Talent Acquisition SOP and Operating Playbook

Model Role SOP / Operating Playbook

Talent Acquisition Specialist

Document type: Evidence-derived model for adaptation
Research geography: United States
Evidence date: 11 September 2026
Course: Professional Certificate in Talent Acquisition
Version: 1.0

This playbook is a practical model for turning an approved hiring need into a traceable candidate pipeline, consistent screening, a structured interview process, an authorised offer and an acknowledged handoff. It is not a live employer procedure, a universal U.S. policy or legal advice. Every field marked [[LOCAL — ...]] must be completed from the employer's current approved policy, decision-rights map and system configuration before use.

1. Purpose and scope

The Talent Acquisition Specialist keeps one connected recruiting process moving from approved need to accepted-candidate transfer. The specialist clarifies the role, sources and communicates with candidates, applies adopted job-related criteria, coordinates evidence collection, supports a disciplined selection discussion, communicates only authorised offer facts, maintains the system of record and transfers the accepted candidate to the named downstream owner.

The playbook is designed for early-career and adjacent professionals performing bounded, hands-on recruiting work. It gives them a repeatable operating sequence while making local authority, human judgment, candidate treatment and evidence quality visible.

In scope

• confirm that the requisition is approved or route it for approval;
• convert hiring-manager context into a role intake and criteria brief;
• choose and document a sourcing approach within approved channels;
• build and maintain a prospect and applicant pipeline;
• screen evidence consistently against adopted criteria;
• coordinate structured screens, interviews, scorecards and debriefs;
• document observations and support an authorised stage or selection decision;
• prepare an approval-ready offer brief and communicate confirmed terms within delegated authority;
• keep candidates and stakeholders accurately informed;
• maintain ATS status, ownership, next action and required records;
• transfer accepted-candidate facts, conditions and open items to the authorised downstream owner; and
• review funnel health and propose bounded process improvements.

Out of scope

The specialist does not own payroll, benefits administration, employee relations, performance management, retention programmes, workforce strategy, organisation design, succession planning or onboarding delivery. The specialist also does not independently:

• approve headcount, compensation or exceptions;
• make the final employment decision unless expressly delegated under local policy;
• interpret employment, privacy, immigration or accommodation law;
• decide whether a background result is acceptable;
• diagnose a disability, infer a protected characteristic or determine accommodation eligibility;
• certify that a test, interview, AI tool or selection procedure is lawful, fair or validated;
• invent candidate evidence, alter a score to fit a preferred outcome or allow an automated score to replace accountable human review; or
• send real candidate or confidential employer information to an unapproved external tool.

The process ends when the authorised downstream owner acknowledges receipt of the accepted-candidate handoff. Follow-on onboarding work belongs to [[LOCAL — downstream onboarding/HR operations owner]].

3. Operating roles and decision ownership

One person may hold more than one role locally, but the decision rights still need to be explicit.

4. Required inputs and source quality

Requisition and role inputs

• requisition identifier and current approval state;
• business outcome, responsibilities and expected first-year contribution;
• employment type, location/workplace mode and approved level;
• approved compensation parameters supplied by the authorised owner;
• minimum and preferred criteria, each linked to the work;
• acceptable alternative evidence for capabilities where defined;
• target timing and any documented operational constraint;
• interview stages, assigned criteria and selection authority;
• candidate communication expectations; and
• local escalation, records and handoff requirements.

Candidate and pipeline inputs

• candidate-submitted application or profile;
• source and contact history;
• consent, notice or channel status required by local policy;
• evidence collected through approved screens, interviews or assessments;
• availability and candidate questions;
• scorecards and disposition decisions; and
• offer response and confirmed open conditions.

System and operating inputs

• [[LOCAL — ATS/system of record]] stage definitions and permissions;
• approved sourcing, scheduling, interview, assessment and communication tools;
• approved templates and candidate-facing statements;
• service targets, ageing thresholds and dashboard definitions;
• current data-access, retention and deletion rules; and
• named owners for offer approval, specialist escalation and handoff.

