The Only Recruiting Metric that Matters

How do you evaluate your recruiting business? What metrics are important to you? Are there any metrics which enable you to measure your effectiveness? I recently read a recruiting site discussion where the person initiating the discussion asked “which recruiting metric is most important to you?” I read through some of the answers which were predictable; Send Outs to Placements, Calls to Send Outs or Job Orders etc. I am convinced that the most important metric and the only one I care to follow is; how long did the person I place stay with my client company? Are they still there, or did they leave? Were they promoted? Or were they Fired? This is the only “recruiting metric” that any of our clients really care about and frankly so should we. I am all for improving metrics to improve outcomes. I just believe that the most important metric IS the outcome.

Queue Typical Recruiter response: “I don’t hire the person or manage them. It’s not my job” Fair enough. It is not your job to “hire” the person that they ultimately chose to hire. But, was it not you who recommended they hire this person? When you presented a candidate, you essentially endorsed them in that role. How can you present someone to your client as a prospective hire and later backtrack from them and blame them for a poor hiring decision? If it ins’t “our job” to vet the people who we bring and do our very best to assess their fit culturally as well as vet their character, what exactly IS our job?

“Win some, lose some?” Sure, no one is infallible or reads minds, but we can and should be doing our absolute best to determine the competency and cultural fit of teach and every candidate prior to presenting them.

The metric we should be interested in improving is that of the success and tenure of our placements. How long do they stay? How well liked are they? How well do they fit in with the rest of the team? Do they get promoted? This is the true test of “Added Value” which is why companies hire recruiters. Companies don’t hire recruiters to “fill open job orders!” They hire us because they hope that we can bring to bear our professional consultative insights, reach a larger network and attract better people than they can on their own. Otherwise, they would do it themselves. They want tomitigate hiring mistakes and increase net outcomes in the position. Our job is, of course, to increase the success of the companyin as much as the search we conduct has influence to do so. If the search is a VP of Sales, then the measure of success is equal to that of the person we place as VP of Sales. So, how is sales growth? If it is VP of R&D, the measure of success is the company’s improved product development pipeline and intellectual property position. How are they performing? and so on. If we only judge ourselves on the number of people we place and the ratio of Send Outs to Placements,etc., then we are completely out of touch with our VIP, our client.

If you present someone to a client, that is tantamount to “your professional endorsement” of them for the role you have been hired to fill. If it doesn’t work out, no matter the reason, you never should have presented them in the first place. You simply cannot divorce yourself from the process and explain it away as “someone else’s fault.” The interview process is a time where you must continue to vet and look for additional issues to raise. (If you’ve ever wondered why HR people try so hard to uncover those “red flags,” its because they don’t think that you are doing a thorough enough job of it. HR is skeptical of recruiters because they feel like you are not adequately vetting the candidates that you present.)

As far as “Metrics” are concerned, if it helps you to manage recruiters’ metrics in order to make sure that they are doing all the right activities for success, great. But don’t lose sight of what is really important to your client. Stay aligned with your clients and you will have all the repeat business you can handle.

www.druedeangelis.wordpress.com

Comment by Paul Alfred on March 8, 2012 at 4:39pm: Hello Sandra ... It's been a while .. You've been missed ... I Hope all is well .. You're tough on Drue .. : >) I mispelled Drue's name sorry Drue ...

Comment by Sandra McCartt on March 9, 2012 at 1:09pm: The problem with dru is that from his viewpoint everybody in the whole industry is out of step but Dru. My opinion is that he has bumped his head on a jagged piece of sky.

Comment by Christopher Poreda on March 12, 2012 at 8:57am: Question Drue: with your candidates...do you test (all) of them before submitting to your clients? Do you get psychological evaluations, spend a month with them at their office, spend time with their families, etc. And do you do the same with your clients?

Comment by Cora Mae Lengeman on March 18, 2012 at 1:31pm: WOW! Sorry I missed this while on vacation!

