Comment by Donna Svei on May 3, 2010 at 2:09am

Do you measure return on your recruiting investment? Which recruiters are attracting your highest impact employees? How do you replicate them and their success?

Comment by Simon Meth on May 3, 2010 at 8:16am

Hi Donna,
All good points. Your second point speaks to quality of hire if you assume that the highest impact employees are the highest quality. I assume you mean highest "positive" impact . Your final point is something you can consider if you have data and analysis to show you who you may want to replicate. Cheers! Simon

Comment by Donna Svei on May 3, 2010 at 10:23am

LOL Simon. I was thinking about highest positive impact but the opposite would be useful as well.

I might have been more clear. I always wonder about companies that focus on recruiting cost metrics. IMHO it would be more productive to focus on recruiting investment metrics.

Cheers to you too,

Donna

Comment by Chris Brablc on May 3, 2010 at 12:10pm

Nice Post, Simon!

In particular, I really agree with points 1 & 2. Source of hire is an integral metric to understand what's working from a recruitment marketing perspective. I'd also agree with Donna that ROI and investment metrics should be included for point 2. If Job Board A is providing 20 hires and Job Board B is providing 15 but Job Board A is 10 times more expensive, Job Board B may be the better option.

Source info is great, but it's even more valuable in the context of overall cost per (applicant, hire, etc.) These metrics can help you greatly in getting more out of your recruiting dollars.

Thanks,

Chris
chris@smashfly.com

Comment by Steffan Martell on May 3, 2010 at 12:47pm

Simon,

Great recap of some important metrics to examine. I couldn’t agree with you more on the source of hire data. Unless objectively gathered and or verified, which is easily done using technology, this metric can be misleading for organizations to use.

I agree with you on the analyzing the effectiveness of recruiters. One way to differentiate this metric is to examine the total compensation recruited by the recruiters. While you can analyze this over the number of positions, it does become a key differentiator in recruiter performance and is easily captured. If your business examines the contribution of the position to the company, i.e. profit by position, you can also use this metric to examine the “value” of the roles recruited.

Steffan
smartell@altrens.com
@steffanmartell

Comment by Simon Meth on May 3, 2010 at 10:12pm

Hi Maren,
It's always a "perfect time to set up these processes". Ideally the recruiters would not be directly involved in data collection and analysis. The entire recruitment process should be designed to capture all the needed data. Recruiters should just follow the process.
Cheers!
Simon

Comment by Simon Meth on May 3, 2010 at 10:15pm

Thanks Chris! Following your example, I'd drop A and spend more on B if $ spent on job boards matter. I'm not that interested in cost/applicant. I'm very interested in cost/hire. Cheers! Simon

Comment by Simon Meth on May 3, 2010 at 10:17pm

Hi Steffan, All good points. I'm not sure that comparing total compensation recruited by recruiters is necessarily a good measure for different types of recruiters. It's clearly a great measure to compare recruiters with similar desks. Cheers! Simon

Comment by Dina Harding on July 5, 2010 at 10:23pm

Well done, Simon! It's never too late to start implementing ideas such as those which you mention above. We certainly can't effectively notice, evaluate or change what we're not measuring! :D

Comment by Simon Meth on July 5, 2010 at 11:28pm

Thanks for your comment Dina. You clearly get it!

Comment