Input reliability test

Before relying on an input, ask:

1. What is the source: approved requisition, candidate statement, interview observation, system field or authorised owner?
2. Is it current and complete enough for this stage?
3. Is it job-related and permitted for this decision?
4. Is it a fact, an observation, an interpretation or an automated suggestion?
5. Who is authorised to resolve uncertainty?
6. Where must the verified conclusion and its source be recorded?

An automated match, generated summary or numerical score is never the underlying evidence. Review the authorised source record and document the human conclusion.

5. Trigger-to-close workflow

The normal control chain is:

approved need → calibrated intake → sourcing → screening → structured interview workflow → evidence-based selection support → authorised offer support → accepted-candidate handoff → acknowledged close

Do not advance merely because time has passed. Each stage needs an entry condition, an accountable action, an evidence record and a clear next owner.

Stage 0 — Validate the trigger and open controlled work

Trigger: A hiring need or requisition reaches Talent Acquisition.

Actions

1. Confirm the requisition identifier, requester and approval state.
2. Verify the approved or approval-ready role title, employment type, level, location and budget owner.
3. Identify the hiring manager, final selection authority, offer approvers and downstream owner.
4. Open or reconcile the record in [[LOCAL — ATS/system of record]].
5. Record the next action, owner and due date.

Decision: Is recruiting authorised to begin?

• If yes, schedule intake and set the initial status.
• If approval is incomplete or conflicting, hold sourcing and route the missing decision to [[LOCAL — requisition approval authority]].

Minimum record: requisition ID, approval evidence/location, role owner, recruiter owner, status, next action and unresolved fields.

Control: “Urgent” does not substitute for documented approval. Do not publish or source against terms the authorised owner has not confirmed.

Stage 1 — Calibrate the role and freeze the working criteria

Trigger: The requisition may proceed and the hiring manager is available for intake.

Actions

1. Clarify the business outcome and what successful work will look like.
2. Separate minimum evidence from preferences and convenience proxies.
3. Translate each criterion into observable evidence: resume/profile evidence, screen question, work-relevant task or interview question.
4. Ask what adjacent or alternative experience could demonstrate the same capability.
5. Agree the sourcing population, likely channels, outreach proposition and known constraints.
6. Define interview stages, assigned criteria, question areas, scoring anchors and decision rights.
7. Set candidate communication points and local service targets.
8. Confirm the approved compensation owner and offer route without inventing or promising terms.
9. Record open questions and assign them to authorised owners.
10. Ask the hiring manager to approve the intake brief before broad external activity.

Decision: Are the criteria sufficiently job-related, observable and stable to source and screen consistently?

• If yes, version the intake brief and activate the sourcing plan.
• If no, hold the affected activity and escalate vague, conflicting or potentially inappropriate criteria.

Outputs: approved intake and criteria brief, evidence map, interview plan, sourcing hypothesis, communication plan and decision-rights map.

Quality check: A second recruiter should be able to explain what counts as evidence, what does not, who decides and what requires escalation.

Stage 2 — Build and operate the sourcing plan

Trigger: The working criteria and initial search direction are approved.

Actions

1. Define the search concepts from capabilities, related titles, adjacent experience, location and permitted constraints.
2. Select approved channels and explain the purpose of each: applicants, direct sourcing, referrals, communities, agencies or internal pools where permitted.
3. Build original search strings and a talent map; do not import an unlicensed query library.
4. Review sample results for relevance and unintended narrowing before scaling.
5. Create truthful outreach based on the confirmed role proposition.
6. Check contact history and ownership to prevent duplicate or contradictory outreach.
7. Record source, contact date, owner, response and next action in the approved system.
8. Review qualified yield, not message volume alone, and refine one documented variable at a time.

Decisions

• Does the profile show enough job-related evidence to invite a conversation?
• Is the channel producing qualified, reachable prospects?
• Does a search constraint reflect the work, or is it an unsupported proxy?

Handoff to screening: candidate/profile record, source, contact history, relevant observed evidence, stated interest and agreed next step.

