Recruitment. It's not rocket science.

And we're not sure why people keep drawing on that comparison. Rocket science draws heavily on Newton’s Law of Motion, with a particular emphasis on the center of gravity, thrust, stability, and combustion (and more appropriately should be referred to as a division of Aerospace Engineering). Pretty much, key considerations of rocket science include maths & physics, calculations, and projections, along with a healthy regard for gravity. With rocket science, there are predictable outcomes and definite answers.

Thank you to the boss of this, Sir Isaac Newton. Getting us started on this with the fundamentals was awesome! To this day still considered one of the finest moments in science. Respect. And to think he worked it out 300-plus years ago without a calculator or even Google! Does this mean that with a big enough calculator, the right formulas at hand and a bit of fossicking about on Google, anyone can do it? No way! No siree! We'd never be so presumptive (and have a healthy regard for gravity).

Like rocket science, recruitment has several key considerations (or key ingredients if you will) to take into account. Unlike rocket science, mixing these ingredients can produce wildly diverse, unexpected outcomes. There are variables. Lots of variables. Sometimes it’s the applicants, sometimes it's the employers. Sometimes broader issues impact the process and outcomes—things like the economy, politics, or climate—or more personal issues, like fear of change, a counteroffer, blah blah blah. Sometimes, when connecting people with their 'dream job,' something really special happens. Sometimes not.

Unlike rocket science/aerospace engineering, it’s easy to assume that it’s simple to do it yourself. At least the risks are lessened— a bit of DIY recruitment never killed anyone. Which could be a problem if you get it wrong and have to work with your results.

P.S. With respect to rocket scientists, aerospace engineers, and recruiters everywhere.