Quality (of Hire) Is In The Eye of The Beholder

Posted Mar 22nd, 2010

Or so it would seem. In a recent survey conducted by Staffing.Org, two-thirds of all companies (68%) reported that their recruiters and hiring managers don’t have any mutually agreed upon definition of candidate quality before recruiting starts. Yet Quality of Hire has become the most written about and talked about measurement of the value that recruiters bring to an organization.

Sure the other measurements are still being used and analyzed, such as cost per hire, time to fill, vacancy cost and lost productivity cost to name just a few. But Quality of Hire is at the top of most hiring manager’s list as the true measurement of recruiter value. And this is as it should be. Every other measurement is only as good as the quality of the candidate hired.

Ask any hiring manager, if time to fill a position was a little longer but produced better quality candidates would he/she wait? Sure they would. Ask the same managers if filling the position cost a little or a lot more but the candidate was an “A” player, would they mind paying? No they would not mind. Quality of Hire is that important.

So what is the problem? The problem is the disconnect that exists between how important Quality of Hire is to the hiring manager and the company and what the recruiter understands the hiring manager means by “Quality”.

One hiring manager was heard to say,”I can’t tell you what I mean by quality but I’ll know it when I see it.” And unless his recruiter is certified in ESP, the chances of a Quality Hire being made are slim to none.

One way to solve this dilemma would be for recruiters to insist on more and better information regarding quality before any work is started on the requisition, and even better solution would be to engage in a top grading exercise to get examples of current employee’s strengths and success attributes, especially someone doing similar work.

The organizational equation is simple:
“A” players add significant value and dollars
“B” players add value, have a potential to be “A” players and are not a drain on time or money
“C” players diminish the value of the organization and the effectiveness of the A and B players.

Simply put it looks something like this:
A and B players + organization = bottom line profitability and growth
A+B+ C players = stagnation, status quo, and/or dollars lost
B+C = frustration and failure, faster burn rate and path to bankruptcy
All C players …..starting to get the picture?

Execution of a consistent objective evaluation of current employees and hiring against the attributes of A and B players is the way to ensure quality of hire and success of the organization.

So, what does your organization look like? If it is made up of A and B players then everyone in your company fits the profile of a Quality Hire. If on the other hand there are more C players in your organization than A and B players then coming to an agreement on Quality of hire can be most difficult. As the Staffing.Org study showed, 68% of companies polled can’t agree. Chances are good that those 68% have an abundance of C players, and C players tend to hire C players. And in those companies, Quality of Hire truly is in the eye of the beholder.
 

Comments

Post a Comment