Controls

• Do not infer identity, health, family status, age or another protected characteristic from a name, photo, location or profile.
• Do not contact through an unapproved channel or promise a stage, salary or outcome that is not authorised.
• Do not upload live candidate data to an unapproved AI service.

Stage 3 — Screen consistently and record evidence

Trigger: A candidate applies or agrees to an initial screen.

Actions

1. Confirm the current criteria version and screening owner.
2. Review candidate-provided evidence against the same adopted minimums used for comparable candidates.
3. Separate direct evidence, missing evidence and inference.
4. Use the approved screen guide; ask equivalent core questions while allowing relevant follow-up.
5. Explain the stage, format, timing, data use and human involvement required by [[LOCAL — candidate notice policy]].
6. Record concise criterion-linked observations and source references.
7. Check any automated summary or recommendation against the original authorised record.
8. Make only the locally delegated stage decision; route exceptions to the named owner.
9. Send an accurate update and set the next action.

Evidence-to-disposition record

Decision: Does the available evidence meet the adopted threshold for the next stage?

Do not use an automated score as the reason. Do not add a new disqualifier after viewing a candidate. If evidence is missing because the process may be inaccessible or an accommodation is requested, route privately through [[LOCAL — accommodation route]] rather than treating it as candidate failure.

Stage 4 — Design and coordinate the structured interview workflow

Trigger: The authorised stage decision advances the candidate.

Actions before the interview

1. Confirm the interview stages, assigned criteria and decision owner.
2. Assign each interviewer a limited evidence area and approved question set.
3. Provide scoring anchors that distinguish observable evidence from impression.
4. Remove duplicated questions unless deliberate verification is documented.
5. Confirm interviewer availability, access, accessibility needs and conflicts.
6. Send the candidate a truthful preparation message: participants, format, duration, purpose, approved technology, support contact and next-step expectation.
7. Apply the approved notice and alternative route for any recorded, automated or AI-assisted component.
8. Confirm where scorecards must be stored and the feedback deadline.

Actions during and immediately after the interview

1. Keep questions within the assigned job-related area.
2. Capture evidence, not personality labels or demographic assumptions.
3. Avoid sharing another interviewer's conclusion before independent notes are recorded.
4. Submit the criterion-linked scorecard within [[LOCAL — interviewer feedback target]].
5. Record a process interruption, access problem or integrity concern without deciding its legal or disciplinary meaning.
6. Update the candidate on the next checkpoint.

Quality gate: Every required criterion has an assigned evidence source; every participating interviewer has submitted a usable record; any missing or conflicting evidence is visible before debrief.

Stage 5 — Facilitate debrief and evidence-based selection support

Trigger: Required interviews and permitted assessments are complete, or an authorised owner calls an earlier disposition review.

Actions

1. Confirm independent scorecards are complete before group discussion.
2. Restate the adopted criteria, scoring anchors and decision authority.
3. Review evidence criterion by criterion, not candidate by candidate reputation.
4. Ask for the source behind vague statements such as “not a fit,” “too senior,” “not polished” or “I just know.”
5. Separate missing evidence from negative evidence.
6. Document material disagreement and what would resolve it.
7. Exclude unsupported or potentially discriminatory commentary from the decision record and escalate it under local procedure.
8. Record the authorised decision, reason, owner and next action.
9. Send only the candidate communication approved for that decision state.

Possible controlled outcomes

• advance to a defined additional evidence step;
• identify the preferred candidate subject to authorised review;
• hold while a specific conflict or missing approval is resolved;
• decline with a job-related disposition reason under local policy; or
• reopen calibration if the evidence shows the criteria or process are defective.

Boundary: The Talent Acquisition Specialist makes the final selection only when [[LOCAL — final selection authority]] explicitly delegates that authority. Otherwise, the specialist prepares the evidence and records the authorised owner's decision.

Stage 6 — Prepare and support the authorised offer

Trigger: The selection authority has identified a candidate for offer consideration.

