Comments on: High-impact Strategic Recruiting Metrics for WOWing Executives

By: Nancy Robin Gillman, MBA, SPHR

Nancy Robin Gillman, MBA, SPHR — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:57:08 +0000

I like how Dr. Sullivan portrays how time factoreffects metrics and how he mentions ultimately how metrics can be overly used.

Two items I would like to mention in addition are how performance needs to be tied into company goals, mission and vision and how recruiters do not work in a bubble.

By: Ty Chartwell

Ty Chartwell — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:47:39 +0000

Some good info here.
Unfortunately most Talent leaders dont know how to use metrics, and their CHRO’s have little clue as well.
CEO cares about revenue, growing market share, customer satisfation, profit. Recruitment metrics serve as a nice placater and makes CHRO feel important.

By: Recruiting Metrics That Matter | |

Recruiting Metrics That Matter | | — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:27:20 +0000

[...] the Recruiting Intelligence blog, Dr. John Sullivan lists 18 high impact strategic recruiting metrics that will wow executives. [...]

By: Keith Halperin

Keith Halperin — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:38:17 +0000

@ Merlynn: Thank you. Well said.

Cheers,
Keith

By: Merlynn Bertini

Merlynn Bertini — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:01:52 +0000

@Keith–good point regarding metrics are neither good or bad. The question that does not seem to get asked is: What is being measured and why should it be measured? In my experience, the issue has been that staffing/recruiting departments often do not have a valid reason why they want to use metrics–just that it is something that should be done. (Before anyone gets too excited, I am not saying all companies do this, but unfortunately this is not an uncommon scenario).

By: Keith Halperin

Keith Halperin — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:33:24 +0000

Thanks, Dr. Sullivan. As I said in my column few days ago:
I don’t think metrics are good, I think metrics are neither good nor bad, but (like other tools) can used for good, bad, or neutral purposes.

I do think that the use of metrics can be bad if:
1) They’re an end in themselves (and you gather a lot of metrics because you think you should or want to) and not a means to an end- quickly and affordably putting quality butts in chairs.

2) You require your recruiting staff to spend more than about 5% of our time gathering and compiling them. Require all the metrics and data you want- just don’t have US responsible for gathering and compiling them- farm it out to some virtual data entry folks for a couple of dollars/hr. (and adding this for today:)

3) You think that the act of providing metrics for sr. executives in and of itself will “get you a seat at the table (ASATT)”. ISTM that you don’t get “ASATT” by going all “bean counter” to the powers that be- you get “ASATT” by getting the powers that be what they want (if you can trust them) and/or making sure they don’t get what they don’t want (*if you can’t).

Cheers,

Keith “Read More Machiavelli, Compile Fewer Metrics” Halperin

* There are indications that high-level executives are more prone to be psychopathic individuals than the general population.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-stack-the-psychopath-test-by-jon-ronson-07212011.html

By: Sean Rehder

Sean Rehder — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:53:02 +0000

If I was a company that thought 18 metric points was too many, I’d cut it down to these 6 that you gave.

2.1 Level of candidate availability/quality forecast

What I call “Talent Pipelines” of pre-contacted/pre-qualified/pre-interested “talent.” You should measure the diversity of these defined Pipelines too.

3.2 Source quality usage

The source of the “application,” not just necessarily the source of the candidate, should be tracked. If you are sourcing candidates and re-engaging them..knowing that they came from LinkedIn or a referral 6 months ago is one thing..but knowing a recruiter mined them and called them back for a new job req is another. Track the Source (Career page, Linkedin, job board) and the Call to Action (search assignment, sourcing campaign, referral outreach, etc).

3.5 Individual recruiter performance

More specficailly, I’d track sourcing “Production & Performance.” Lead conversions, phone screens, submittals, onsite interviews, and offers. Production numbers are about how many times something was done while performance numbers are about how well they did. Its like a baseball player that went up to bat 10 times (production) and got 4 hits (performance). Both provide insight.

3.4 Manager/new hire/applicant satisfaction with the process

A satisfaction survey should be sent to each hiring manager with each hire/fill and one to every applicant/new hire that came onsite for an interview or further. For hiring managers, that satisfaction survey should relate to his personal record and to the specific job req. Same thing for the candidates.

1.7 Diversity hires in higher-level positions

No brainer.

3.1 Offer acceptance rate

I’d also track along with that offer decline rate and as a subset, the reasons why.

By: Jay Fritzke

Jay Fritzke — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:00:13 +0000

Thank you for this fine example of speaking to the right metrics for decision makers. We have been trying to convey this information to our clients for years. This is an excellent overview of those issues faced by C level decision makers!