One of the fallouts of the tremendous pace of hiring is the increasing sense of inefficiency with respect to the processes employed to hire.
The inefficiency is blamed on the process or the individuals involved in it - be it the line manager or the staffing manager or the staffing team.
Clearly the system is not able to pin point the inefficiencies and is quick to point its fingers at the easiest target which is either the process or persons involved in it.
Why is the system not able to identify the culprit?
This is because the system has not been enabled to be smart enough to do that. And to enable it what is required is a robust metrics system which throws up the warning signs early on.
By metrics - i refer to the ones which reflect the way we hire.
This could be the number of resumes shortlisted for a position or the number of resumes shortlisted by the hiring manager against the total send to him by the consultant.
All of these metrics result in data which can be churned into information.
What all can the system generate?
Useful data can be generated according to the following parameters
Time
Success/Failure Rates
Both of the above can be utilised at various stages of the hiring process.
What i do want to enumerate below is a set of metrics for each stage of the process
Client Relationship : (Relevant only for Recruiting Agencies)
No of search mandates of the Top Clients Vs Others
% of Revenue from Top Client as a % of the total spending outflow of the client for consulting
% growth in the Revenue of the Top Client Vs Revenue Growth of the vertical Vs Growth in spending of the client
Search Strategy
Success of each search source
Total Hires per source as a %
Resume shortlisting
Total Resumes shortlisted per position
Resumes shortlisted per source - Consultants, referrals, job sites, advts (net + newspaper)
Total Resumes interviewed per position
Decline
Total candidates Rejected/interviewed
Total candidates declined/offered
The inefficiency is blamed on the process or the individuals involved in it - be it the line manager or the staffing manager or the staffing team.
Clearly the system is not able to pin point the inefficiencies and is quick to point its fingers at the easiest target which is either the process or persons involved in it.
Why is the system not able to identify the culprit?
This is because the system has not been enabled to be smart enough to do that. And to enable it what is required is a robust metrics system which throws up the warning signs early on.
By metrics - i refer to the ones which reflect the way we hire.
This could be the number of resumes shortlisted for a position or the number of resumes shortlisted by the hiring manager against the total send to him by the consultant.
All of these metrics result in data which can be churned into information.
What all can the system generate?
Useful data can be generated according to the following parameters
Time
Success/Failure Rates
Both of the above can be utilised at various stages of the hiring process.
What i do want to enumerate below is a set of metrics for each stage of the process
Client Relationship : (Relevant only for Recruiting Agencies)
No of search mandates of the Top Clients Vs Others
% of Revenue from Top Client as a % of the total spending outflow of the client for consulting
% growth in the Revenue of the Top Client Vs Revenue Growth of the vertical Vs Growth in spending of the client
Search Strategy
Success of each search source
Total Hires per source as a %
Resume shortlisting
Total Resumes shortlisted per position
Resumes shortlisted per source - Consultants, referrals, job sites, advts (net + newspaper)
Total Resumes interviewed per position
Decline
Total candidates Rejected/interviewed
Total candidates declined/offered
The aim of these metrics is not to find a scape goat and punish - but to be able to point in the correct direction for remedy
Metrics establish a habit. This will set up precedence for certain culture of doing work - which will elicit feedback
No comments:
Post a Comment