Actions

1. Verify the selected candidate and requisition IDs.
2. Compile the evidence that the required recruiting stages and decision approvals are complete.
3. Request confirmed level, compensation, start assumptions and other terms from [[LOCAL — compensation approval authority]].
4. Record each required approval in [[LOCAL — offer approval sequence]].
5. Reconcile the approved terms across the offer brief, system record and authorised communication.
6. Identify contingencies without interpreting or adjudicating them.
7. Prepare the candidate conversation using only confirmed facts and delegated flexibility.
8. Communicate the offer or coordinate the authorised communicator.
9. Record questions, authorised responses, requested changes, owner and deadline.
10. Escalate any term outside the approved range or delegated authority before responding.

Decision: Are all terms and the communicator authorised?

• If yes, proceed with accurate communication and record the candidate response.
• If no, pause the affected statement and request a decision-ready approval.

Controls

• Do not invent a range, promise an exception or imply that an unresolved condition is complete.
• Do not give immigration, tax, legal or benefits advice; route the question to the authorised owner.
• A negotiation request is not approval. Preserve the requested term, approver decision and final confirmed term separately.

Stage 7 — Control acceptance and complete the handoff

Trigger: The candidate communicates acceptance through the locally approved route.

Actions

1. Verify that the accepted terms match the latest approved terms.
2. Record the acceptance date, method and authoritative document/status.
3. List open contingencies and their owners without marking them complete prematurely.
4. Confirm the candidate has received the correct next-contact and timing information.
5. Update the ATS disposition and required recruiting records.
6. Prepare the accepted-candidate handoff record.
7. Transfer only the necessary approved data through the authorised system or channel.
8. Request acknowledgment from [[LOCAL — downstream handoff owner]] within [[LOCAL — handoff acceptance target]].
9. Resolve or escalate any ownership conflict or record mismatch.
10. Close recruiting ownership only after acknowledgment and a recorded next checkpoint.

Minimum accepted-candidate handoff record

Explicit handoff language appeared less often than other cycle duties in the frozen vacancy evidence. This model therefore treats the record as a useful process-control boundary, not as a claim that every employer uses one standard form.

Stage 8 — Close, reconcile and learn

Trigger: The offer is accepted and handed off, declined, withdrawn or otherwise closed under an authorised disposition.

Actions

1. Reconcile candidate, requisition and offer status across authorised systems.
2. Confirm each active candidate has a truthful status and next action or closure.
3. Close duplicate tasks and preserve required records under [[LOCAL — data access and retention rules]].
4. Record the source, stage and reason for closure using approved definitions.
5. Identify one process observation: delay, missing evidence, rework, communication failure, channel result or handoff defect.
6. Route a systemic issue to the weekly or periodic review rather than silently changing policy.

The process is closed when the status is accurate, candidates are not left without an owned next step, required records are complete and any downstream handoff has been acknowledged.

6. Work cadence

Daily cadence

At the start of the working period:

• review new applications, replies, withdrawals and urgent candidate messages;
• identify interviews, screens, offers and handoffs due that day;
• review items approaching [[LOCAL — candidate response target]] or another stage target;
• check offers, approvals, schedule changes and open exceptions;
• confirm every active requisition and priority candidate has an owner and next action; and
• separate privacy, accommodation, legal, security or integrity items for restricted handling.

During the day:

• perform sourcing and screening in protected focus blocks;
• send accurate candidate updates at the promised checkpoint;
• prepare interviewers and candidates before scheduled events;
• update the system of record while the evidence is current;
• chase overdue scorecards without supplying the answer; and
• escalate blockers before they become silent delay.

At the end of the working period:

• reconcile completed interviews, screens, stage changes and candidate communications;
• confirm offers and accepted-candidate handoffs have named overnight owners;
• record urgent next actions and due dates; and
• ensure restricted information is not left in notes, inboxes or unapproved tools.

Weekly cadence

• calibrate each active requisition with the hiring manager;
• review pipeline shape, qualified yield, stage ageing and candidate silence;
• inspect sourcing channels and adjust a documented search hypothesis;
• review interviewer scorecard completion and evidence quality;
• reconcile upcoming offer decisions, approvals and expected close dates;
• review open exceptions and confirm each has an authorised owner;
• audit a small sample of ATS records for status, rationale, next action and communication accuracy; and
• identify one process improvement, its owner and a follow-up measure.

