MaureenSharib <-Follow me on Twitter
      Phone Sourcer
      513 646 7306

      1. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and experience. Like you, I was trained to use the telephone (albeit rotary dial) to identify people at competitors. Unlike you, I put the phone down. Thanks for being a champion of what still works.

      2. So true Maureen. Back in the day it was the rousers, the callers into companies and obtaining org charts and qualifiying direct contact info. The original headhunter. No one wants to do that art form because it is uncomfortable and time consuming, and internal recruiters don’t actually have the bandwidth. I am sure Jim’s leads are more of the known usual out there, not the exception.

  10. A failure to find people usually isn’t the problem, a failure to find enough people to feed into the almost always dysfunctional hiring process so that at least one survives until the end and is eventually hired is the issue.

  11. Bravo, Jim! Big data is making recruiting more difficult for companies. It’s the perception that people can be “found” easily. Yeah, and then try bringing high performers aboard. A huge disconnect today! You’re right: Most CEO’s and HR don’t get it. They’re looking to automate recruiting to control budgets. Similarly, I posted this recently to my Facebook page: “Here’s the challenge with nouveau tech in the recruiting space: Heavy e-users (who tend to be left-brainers) think they’re building/using better mousetraps, when in fact, the pendulum is swinging back to time-tested recruiting: Human-to-human interaction (like being able to pick up the phone and calling strangers). No question that the future of recruiting involves both tech and talk. But what is going to happen when everyone is linked to everyone, and you can source any name and skill set in seconds? Then, it’s the right brain skills that will win at recruiting. As the unemployment rate continues to decline and the labor market heats up, right brain skills become more valuable. For example, technology cannot understand the motivating reasons for making a career move, or give nuanced feedback from an interview, or negotiate an offer of employment. Then, the finding-broadcast-data management of nouveau tech become less effective in recruiting (similar to advertising). You heard it here: Right-brained *old-school* recruiting skills will be more valued in the coming post-boomer labor shortage.”

  12. People think they’re going to offend the sourcing community by saying it’s gotten easier to find people and build lists. However, most “in the know” sourcers and recruiters wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I made this assertion during the “State of Sourcing” presentation at SourceCon in 2013 and again in the same presentation in 2014. I’m glad others are starting to realize this fact. The new challenge is to cut through the large amounts of data and identify the right people quickly then engage them. My definition of sourcing includes identification and first level of engagement (which this author of this post refers to as recruiting). A candidate isn’t truly “sourced” until that person is known to be qualified, interested, and available for the requisition. Does a procurement department consider a raw material sourced because they have a list of companies that sell it? Or are they expected to handle the negotiations and get the raw materials to the right place so the company can use them?

    This piece isn’t wrong, it’s written from the perspective of someone who ascribes to a different definition of sourcing than I do. For more on my definition of sourcing see this post:…/what-is-sourcing-sourcecon…/. Be sure to click on the links to Glen Cathey’s post about the definition of sourcing.

    This post got a lot of clicks and sparked some conversation but I feel like it was written with the assumption that the author’s definition of sourcing was shared by everyone.

  13. I will agree with the following statement: It does not take more than a few minutes to learn Boolean search. I will also agree with the idea that the issue is no longer finding people (finding the RIGHT people is another story…). However, to master anything – be it sourcing, recruiting, coding, nursing, sales, etc. – requires time, continual education, and experience, far beyond one training class.

    The fallacy, in my opinion, is saying that sourcing doesn’t work when you don’t properly invest in it – with time, continual training, and appropriate tracking. The biggest disservice anyone could do, IMHO, is to toss a tool at a sourcer, provide them with a training video or some kind of online tutorial, and expect them to instantly become an expert; and if that does not happen quickly enough to dismiss the effort as a waste of time and the individual as a fool. Teaching someone is the starting point – experience, trial-and-error, and practice is what leads to mastery.

    You do not hire new recruiters and leave them solely to their own devices – no, you give them coaching, training materials, and you work with them to help them get better. This is where I think sourcing gets a bad rap quite often – there are so few sourcing leaders out there who have actually done it themselves, and therefore very few people who have the ability to really develop great sourcing skills in others. Usually it’s just some recruiter or HR person who’s been moved into that role, who doesn’t know how to measure sourcing success, and ultimately dismisses the sourcing function as a #fail because they couldn’t figure out how to make it successful.

    The vicious cycle, to me, is when you have sourcers who’ve unfortunately been subjected to the tool-toss or to management that doesn’t ‘get’ the functional value, and in whom there was never any real skill investment from their employers, so they move from contract to contract, or company to company, picking up bits and pieces on their own to try to become better. Kudos to those sourcers for taking responsibility for their own career development.

    Training is only the beginning of the process.

  14. The CEO lays off thousands of people, then has trouble finding quality talent, later. Gee, you don’t suppose people don’t want to lose their jobs when the CEO sneezes again?

    “What they should be telling you is that they can’t recruit people.”

    Recruiting is far easier when they stop rejecting people for being too old, “overqualified,” unemployed, or other idiotic reasons that have nothing to do with their ability and willingness to do the job.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *