Quality of Hire…what else matters?

I've been involved in a number of conversations lately about "quality of hire". Every time a recruiter explains that they are goaled solely on number of hires, my stomach churns a bit. That's just not right! I've ALWAYS been a quality person...always. Sometimes it means your numbers aren't as high as they could be, but if the right people are in the right jobs, who cares? Anyway, instead of recapping the conversations, you can view them...here, here, here and here.

Not that I am opinionated or anything, but when will recruiters start to care about what their clients care about? Notice the blank look on their face when you rattle off HR-specific metrics like "time-to-fill" and "cost-per-hire"...all the while the hiring manager is thinking, that is great for you, but what about me...when will you fill my job with the RIGHT PERSON?

Comments (6)

  1. Rami A. says:

    Hi Heather,

    The links you posted talked about quality of hire by talking about performance and retention metrics. The retention I may be able to figure out how it’s measure. But performance, I’m having a hard time figuring out a way especially for non-sales, non-coding type positions like marketing. How do you know that you hired the right person?

  2. HeatherLeigh says:

    Hi Rami…good question. Many companies have some kind of performance evaluation methodology that works with their review model. So usually the information needed to do this analysis already exists with the purpose of identifying who to reward, etc.

    For companies that don’t have such a structured process, I think that the recruiter needs to ask the hiring manager directly.

  3. Heather,

    I had missed your comments on the earlier posts (a weakness of using RSS readers to read posts?) – thanks for drawing my attention to them.

    Over the weekend I wrote a longish article on measuring Quality of Hire & deduced pretty much the same thing that you have – that quality is the goal we should be aiming at, but it is something that can only be measured in a small number of instances. You can find that post here: http://resourcingstrategies.blogspot.com/2005/04/metrics-just-because-something-is.html

    In that I conclude that the thing that most matters is the perception of your hiring managers. From a holistic point of view I would add that measuring all stakeholders’ views of the recruitment process is important & if you are really committed there is worth from measuring the perceptions of some of those you don’t hire (see http://resourcingstrategies.blogspot.com/2004/12/linking-corporate-and-employment-brand.html for a summary of the effect on corporate brand perception of recruitment activities).

    I’m not against the ‘traditional measures’ (time & cost to hire) but believe that they should be used where they are relevant – to help the recruiter understand and prioritise their tactical decisions.


  4. Jason Davis says:

    Are you talking about third party recruiters or internal recruiters?


  5. HeatherLeigh says:

    Jason- was referring to corporate recruiters ("internal recruiters" means something a little different to us), but a lot of it goes for third party as well. If your client isn’t happy, they don’t come back, but I suspect that cost per hire and time to fill have a little different application in the third party space and repeeat business must surely be a good measure of quality (at least with companies that have long term staffing needs, versus one-off).

Skip to main content