Monthly or locally defined review cadence

• review funnel definitions, conversion and time in stage by comparable requisition group;
• compare sources by qualified yield rather than raw volume alone;
• examine candidate response performance and closure quality;
• check for recurring missing criteria, interview duplication, scorecard gaps or handoff failures;
• review tool or automation changes, candidate notices and human-review controls;
• review access, retention and template changes with the relevant owner; and
• document limitations, plausible causes and approved tests before changing the process.

Monthly does not mean universally required every calendar month. Use [[LOCAL — review period and owner]].

Event-driven cadence

Immediate or same-stage control is triggered by:

• a new or changed requisition;
• a candidate application, reply, withdrawal or request;
• a screen or interview completion;
• overdue, conflicting or potentially inappropriate feedback;
• an accommodation, privacy, legal-status or accessibility question;
• an automated-tool result that cannot be traced to source evidence;
• a suspected assessment or identity-integrity issue;
• a selection decision;
• an offer approval, counter-request, acceptance or decline;
• a record conflict or accidental disclosure; and
• a downstream owner failing to acknowledge the handoff.

7. Decision model

Use four decision classes.

Decision-quality test

Before acting or recommending, confirm:

• the criterion or rule was adopted before the candidate-specific judgment;
• the evidence source is identifiable;
• fact, inference and uncertainty are separated;
• comparable candidates receive the same core standard;
• the decision owner is authorised;
• the candidate communication is accurate for the current state; and
• the record enables later review without exposing unnecessary sensitive data.

8. Handoffs and service interfaces

A handoff is complete only when the receiving owner understands the status, accepts the next action and can locate the necessary record.

Intake handoff: requester to recruiter

Required minimum: approved need, role owner, business outcome, working constraints, approval state and unresolved questions.

Sourcing-to-screening handoff

Required minimum: candidate/profile ID, source, contact history, observed role-relevant evidence, interest/status and next action.

Screening-to-interview handoff

Required minimum: criteria version, screen evidence, authorised disposition, candidate logistics, declared access needs routed privately and interview plan.

Interview-to-debrief handoff

Required minimum: independent scorecards, missing/conflicting evidence, process exceptions, decision authority and candidate update due.

Selection-to-offer handoff

Required minimum: authorised selection decision, evidence completion, candidate/requisition identity, proposed terms request, approvers and unresolved conditions.

Offer-to-downstream handoff

Required minimum: reconciled approved/accepted terms, acceptance evidence, system status, open conditions, owners, candidate message, transferred data, acknowledgment and next checkpoint.

Decision-ready handoff structure

Use this short structure whenever another owner must decide:

1. Decision requested: one sentence.
2. Deadline and operational impact: what is waiting and until when.
3. Verified facts: source-linked facts only.
4. Criteria or policy reference: [[LOCAL — approved source]].
5. Options: feasible choices inside known boundaries.
6. Risk or uncertainty: what is not known or requires specialist review.
7. Recommendation: if the role is authorised to recommend.
8. Required record: where the decision and owner will be stored.

9. Escalation standard

Escalation is controlled transfer, not abandonment. Continue safe independent work while the affected commitment is paused.

Escalate when

• requisition approval, level, location, employment type or budget conflicts;
• criteria are vague, unstable, unrelated to the work or changed after candidate review;
• a candidate raises an accommodation, accessibility, medical, privacy, legal-status or immigration question;
• an interviewer records unsupported, offensive or potentially discriminatory feedback;
• an assessment, ranking or automated recommendation cannot be traced to source evidence;
• a tool result conflicts with the candidate record;
• an identity or assessment-integrity concern is material and local policy requires specialist review;
• an offer term, counter-request or promise exceeds delegated authority;
• a background or eligibility condition requires interpretation or adjudication;
• candidate or offer records conflict across systems;
• information was disclosed to the wrong person or stored in an unapproved place;
• the candidate disputes the process or requests a review through an available route; or
• the downstream owner does not acknowledge an accepted-candidate handoff.

