The biggest challenge around the metrics is that there are a number of people and businesses areas involved from the businesses advertising spend to the quality of the internal Recruiters, HR and hiring managers all playing a role in how successful a company is at attracting and retaining the best. Therefore coming up with metrics that fairly measure all these variables is often difficult.

So many companies engage in little meaningful research around measuring success in attracting and retaining talent. Your six good metrics is a very good point to start and no doubt the businesses can refine this to suit their needs as though go.

To me, real proactive recruiting success comes when a Recruiting Leader can measure standardized key recruiter/team daily, weekly, monthly, yearly activity results that measures recruiter/team activities. Then, after 3 months of historical data, analyze this historical data to create individual and team activity and results objectives and standards of effectiveness (ratios). Recruiting data examples could include:
1) Searching: qty search strings, resumes downloaded, resumes screened, leads generated.
2) Prospecting: telephone calls (inbound/outbound), emails (inbound/outbound), area canvassing contacts, prospects screened, prospects meeting qualifications.
3) Processing: leads turned to Prospects, Prospects given to recruiter, prospects (now candidates) screened by Hiring Manager, Interviews, offers presented, and hires.

With three months of this type of activity/results data collection, we can perform analysis and compute a number of proactive ratio tools to include:
1) Standards of Effectiveness: (SOE) of any prospecting activity.
2) Business Percentage (BP):
3) Closing Ratio (CR); qualified applicants to sold candidates
4) Sales Ratio (SR): composite of qualified applicants to hires
5) Processing Ratio (PR): sold candidate to hire

This historical data can then used by the Recruiting Leader to create individual/ team daily, weekly, monthly objectives of the various activities. These objectives are based on each individual Standard of Effectiveness so they are more relevant.

This type of systematic recruiting is the basis of the larger recruiting management elements: organization, standardization, management, training, integration and action.

It is my experience that a very large reason for a recruiter/team not reaching its goal(s) is not because of training, skills, tools, market or desire but inadequate levels of consistent prospecting activities. A possible solution is a Systematic Recruiting System where the Recruiting Leader manages consistent daily, weekly, monthly activities.

However, unless you have (a) a small throughput of new hires and/or (b) a confined mapping of recruiters to hiring managers, then the effects of those experiences should have a negligible impact on the metric(s) over sufficient time and volume.

Further, a good analyst ought to be ensuring that such caveats are made clear when results are being interpreted by the reader in order that correct allowance is made for such variances. Everyone knows (or should know) the danger of small smaple sizes - this is just one argument that ought to be included within that category.

* - of course, if a recruiter is at fault for badly matching applicants to roles then this would be their fault and over the course of enough hires this ought to be evident within the data.