One of the companies I worked for used Balance Score Cards. Essentially our performance was based upon a series of metrics. If you know what needs to get accomplished then I would think that you can build a hiring/interview process around those metrics.

I googled Balance Scorecard and found some interesting links. Heidi

“The Balanced Scorecard is a performance management approach that focuses on various overall performance indicators, often including customer perspective, internal-business processes, learning and growth and financials, to monitor progress toward organization’s strategic goals. Each major unit throughout the organization often establishes its own scorecard which, in turn, is integrated with the scorecards of other units to achieve the scorecard of the overall organization.”

http://managementhelp.org/org_perf/bal_card.htm

https://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx

Regardless, you still know the problem areas that need to be corrected.

Best,

Lou

Let me ask another crazy question:

Do you recommend trigger dates for QoH post-hire, such as 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, 18-months, etc.? This would be more inline with ‘performance reviewing’ than ‘QoH post-hire’ . . . .

However, I like the notion of ‘QoH post-hire’ as it allows for linking back to ‘predicted QOH’ (aka QOH pre-hire).

I would imagine it would be further interesting and insightful to identify when and where ‘predicted QoH’ was accurate or inaccurate relative to actual performance. This would then lead to the question, “Why?” . . . at which point you could get to the crux of what’s really going on with the workforce. The deviations in predicted versus actual could hold tremendous benefit.

Here’s the performance based interviewing methodology we train hiring managers to use to do this – http://budurl.com/1qiv. The information from all of the interviewers is summarized on this 10-factor talent scorecard – http://budurl.com/agwb.

Here’s the performance based interviewing methodology we train hiring managers to use to do this – http://budurl.com/1qiv. The information from all of the interviewers is summarized on this 10-factor talent scorecard – http://budurl.com/agwb.

Email me directly (lou@adlerconcepts.com) if you want to discuss this in more detail.

You speak to analyzing data points in performance (i.e. “all increased their territory growth rates by 10-12% per year”, etc.) . . . however . . .

It’s easy to identify the competencies, behaviors, accomplishments, etc. of high-performing professionals already employed at the organization. A simple regression analysis would yield many insights.

However, here is the draw – here is the real meat and potatoes of the conversation:

How do we analyze these high-performing traits, competencies, behaviors, etc. from a interviewing standpoint. Obviously, the data points couldn’t be consistent – there are too many variables to account for. Growing territory sales 10% – 12% per year at a mature organization may be impressive, yet is extremely weak for an early-stage organization. It’s a simple analogy, but a relevant one. As such, there would be subjective analysis involved . . . because unless all other variables were equal, the interview/experiment/assessment would be greatly compromised.

Thoughts?

at a F100 sales group of 75 sales managers, 2/3 were average or below managers, yet their A level sales people all made quota with six months, all increased their territory growth rates by 10-12% per year, and all made 8-10 presentations per month to CIOs at F1000 companies. We measured candidates on their comparable past performance to determine the quality of hire on a pre-hire basis. However, we did have to move the effort to attract these people to a higher level manager.

At a major F100 company that manages hospital pharmacies we conducted a job analysis at three of their best pharmacies to see what the best pharmacists do. Surprisingly, the only difference in performance between those that worked for weaker managers was their lack of need for support from their bosses.

The point of all this is to say that quality of hire can be measured for any job for any manager as long as you decide not to make excuses about why it can’t be done. We’ve done this for over 500 jobs in the past 20 years, and the hiring managers were representative of the good, the bad and the ugly.

By understanding what the best people do in the particular job is the key here, irrespective of the manager. Then you need to make an adjustment for managerial differences, and find people who can still perform at high levels despite a weak manager.

I continue to be shocked that Cost per hire is still used as the primary KPI in Recruiting. I mean, seriously, Cost per hire? Articles about the weakness of CPH date back eons, yet we’re still discussing, so perhaps there is too much white noise in the market to see the forest through the trees.

P.S. When those at the VP of Talent Acquisition level start having conversations beyond CPH, watch what will happen: The rest of the market will follow suit . . . but until leadership buys in, articles on the futility of CPH will still make it to ERE in 2050.

For a pharmacist is might be working odd shifts, accurately filling Rx, checking all Rx against the Rx db for incompatibility, training assistants in the store, using new technology, staying current on latest drug trends, speaking at a conference, no turnover, and so on.

The point is there is a measurable difference in performance for all jobs from 16 year old camp counselors at the YMCA, to FedEx delivery folks and senior engineers designing the new Reaper drone. The more important point is that recruiters and hiring managers need to know what these differences are so they can measure them during the interview. (Note – make sure you download the talent scorecard to see how this is used to rank candidates against real job needs.)

I enjoyed reading your response; you certainly have provided food for the thought. In my humble opinion one of the biggest mistakes made in hiring decisions is the failure of HR and the HM to properly identify the key measurements needed to select the right individual with just the right skills and ability to accomplish a set goal. For example, simply stating you are seeking a “superstar” and listing a series of exhausting and rigid requirements is not enough. By the way, this may lead to a poorly executed selection process, higher turnover, lower moral, dissatisfied employees, decreased productivity and a highly negative work environment. I would argue that often we look at the wrong measurements to decide whether or not a person is the best fit for a certain role.

While I agree with you that it’s difficult to measure the quality of hire, I disagree with you that it’s impossible. I personally believe that hiring decision based upon a holistic perspective will yield higher ROI vs. a tactical and choppy approach that’s heavily weighted upon non essentials. Essentially I believe it’s ineffective to place a top performer in a role without properly thinking through how this individual will add value to the overall organizational objective and goals. For example (I’ll keep it simple) if a role required the individual to drive operational productivity what would the quality measures be to determine the individual’s success or failure rate?

Customer Service
• Reduced complaints
• Positive customer feedback
Operation
• Reduction in inefficiencies, waste and defects
• Greater output
Health and Safety measures
• Reduction in Injuries
• Reduction in Accidents

As you can see, these components can be measured and they have an indirect impact on organization and financial results. Ultimately, if the individual in this role can decrease inefficiencies, drive output, and contribute to organizational growth then one can assume that’s a quality hire. Again you must look at the overall picture, determine what skills are needed to accomplished the required goals and seek out QUALIFIED people.

These are just my humble thoughts….

Heidi

My company recruits in the pharmaceutical, biotech and health care industries.

How does one measure the quality of the hire? Let’s say I place a pharmacist at a hospital. That particular pharmacist makes mistakes, or doesn’t make mistakes in the pharmacy. We can measure the errors, and compare them against industry average. That is one tangible way to measure the hire. What if that pharmacist doesn’t stay on the job? What if a pharmacist catches an error that a doctor made, and saves a life? But what if that same pharmacist makes a small mistake, one that nobody notices? What if that same pharmacist is someone who sucks the life out of everyone around him with his negative personality or anti-social behavior?

If a pharmacist saves a life because a doctor made a mistake, how much is that worth to the hospital? To the patient’s family? Let’s say the next day, the same pharmacist, who is human and full of human frailities, overloads a baby with heparin?

This is real life, not some crazy measurement.

What if a great hire, a quality person, leaves the company at the 13th month of employment, but during that time brought value to the company? Is that a quality hire, or not?

Quality is easier to measure in sales. If a new salesperson brings important accounts with him, but doesn’t expand the company by going after new business, is that a good hire?

Ok, let’s look at biotech. What if a researcher develops a molecule that brings millions into the company? What is the cost of not hiring that person? What if a researcher works for years only to be turned down by the FDA? Is that a bad hire? What if that same persons creativity, and good attitude motivates everyone around him, and THEY develop a molecule that works?

Healthcare is another good example. How fast can a nurse scoot down the hall to deliver pain meds? Slowly, but surely? Or quickly so that the patient ‘feels’ taken care of, and spreads goodwill about the hospital?

What if that same researcher who made millions for the biotech company, has an attendence problem? Is that a bad hire/ or a good hire. What if everyone who works with him can’t stand him, and it causes other researchers to quit?

We can put numbers on anything, and what we are measuring is subjective. The reason that executives are so frustrated with HR, is because they don’t get it.

Talk to executives, who aren’t sitting around in HR measuring people, what matters? What is the CEO measuring? How is she measured? Bringing value to shareholders? At what cost?

Now here’s a good question for you. Let’s say a hospital is short staffed in the pharmacy? What does it cost the hospital? Does anyone care? I do. Because I know. Mistakes are made, the pharmacists who are on the payroll are frustrated and tired, and people die. But, cost per hire might be down. And, when the hospital did hire, they hired quality people. But for what good?

One more thing to consider. I am in the middle of placing an executive at a failing company. They are worried about the fee. There will be no company if the molecule doesn’t pass FDA muster. And, if they can’t afford a fee, they can’t afford my candidate. My candidate is a proven scientist who has been in front of the FDA hundreds of times. Now, what is the company thinking? Cost per hire? What about quality? How do we measure? What if, after all is said and done, my candidate does work for the company, and still can’t get FDA approval? Is this a quality hire?

The problem with HR is not understanding what makes a quality hire, but going ahead and measuring it anyway.

Again, what is the position, when filled worth to the corporation? Does the candidate just by doing the job bring value?

Please, HR people! Anyone teaching recruiting needs to work a desk, and talk to executives. Anyone in HR who is trying to come up with measurements about quality might be satisfying some strange requirement, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure. Cost per hire? PLEASE, maybe you can do that for menial jobs. Quality? Well, I still say impossible to measure.

Again, I generally tend to agree with you, but the word “dumb” incites me, especially when I am being told from a so called industry expert, that something I beleive in is “dumb”. That is a bad word to choose, albeit I tend to agree with the concept.

The industry needs real metrics that measure business impact, value to the organization, impact to shareholder value, ect…Most importantly, whatever metrics TA leaders can develop must align to a company’s overall business objectives.

This is an important debate. Keep up the fight Lou!

Alan Strauss
Founder
TALC
alan@startfinder.com

Managing recruiting department budgets efficiently is one thing, but using this to determine success or failure is another. In my mind it’s an indication that the department is out of touch with their prime role – maximizing candidate quality and quality of hire.

And if you’ve ever placed a great person, a good person, an average person and a bad person, you absolutely know you can measure quality of hire. Metrics measuring these differences are essential.

1. Quality is a subjective and relative measure
2. Quality is not easily quantifiable

Agree, that there are frameworks out there such as 360 degree evaluation which let you measure quality (to an extent) but in my humble opinion they are again based on emotional responses of the respondents, which make the data subjective.

This post also assumes “a one size fits all” position, which doesn’t recognise an individual company’s current state and doesn’t take into account their current challenges.