Escalation record

Do not copy restricted details into a general ATS note merely to prove escalation. Store only the permitted status and route in the recruiting record.

10. Record standard and tool categories

System-of-record rule

[[LOCAL — ATS/system of record]] is authoritative for recruiting stage, owner, next action and approved disposition. Other tools may support work, but they do not silently replace the system of record.

Every active record should answer:

• What is the current stage?
• Who owns the next action?
• When is it due?
• What verified evidence supports the status?
• What did the candidate last receive?
• Is an exception open, and who owns it?
• What must happen before the next stage?

Tool categories

Record-writing standard

• write concise job-related facts and observations;
• identify the source and criteria version;
• distinguish candidate statement from verified document or interviewer observation;
• avoid personality labels, medical speculation and unnecessary personal detail;
• record the authorised decision owner and reason;
• correct an error transparently rather than overwriting history where local systems preserve an audit trail; and
• follow [[LOCAL — data access and retention rules]].

11. Quality controls and KPIs

Metrics are diagnostic signals, not automatic judgments about a recruiter or candidate. Compare like-for-like requisitions, keep definitions stable, show denominators and investigate plausible causes.

Case-level quality checks

Before sourcing

• approval and ownership confirmed;
• criteria linked to work and versioned;
• sourcing and communication channels approved;
• interview and decision rights visible.

Before advancement

• same adopted core criteria applied;
• source evidence inspected;
• human conclusion and reason recorded;
• candidate status and next action accurate.

Before debrief

• required scorecards complete;
• criteria coverage visible;
• missing/conflicting evidence separated;
• process exceptions recorded and routed.

Before offer communication

• selection authority recorded;
• approved terms reconciled;
• communicator and delegated flexibility confirmed;
• open conditions and candidate questions assigned.

Before close/handoff

• acceptance or closure evidence recorded;
• candidate communication complete;
• system statuses reconciled;
• open items have owners;
• receiving owner acknowledged the handoff.

Operating indicators

Quality review questions

1. Are delays concentrated at a stage, role family, location or owner?
2. Did the denominator or stage definition change?
3. Is a lower conversion caused by weak sourcing, unclear criteria, candidate choice, capacity or missing data?
4. Are comparable candidates receiving the same core process?
5. Did automation change the evidence, or only make an action faster?
6. What small, authorised process test would distinguish plausible causes?
7. Who owns the follow-up measure and when will it be reviewed?

Do not call a ratio proof of fairness, discrimination, causation, legal compliance or individual performance. Route disparity or validity questions to [[LOCAL — legal/compliance escalation owner]] and qualified analytical owners.

12. Exception playbooks

Exception A — Requisition is urgent but criteria are incomplete

Pause broad activity, document what is approved, identify the smallest missing decision and send a decision-ready intake escalation. Safe preparation such as scheduling intake or drafting a search concept may continue; candidate-facing commitments do not.

Exception B — Pipeline volume is high but qualified yield is low

Check criteria clarity, source mix, search logic, outreach truthfulness and duplicate records. Review a sample with the hiring manager. Change one documented variable, define the expected signal and measure again. Do not lower an adopted job-related threshold or add an unrelated proxy merely to move volume.

Exception C — Candidate evidence is incomplete or conflicting

Mark the criterion as not yet observed or conflicting. Request equivalent clarification consistently where authorised. Do not fill the gap with an automated summary, profile inference or another candidate's pattern.

Exception D — Accommodation or accessibility request

Acknowledge respectfully, collect only what the approved process requires, route privately to [[LOCAL — accommodation route]], preserve an accessible next step and avoid deciding eligibility or legal sufficiency.

Exception E — Interviewer feedback is late, vague or inappropriate

Request criterion-linked evidence before debrief. If the comment may be discriminatory, offensive or based on a protected characteristic, preserve the necessary facts, restrict access and escalate. Do not rewrite it into an apparently acceptable reason or let group consensus replace missing evidence.

