It always sounds nice, phrases like: “We go for the best candidate.” “Only quality counts.” “It doesn’t matter what you look like; if you’re good, you’ll get the chance.” Or, also nice: “Quality rises to the top.” Therefore, it’s not surprising that more than three-quarters of the talent acquisition experts indicate that quality of hire is the most important thing on their agenda for 2024, according to research by the international recruiter network Higher. At the same time, the same research shows that most have no idea what that quality is exactly or how to measure it.
Most recruiters have no definition of quality of hire, nor how to measure it.
Nearly half of those interviewed (47%, a large part of whom are also in the Netherlands)) even admit they have not made the quality of hire measurable. This is even though they see engaging with high-quality talent as one of their highest priorities. “The big problem is that recruitment teams generally have no standardized way to define what ‘good’ looks like or how to measure it meaningfully,” says Phillip Blaydes, founder of Higher. According to him, this is necessary, knowing that mishires can cost up to twice their salary.
Management Reviews
Of those who claim to measure the quality of hire in some way, most rely on periodic reviews (usually from the manager) after 1, 3, and/or 6 months. Many also look at the number of candidates who pass the probationary period, and 1 in 5 also keeps an eye on turnover in general. Finally, about 5% say they look at the sales performance of the employees in question to assess the quality of hire.
However, these are all rather limited and, in any case, derived means for this, says Brian Evje in the research report. “Performance may be a reliable measure of recruitment quality, but at the same time, it depends on many factors beyond the control of the recruitment team.” Quality is in the eye of the beholder, Blaydes sums up. “After all, what ‘good’ looks like for quality of hire at Google will be very different than at, for example, the Lego Group.” Therefore, he recommends everyone build a clear scorecard and use it consistently.
How do we best map out these metrics and predictors of success?
In other words: “Collect performance data from your current employees and other data such as turnover, employment, and engagement. Use this data to determine top performers’ characteristics, skills, and values and align them with strategic objectives. What are the similarities that make these hires of high quality? How do we best map out these metrics and predictors of success? What does ‘good’ look like for each metric? For example, if you say that the promotion rate is an important indicator of the quality of hire, what is the benchmark for a good rate?”
Limited Horizon
The research also shows that many TA experts have only a limited horizon. Only 35% of them say they look more than 12 months ahead. Another similar number has a horizon of about 6 months, while 20% look no further than 3 months ahead, and 11% even say they do not do any planning at all. However, this is not so surprising, according to Blaydes. The economic outlook is quite unclear, and it is difficult to anticipate next year’s recruitment demand. However, he advises organizations to gather as much data as possible.
What is your organization trying to achieve in the long term – and what is needed from the talent function in that case?
“Integrating talent data with external data will help leaders in talent acquisition develop a more strategic view of the prevailing trends in the talent landscape, see where they can have the greatest impact, and where they can prevent challenges before they snowball. Simply put: What is your organization trying to achieve in the long term – and what is needed from the talent function?” This might also facilitate another discussion: what exactly makes a good recruiter?
Busy, Busy, Busy
Despite not knowing exactly how to define quality and not looking ahead, the surveyed recruiters are busy, busy, busy. As many as 7 out of 8 say their department is understaffed or only at capacity’. Only 13% say they have overcapacity. Much relief does not seem to be on the way for them. Three-quarters of organizations say in the research they do not plan to hire extra recruiters. If they intend to do so, about half want to do it in-house; the other half prefer an RPO arrangement.
Engaging RPOs or freelance experts can be an effective way to quickly scale up and down.
This last option also fits well with the current uncertainty, says researcher Blaydes. “Engaging RPOs or freelance experts could be an effective way to quickly scale up and down, offering in-house talent teams some breathing room and maximum flexibility in managing their fluctuating recruitment needs.” According to some respondents, this also aligns with another trend: the rise of A.I. This could replace some of the tasks of current recruiters.
More Information?
Read the entire research
Higher Research
