"In my opinion, 95 percent of all the work that is done on recruiting metrics ends up being a waste of time," writes John Sullivan on ERE.net. Why? There are three main reasons. The first is the fact that recruitment metrics do not involve the broader context of the companies' business operations. The second problem is that most of the metrics focus only on past performance, not on the future. Finally, there is a lack of systematic processes to identify problems and implement changes based on the results of measuring recruitment.
John Sullivan, therefore, recommends companies focus only on the truly strategic criteria executives are most interested in. You should show the real business benefits of recruiting, by measuring business results achieved thanks to hiring top-performing employees. Attention should also be paid to measuring the negative impact of inefficient recruitment processes. Recruitment should prove it is responsible for the greatest return on investment of all HR functions.
What should be measured in recruitment?
1. Performance increase achieved thanks to hiring of productive workers,
2. Failure rate of newly recruited workers and damage caused by poorly chosen employees,
3. Losses due to inefficient recruitment process,
4. Costs of lost opportunities as a result of not hiring the best talent,
5. Costs to the work of managers who are ineffectively involved in the recruitment process,
6. ROI of recruitment as a whole in comparison with other corporate functions.
How do you measure recruitment? Do you use any of these metrics?
-kk-