Exception F — AI or automated output is opaque

Stop relying on the output for the affected decision. Inspect the configured criterion, source record and permitted explanation. Complete an independent human review. Record the uncertainty and route unresolved configuration, validity, notice or impact questions to the authorised owner. Do not treat the vendor label as proof.

Exception G — Assessment or identity integrity concern

Record the observable trigger without accusation. Apply only the proportionate authorised procedure, candidate notice and alternative route. Escalate to [[LOCAL — security/integrity escalation owner]]. Do not perform improvised surveillance, biometric identification or deception detection.

Exception H — Candidate asks for an unapproved offer term

Restate what is confirmed, record the request accurately and route it to [[LOCAL — compensation approval authority]]. Do not signal likely approval. Reconcile the decision before communicating an updated term.

Exception I — Candidate withdraws or stops responding

Follow the approved contact sequence and silence interval. Keep status truthful, avoid repeated outreach beyond local rules and send closure where authorised. Record withdrawal when the candidate states it; do not label silence as a motive.

Exception J — Records disagree

Pause the affected advancement, offer or handoff. Identify the authoritative source for each field, preserve the discrepancy, obtain the authorised correction and reconcile downstream copies. If personal data was misdirected or exposed, use [[LOCAL — incident and privacy reporting route]].

Exception K — Handoff is not acknowledged

Keep the item open, resend through the approved channel, identify the receiving role and escalate at [[LOCAL — handoff acceptance target]]. Give the candidate an accurate contact plan. Do not assume onboarding has begun or quietly close recruiting ownership.

13. Reusable SOP model

Copy and adapt this structure for an employer, role family or recruiting process. Preserve the local-field markers until an authorised owner supplies each value.

SOP identity

• SOP title: [[LOCAL — title]]
• Role/process covered: [[LOCAL — scope]]
• Geography and business unit: [[LOCAL — applicability]]
• Owner: [[LOCAL — accountable owner]]
• Version/effective date: [[LOCAL — version and date]]
• Review date: [[LOCAL — review date]]
• Authoritative policy/system references: [[LOCAL — references]]

Purpose and boundaries

• Purpose:
• Start trigger:
• End condition:
• In-scope work:
• Out-of-scope work:
• Decisions the recruiter may execute:
• Decisions requiring approval:
• Specialist escalations:

Roles

Inputs

• approved need and requisition:
• role outcomes and adopted criteria:
• approved level/location/terms owner:
• sourcing channels and systems:
• interview plan and evidence anchors:
• candidate communication rules:
• records, access and retention rules:
• exception and handoff routes:

Workflow control table

Cadence

• daily:
• weekly:
• monthly or local review period:
• event-driven:

Record and communication controls

• authoritative system:
• minimum active-record fields:
• approved candidate channels:
• status/response targets:
• scorecard target:
• privacy/access/retention rule:
• AI/data-use rule:

Quality and indicators

• case-level checks:
• stage ageing definition:
• qualified-yield definition:
• evidence-completion definition:
• candidate-response definition:
• offer-control definition:
• handoff-acknowledgment definition:
• review owner and frequency:
• limitations to display:

Exception register

15. Quick operating test

Before declaring a requisition or candidate record controlled, ask:

1. Is the need approved and is the current criteria version clear?
2. Can each minimum criterion be linked to observable evidence?
3. Are source, contact ownership and candidate status accurate?
4. Did a human inspect the source record behind any automated output?
5. Are interview questions, evidence areas and scorecards structured and complete?
6. Is the selection decision owned by the authorised role and supported by recorded evidence?
7. Are offer terms approved and candidate communications factually reconciled?
8. Are privacy, accommodation, legal, security or integrity questions routed rather than improvised?
9. Does every active item have a next action, owner and due date?
10. Has the accepted-candidate handoff been acknowledged by the downstream owner?
11. Are metrics shown with definitions, denominators and limitations?
12. Does the work stop before broad HR administration and onboarding delivery?

Any “no” creates an open control or exception. Record the owner and next action rather than hiding the gap.