|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Measuring Recruiting Effectiveness
Companies are increasingly seeing the need to supplement time-to-fill and cost-per-hire metrics with quality-of-hire and organizational-fit criteria in order to better measure recruiting effectiveness.
The number of companies augmenting time- and cost-based measures of recruiting effectiveness with metrics that evaluate the quality of hire and fit of a new hire in an organization is growing, but still has far to go, experts say. Almost 70 percent of companies polled in a recent survey by Waltham, Mass.-based talent-management-solutions provider Authoria cited dissatisfaction with ways their organizations evaluate quality-of-hire, and 69 percent identified the creation of such evaluations as a business imperative. "Traditionally, the recruiting function had been judged in terms of time-to-fill and cost-per-hire metrics," says Authoria CEO and Chairman Tod Loofbourrow. "But employers increasingly realize that it's essential to track and measure the dimension of quality, through metrics such as the satisfaction of hiring managers with new hires and the extent to which candidates in the recruiting pipeline match the requirements of a job description." Loofbourrow says the prohibitive cost of bad hires, along with the positive impact that high-quality hires can have on bottom-line results, show that measuring quality in the recruiting process is "rightly becoming a priority for forward-thinking organizations." The survey notes that among those who indicated a time frame, 82 percent say improvement in this key area should occur within the next 12 months. Nick Burkholder, founder of Willow Grove, Pa.-based recruiting-metrics proponent Staffing.org and president of OnPerformance Inc., agrees that tracking the right metrics of recruiting effectiveness is tops on the lists of many corporations. "The Authoria survey confirms the sense of urgency that employers have about tracking and measuring new-hire quality," he says. Burkholder says his own surveys reveal that currently only 20 percent of organizations are doing valid quality-of-hire metrics. "That's not a real good number," he says. "Although when we first started doing this in 1999, it was down around 2 percent, and most of them were doing it wrong, too." But things have changed, Burkholder says, adding that hiring managers are now more often polled for satisfaction based on both an overall standard and on a more case-by-case basis. "Now you define [parameters for satisfaction] before you start recruiting and then you set a time for when you are going to measure it," Burkholder says. Mark Mehler, a staffing consultant and co-author of CareerXroads guides to online job boards, says it is vital to remember what information is really worth measuring. "Major corporations today are more than concerned with the quality of resumes and hires they obtain," he says. "Time-to-fill and cost-per-hire metrics are secondary to keeping ... the hiring manager happy. And to do that, the quality of the candidate that they bring to the hiring manager should be of the utmost importance to the recruiter/sourcer." Kendall Park, N.J.-based Mehler believes the appropriate metrics necessary to better understand recruiting effectiveness are already known. "Companies can now measure quality by reviewing performance appraisals, promotions and raises of those individuals that staffing hires," Mehler says. "This futuristic approach to recruiting, which has many metrics to it, really lets the recruiter know if they've done the job." "Just putting meat in the seat is not enough anymore," he says.
September 22, 2006 Copyright 2006© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||