Undoubtedly ‘metrics’ are a must to draw right conclusions and based on that take correct measures.Thanks for the article.But are we not giving metrics too much importance?

But a couple of questions ‘nag’ me.Can an employee year in and year out be consistent in reffering a ‘ perfect’candidate?Usually not possible.How do we factor the fluctuations in the employees appraisal?

Or for that matter the ‘hired’ candidate’s can give good performance on a year,then next year be mediocre and then again be one of the best.How would you rate the mployee’s ‘refferal’ capabilities?

Yes,metrics help a lot but only upto a certain extent, is what I feel

Suggestion: Employees should look to refer those candidates who are one or two levels below them because referral is based on assessment. Not easy for a territory salesman to assess a VP candidate.

I hope(being a beginner) am at least partly right.

sincere regards

sunil

In most examples I’ve seen, referrals are actually the lowest cost source. While I don’t know the specifics of how this company defines ‘Internet,’ a common mistake that I see is that companies do not differentiate between external, variable costs like job boards and fixed costs like the employment website. These are obviously two different animals.

The one other area that it would be great to get more data on – tying subjective 1-5 performance metrics to actual revenue (which is what the performance increase is based on in the example above). Has anyone done this?

Or for that matter even if the accepntance rate is either 20 % higher or lower,should managerial decisions be based on these fluctuating figures.How would they gain?I fail to understand.

sunil