Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be ?cruiters
They’ll never be valued they?ll never be right
Yet they?ll forever be sourcing the Internet at night

Recruiters ain’t easy to love and they?re easier to blame
By hiring managers whose interviewing styles are so lame
AIRS Certifications and SPHR titles are nice
But try tellin? them managers their specs are all wrong
And if you ain?t fired right there you?ll be so next ?morn

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be ?cruiters
Don’t let ‘em pick people and report to HR
Make ‘em learn to program and then they?ll go far

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be ?cruiters
They’ll never be valued they?ll never be right
Yet they?ll forever be sourcing the Internet at night

Recruiters like metrics – efficiency and quality make sense
They spend days and months re-engineering the hiring process
Asking Shally for flowcharts and checking their thoughts
against others who post on ERE
Then Doc John writes an article that says ?cruiters are just bourgeoisie

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be ?cruiters
Don’t let ‘em pick people and report to HR
Make ‘em learn to program and then they?ll go far

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be ?cruiters
They’ll never be valued they?ll never be right
Yet they?ll forever be sourcing the Internet at night

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be ?cruiters
Don’t let ‘em pick people and report to HR
Make ‘em learn to program and then they?ll go far

You can read the original article here

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid={E42C46B9-11EE-4EB7-BB9A-E3609358F027}

There’s one section that could add significant value to our staffing organization if it the quantification could be accepted by our CFO.

‘Hiring great people is the value recruiters add to the corporation. If you quantify the dollar impact of hiring, it often exceeds the ROI of any other investment in the CFO’s portfolio.’

We have tried ‘# of vacant position days x EPS per day per employee, extrapolated this to include operating income and revenue. This seemed viable to us; however, it was dismissed by the CPAs for solid reasons. In heavy manufacturing, there?s not a one-to-one correlation of employee to revenue. Second, in administrative functions such as IT, Accounting and HR, we have not been able to find a viable ratio to revenue that CPAs will accept as valid.

When we try to use a quality index of replacement employee productivity gain/loss, again, these are viewed as somewhat subjective and ‘soft’ numbers. Even though we will do over $50 billion this year in revenue, we do not have a direct sales department per say.

Having spent a major part of my career in revenue and operations management, it’s easy to quantify real value in such areas. When managing sales teams, revenue generated per employee minus complete employee costs including G&A expenses, would provide a fairly irrefutable profit/loss number per employee. From that perspective, I also would look down on the ROI numbers I’m now presenting in support of recruiting as ‘soft’ numbers.

If anyone has any irrefutable ‘hard’ ROI number calculations that could validate Sullivan’s statement, ‘If you quantify the dollar impact of hiring, it often exceeds the ROI of any other investment in the CFO’s portfolio,’ and be accepted by our CPAs and our CFO – that would be Christmas come early for us. In recruiting, we all know the real impact of quality hiring, of lost productivity due to vacant position days and the competitive edge of a company that possesses a market leading employee talent base. Quantifying that value to conservative finance executives is eluding us at this time. All help is appreciated.

Thanks very much,
Dan

You can read the original article here

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid={F41020D4-8696-4D50-AEE6-A9C80A9029A5}

You can read the original article here

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid={C9023235-6D9E-4E93-8A75-58B5236AFA00}