Comments on: Metrics for Assessing College-hire Effectiveness and ROI

By: Miguel Corona, D.M.

Miguel Corona, D.M. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:06:16 +0000

Dr. Sullivan – Your “reality check” list does is on point. Having directed CRR during my career, I can attest to the fact that “real data” is often met with some surprise. One caveat I’d add to your list is the assumption that the candidate accepts an offer. Many times, I’ve had candidates NOT accept offers AFTER investing resources into the process. Thanks for your insight and the article.

By: Dr John Sullivan

Dr John Sullivan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:49:58 +0000

Brandi

Thanks for the comment and the offer of real data. If most college recruiting results saw the light of day, heads would roll.

Some surprises that firms may encounter if they used real data include…

• Cost – The cost per hire can be outrageous, especially if you include manager time (as high as $43k per hire)
• Turnover – Turnover rates within 3 years can exceed 50%
• Performance – First year performance levels and error rates differ by as much as 50% compared to experienced hires (Slow time to productivity)
• Manager time – Coaching, guiding and training new college hires can be a drain on managers during the first 6 months
• Top schools – The so called “top schools” do not automatically produce the best on the job performers (unless they are treated differently because they are labeled as a “top school” grad by their managers)
• Placement problems – Bad initial placement within the organization is a bigger problem than whether you got a weak hire

John Sullivan

By: Jennifer Floren

Jennifer Floren — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:07:00 +0000

Dr J ~ you are right on, as usual. It always amazes me how companies can get tricked into thinking that entry-level recruiting is the “low cost” sector of the labor market. Sure, the compensation levels are lower than mid- or senior-management… But it is often 1) the highest volume, 2) the highest turnover, 3) the highest level of training required, 4) the longest time between hire and productive contribution, and 5) requires the highest amount of time from managers/leaders who could otherwise be building the business. In other words, the entry-level can be the MOST costly — and is therefore the MOST important to measure and get right!

I think your point that this arena is “bound by tradition” — but we’ve been working with more and more companies who are getting very serious about turning Gen Y hiring into competitive advantage… those who aren’t optimizing their efforts are going to be left in the dust very, very quickly.

Our blog publishes all sorts of data to support this — please feel free to utilize it in any of your articles etc if it’s helpful!

http://www.experience.com
http://blog.experience.com

By: Brandi Blades

Brandi Blades — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:18:19 +0000

Fantastic article — never has it been more important to leverage the skills of Generation Y. Those who can do so effectively will find that the most talented individuals of this multitasking, social media generation will keep their business relevant and successful in the coming years. ROI indeed.

But getting the most from your Gen Y recruits is a two-way street. Brill Street recently conducted a study where we asked Gen Yers how employers can help them help their employers, if you will. The results were startling. Are you giving your young hires the tools they need to get the job done (i.e., making use of Google Docs, Wifi, embracing social media, etc.)? Are you too busy locking browsers out of Facebook and Twitter to miss how important these social networking sites are to your company’s relevancy? Nearly 60% of respondents in the Brill Street study feel social media is discouraged in the workplace—yet 87% believe leveraging social media grows brands and businesses.

Since Gen Y works differently, we must adapt the way we work with them in order to leverage their valuable skills.

Brandi Blades
Brill Street + Company (http://www.brillstreet.com)

P.S. If your interested in learning more about the research, we’re more than happy to share the results.

By: Ted Williams

Ted Williams — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:00:09 +0000

Great article. I would love a metrics driven report on college recruiting. Forget all the feel good stuff. Which students did you hire? Why? How did they perform? How much did they cost? Hiring talented students has never been more important. They can be game-changers. The system is broken and it is going to take some type of revolution to fix it. I’m excited for it.

By: nicholas garbis

nicholas garbis — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:54:08 +0000

Love the article…it is a favorite topic of mine and something that I enjoyed working work on with a major retailer last year.

I think you may have understated the importance of the ‘I’ (investment) in the ‘ROI’. The recruiting function will need to know how much was spent on college recruiting….ideally at a campus level.

With the costs at hand, you look at the Quantity and Quality of Hire from each campus and really start to see where the ‘ROI’ is…..and where you should be devoting more resources.

Additionally, taking the ‘Moneyball’ approach (nod to Michael Lewis’ excellent book), you can profile the schools with highest ROI and start to go recruit at schools you haven’t been to before.

Nicholas Garbis, Sr. Consultant
www. infohrm.com
Infohrm – the global leader in Workforce Planning, Analytics, and Reporting.

By: Todd Lempicke

Todd Lempicke — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:45:22 +0000

Great article. Here is a link to a video on a new online program that addresses at least some of the front-end metrics you are talking about and injects some technology into the sourcing and screening process making it much more efficient and cost effective than before.

http://orpresents.com/resumegps/