……

Recruitment if broken up covers 3 phases in the life cycle of an applicant. Sourcing, selection and Induction.

The thumb rule to measuring each of these stages is measuring the efficiency & effectiveness of the systems or processes.

Efficiency can be assessed by evaluating scalability and speed of delivery at the level of cost against the accepted service level agreements and metrices to be evaluated could be drilled down to respective source channel conversion,yields and TAT. In selection, efficiency could be measured through measuring interview turn around times and applicant wait times )especially while hiring large volumes)

Effectiveness is the measure of Quality. Sourcing effectivemenss can be guaged again by measuring the applicant success rate.thumb rule being higher the success rate the better the effectiveness of sourcing). Selection effectiveness can be assessed through rate of offer acceptance or joining. The biggest measure of selection effectiveness is the on job performance of the employee in terms of knowledge, skills and behavior.

As a recruitment manager one must be able to guage the helth of the recruitment system by building a dashboard that captures all these metrices in order to get an early view to lags in the system and proactively plug leakages. A strong metricised recruitment system also would enhance the ability of leadership making informed decisions in the rcruitment space.

While these were just off the hat thoughts i had on this topic i would love to take this discussion further and deeper to help all of us get a better understanding.

In that case, the lagging (rear-view) indicators can be mostly used for evaluation of results, and for reward-related decisions for instance. While the leading indicators to be seen as a key to “where the problem lies” or “where improvements could be made” – because they are more close to the process itself – so influencing them, we can see improvements in more traditional indicators e.g. Cost per Hire, Time to Fill, and the like.

Regards,
ED

The common metrics I suggested are already embedded into organizational culture and can be useful and effective if NOT looked at solely after the fact. They’re dashboard measures that business people understand, and they are not “tried and failed” or useless if used as real-time measures. Cost-per-hire can be set as a target, then used as the recruitment process takes place. It can be a critical metric for a recruiter in an organization who’s business environment dictates low-cost recruiting. That measure then helps set up which other activities (and metrics) are most important. Many strong recruiters use the metrics you outlined to gauge whether he/she is on the right track or not. At the same time, presenting some of these metrics to business people isn’t always what works.

I’m suggesting that both type of metrics can be useful in a corporate recruitment setting, but it’s up to the recruiter or recruitment leader to determine whether these are the right key metrics to present to business leaders. Some business leaders will inevitably interpret ideas like this as measures of activity.

I understand your point to challenge recruiters to use different metrics. I’m just suggesting that they can also use existing metrics differently and still get very productive, useful information.

Believe me, I’ve seen recruiters measured on things such as how many resumes were reviewed, how many calls were made, and a host of other recruitment activities. I’ve always found it more effective to have recruiters use these measures themselves to keep a pulse on whether they’re not taking the right approaches to a hire. I stick the five hard measureables I noted above because they show recruiter success in an fact-based manner.

I think you are spot on with most of these metrics. Our company has taken an active approach by screening more passive candidates than we ever have and we are still presenting them as “hot candidates” so when positions do open up we are ready to present. I also agree that we need to find candidates who just experienced job loss, but I think Recruiters need to do more networking to ensure that the people who have lost their jobs are A/B players.

Bill, I think your comments are way off (almost shock value to a Corporate Recruiter). If anything, corporate recruiters now have the best chance to bring the best talent in which will help build partnerships with their hiring managers. This economy has taught us as corporate recruiters to be more cognizant of cost per hire. Enhancing partnerships with hiring managers will facilitate a reduction in our hiring managers using outside agencies.

Just my thoughts.
Michael Goldberg
Recruiting Manager

If anything I see corporate recruiting emphasizing the need to not go outside unless absolutely necessary.

Lou

And before I get yelled at I am an onsite recruiter for the last 10 years. And am a 2nd generation 3rd party recruiter. I see the need for the hybrid. But real bang for the buck in this economy has to be shown.

Rich Goldberg

I have always respected all of your work here on ERE. This time I think there needs to be a clarification. I think the advice you give is spot on if the recruiter is working at an agency, staffing service or as an independent headhunter. The metrics you outline will ensure they continue to bring in revenue even in a down economy.

If you are a Corporate Recruiter, I don’t think this is the right roadmap to follow. Corporate recruitment typically reports into Human Resources. If you bring a HR VP a scorecard with the metrics in this article their eyes will gloss over. This just isn’t important to them.

Corporate recruiters should start to focus on things such as selection process, interview training, program management, vendor management and workforce planning. Human Resources departments will become smaller and stay that way in the next few years. Corporate Recruiters will need to become very strategic and provide a high level, long term value to the organization. They need to be the expert to bring the right candidate in the door but the candidate attraction and sourcing will probably be driven from an outside company who provides the service.

The new economy will create a significant divergence in the skills, competencies and measurements of corporate recruiters and agency headhunters.

Bill Opal
Chief Flunky
Http://www.flunky4u.com