Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

Develop a Hiring Manager Scorecard … to Make Them More Accountable (Part 1 of 2)

by
Dr. John Sullivan
Jun 24, 2013, 6:06 am ET

Few in the corporate world would argue against the fact that the actions of hiring managers have a significant impact on hiring. In fact, I estimate their impact to be over 50 percent (with recruiters and the corporate employer brand covering the remaining impacts). But unfortunately, I estimate that less than 5 percent of corporate hiring managers are formally assessed or held accountable for their contribution to the hiring process. What is needed is a hiring manager scorecard.

The goal of this scorecard is obviously to identify “problem” hiring managers but it is also to learn and then share the best practices of top-performing hiring managers with all other managers in the corporation.

After setting your overall functional goals, recruiting leaders need to develop these four items.

  1. Develop hiring and overall recruiting process metrics
  2. Develop recruiter competencies
  3. Develop an individual recruiter scorecard
  4. Develop a scorecard covering individual hiring managers.

I have covered the first three items in recent ERE.net articles, so this one will focus on a hiring manager’s scorecard.

The Benefits of Assessing Hiring Managers

Even though accountability and metrics are widely accepted concepts in the corporate world, they have been slow to filter down into the recruiting process. Accountability is unfortunately not the strong suit of recruiting. Failing to track, assess, and report the results produced by hiring managers essentially encourages “sloppy hiring” and loose compliance with the requirements of the hiring process. The benefits that can result from having an effective “hiring manager scorecard” can include:

  • Know what really matters — when you measure and report to senior executives a metric covering an area of hiring, everyone involved unambiguously knows that this area is seen as important by top management.
  • Awareness increases the time spent — whatever you measure gets an increased focus, which means that whatever you measure will cause a hiring manager to spend time on it.
  • It can identify best practices — by measuring every hiring manager on the same criteria, it is easy to identify the best performers and the practices that result in superior performance.
  • It helps to fix problems — measuring hiring manager performance also allows you to identify the worst performers and the problems that they are encountering. Research and analysis can help to identify and eventually share workable solutions to these problems.
  • Reporting increases internal competition — the ranked results of each individual hiring manager by name to all hiring managers increases internal competition. In addition, reporting individual results allows weak hiring managers to identify and learn directly from the best hiring managers.

SAMPLE HIRING MANAGER SCORECARDS

Give hiring managers their scorecard divided into three parts:

Part I – The Strategic Scorecard (covering major business impacts)

Part II – The Efficiency And Timeliness Scorecard

Part III – The Cooperation And Communication Scorecard

If you’re wondering what these three scorecards for an individual hiring manager might look like, below you will find three samples, each in a different reporting format (percent of improvement, results by quarter and ranked compared to the very best).

Sample #1 — Strategic Scorecard — A focus on the percentage of improvement in business impacts

This sample scorecard section shows the percentage of improvement of this manager from their last scorecard results. It also compares this hiring manager’s performance to the results produced by the average hiring manager.

strategic scorecard

Sample #2 — Efficiency And Timeliness Scorecard — A year-long assessment of a hiring manager’s progress

This sample scorecard section lists this manager’s performance in each quarter on efficiency and timeliness and it then summarizes the performance at year-end.

efficiency

Sample #3 — Cooperation and Communications Scorecard — A performance comparison to the best and the best ever

This sample scorecard section compares this hiring manager’s performance on cooperation and communications during this quarter to the top performance by any hiring manager during this period and the best performance of any hiring manager at any time.

cooperation

Determining Which Performance Factors to Include

If you’re going to measure and perhaps reward individual hiring managers for excellence, you will need to work with a sample of them to determine which output metrics are strategic, effective, and easy to measure. Next week I’ll recommend a list of 23 possible scorecard measures as a starting point for that discussion.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  1. | Develop a Hiring Manager Scorecard … to Make Them More Accountable (Part 1 of 2) + MORE | Get Hiring

    [...] Develop a Hiring Manager Scorecard … to Make Them More Accountable (Part 1 of 2) [...]

  2. Mary Spilman

    Then add humanity, accounting on soft skills

  3. Manny Medina

    spot on Dr Sullivan! was just talking to a recruiter friend of mine yesterday about this issue what to do about it.

    We constantly face the challenge of getting a company started with a candidate only to come to a grinding halt for a week or two mid-process because of lack of response from someone in approval the chain. Recruiters trying to quarterback the whole process can only do so much to get someone to take action. In the meantime the candidate gets competing offers and he is gone by the time everyone gets back on. This set of events repeats itself often enough to hurt the yearly performance of the recruiter.

    We thought of creating an outward-facing ATS, that is initiated when the company and candidate make a connection. Company would has to identify all the decision makers in the hiring decision-making chain – who are then entered and tracked. Everyone in the approval chain, including the candidate, would have visibility to the process and the hold-ups, real time with real people attached to each step. The idea is not only to make the process more transparent (most/all ATS are only company facing) but also compare process speed of one company vs another.

    Ran the idea by this recruiter friend he liked it but thought that people in the decision making chain would be afraid of getting exposed and block it.

    Which brings me to the question – you would have the same issue when trying to measure performance that has not been measured before, specially since your proposal scorecards people. A bunch of people will be upset by this process, how do you suggest to manage the change?

Post a comment

Please log in to post a comment.

Note: You need to sign up for an account on our new commenting system if you haven't already done so — even if you have an existing ERE account. Find out why »

Login Information