Why hasn't Drue responded to these comments? Does he now see he is wrong or just hiding behind a false belief of 'I'm right and you're all wrong'? Come on Drue, put your big-boy pants on!

I totally agree with every comment. I present qualified candidates for interviews. I have no control over the dynamics in a company once a person is hired. My clients don't expect me that of me, they expect me to find them viable candidates to interview. They make the hiring decision, they manage the person, they change management, they change business plans and none of that it is my responsibility.

Comment by Drue De Angelis on March 20, 2012 at 7:37pm: No, I haven’t waivered. I am no less convinced that this is what matters. The point of this post was to get recruiters thinking about their Value Proposition relative to their clients. Recruiting managers spend so much time talking about nuances of the recruiting business that we often lose sight of what creates enduring value for both us and our clients. The true sustained value we create in our business is the results that our placed candidates bring to our client’s businesses. Obviously, we are not responsible for everything our candidates do in their new job. But, we are the “procuring cause” right? At least that is what is thrown around to claim a fee in a dispute.

If we want to remain relevant to our clients, there is no better way than to impact their business beyond putting someone into a position. And Yes, I do measure this as it is very relevant to my clients, both new and repeat.

Comment by Jerry Albright on March 21, 2012 at 9:13am: Let's be real here. People don't retire from companies after 40 years of service any more like my dad did. Not quite sure of the stat - but most professions see job changes every 3 years or so.

Corporate America no longer invests in people for the long haul either. For me - I haven't made too many "stretch" placements in a few years. They want it all. It's almost as if any training beyond the New Employee Handbook is out of the question.

So if my clients aren't expecting a 10 or 20 year proposition - why in the heck should I?

This stat is perhaps something you use, and feel comfortable with as a part of your personal approach and service statement. That's cool. We all need something we can call our own. But for me - it's got nothing to do with how I measure success.

Comment by Drue De Angelis on March 27, 2012 at 11:24am: Recruiting and Retention are not mutually exclusive. The business of recruiting is changing dramatically and technology makes recruiter results/impact more transparent than ever. More sophisticated companies are beginning to measure retention and comparing not only the "Cost per Hire," but the "Impact per Hire" as in retention. I think recruiters will continue to be marginalized by technology as I read articles on the impact of Linkedin and Social Networking. Consider this article http://www.talentculture.com/culture/tchat-preview-recruiting-is-re... Cheers!

Comment by Cora Mae Lengeman on April 6, 2012 at 4:28pm: I showed this blog to four of my best clients - one automotive manufacturer, two large parts suppliers, an international bankrupcy/turnaround financial advisory consulting firm and with my attorney. They all laughed at the thought that anyone would consider 'how long the candidate stays with the employer' as a metric when considering search consultants. Each of my clients said that they move people around and some times that leads to a person leaving - company's fault not mine. Also that as the business plan changes, responsibilities may change and the person hired isn't getting the challenges he was offered during the interviews - again, company's fault not mine. My attorney said that you are an idiot and completely out of touch with reality; this is not the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s - it's the 21st century and people don't take a job for life anymore and if they do their skills become stale and no longer useful. i.e. all the auto workers that have been let go as automation and computer run machines are put on the lines and manual labor is not needed and they didn't have the skills to use the computer run machines.

My clients are glad you work in the medical device industry because you would further ruin the automotive industry - plus they wondered if you worked for Obama in trying to keep American ingenuity and progress down. And they hope they don't need any medical devices used on them as the people working at your clients most likely have older skills - 'I've been doing this for 20 years this way...'.

Just saying..

By the way, have you shared this "long term' metric with your clients? Under your opinion, you only place people who have been in the same job/same company for most of their career - what "new" ideas do they bring to your clients? Or do you recruit someone with less experience and expect them to stay at your client for 30 years? You recruit people out of their current companies and expect them to stay at your clients for the rest of their career.... I think there is some irony and phoniness in your logic.

Your over use of the word "marginalized" is ridiculous. Is it even a real word?