Assess Your Company's Recruiting Department's Performance
By Lou Adler, July 19, 2007
The following is a tool we use as part of our corporate recruiting department audit. (Email me if you'd like to find out more about this and a free audit.) In the full assessment we spend a few days evaluating a company's overall recruiting effectiveness, but you'll be able to gain a rough sense of how your company is doing just by reading the rating scale for each factor. One key aspect of using a multi-factor evaluation like this is to suggest that recruiting top talent requires being good at a lot of things, not just a few. After you finish the self-scoring of your company, you'll find a few ideas below on how to improve your overall score.
| 1. Delivers Enough Top Candidates On Time and within Budget |
|
Doesn't Work - 1 |
Just Works - 2 |
Meets Needs - 3 |
Exceeds Needs - 4 |
Strategic Asset - 5 |
| No process. Inconsistent results, dissatisfied clients, weak candidates. |
Meets basic needs. Typically average candidates, not predictable. |
Fills most positions on time w/average to above average candidates. |
Typically fills most positions on time w/good or better candidates. |
Great process w/strong metrics. Consistently delivers top candidates. |
|
| 2. Strong Recruiter Team Using a Professional, Consistent Process throughout Company |
|
| No process. Recruiters left to own devices, mostly weak skills. |
Process is uneven. Some good, some weak. Work hard to meet min. needs. |
Overall pretty solid. Gets consistent results, using most tools well. |
Great when it counts. Solid skills all-around, only a few weaknesses. |
Outstanding. Team can source, coach managers, close top candidates. |
|
| 3. Great Career Website That Maximizes the Number of Top Candidates |
|
| Cumbersome, ineffective, candidates turned-off. Nigh opt-outs. |
Basically works. Traditional. Nothing compelling. Not designed well. |
Pretty good. Some interesting features to attract and nurture the best. |
Well-designed. Meets needs of top candidates. Compelling jobs. SEO'd. |
Talent hubs. SEO'd. Great jobs. Strong GUI. Progressive w/CRM. |
|
| 4. Strong Technology Infrastructure That Enables Efficiency |
|
| Ineffective. Cumbersome, or not existent. Burdensome, costly. |
Basics only. Helps a little. Keeps track of data only. Hard to use. |
Effectively tracks info as needed, but doesn't make recruiting easier. |
Strong system. Enables recruiters to be more productive w/metrics. |
Great system. Eliminates admin burden and maximizes performance. |
|
| 5. Effective Recruitment Advertising That Yields Consistently Strong Results |
|
| Advertising ineffective, amateurish, a waste of money. Doesn't work. |
Typical. Old style. Inconsistent. Attracts average candidates mostly. |
All-around professional process, but not always effective. Traditional. |
Targeted, segmented, innovative, and effective for all major jobs. |
Compelling, extremely effective. Ties in brand. Great message & works. |
|
| 6. Effective Use of Multiple High-Volume Sourcing Channels to Attract Best Active Candidates |
|
| No process, spotty, inconsistent. Reluctant to try latest tools. |
Use a few tools that sometimes work, but can't be counted upon. |
Pretty effective. Regularly finds better than average candidates. |
Very effective multi-channel process. Yields strong candidates. |
Extremely effective process, measured, sequential, optimized. |
|
| 7. Ability to Find, Attract, and Hire Top Passive Candidates |
|
| Completely ineffective. No top passive candidates sourced. |
More luck than skill. A few passive candidates found, but inconsistent. |
Uses ERP, networking, name gen. & referrals with decent results. |
Strong ERP, good networking, many referrals, strong recruiting skills. |
Proactive ERP, great at networking, excellent recruiting skills. An asset. |
|
| 8. Coach and Influence Hiring Managers throughout Process |
|
| No respect. Team has no impact w/hiring manager. Doesn't know job. |
Neutral. Handles admin. Not influencing enough. Seen as typical HR. |
Provides standard advice and is seen by candidate as advocate. Influences. |
Intimately involved in all phases of hiring process. A trusted resource. |
Leads every phase of the hiring process. Seen as an invaluable resource. |
|
| 9. Accurately Interview and Assess Candidate Competency Using All Tools Available |
|
| Random results. No training, weak systems, inconsistent. |
Some basic system in place, but not totally used by all. Results vary. |
Has reasonable process in place that is used by most recruiters. |
Very good system in place. Professional, effective, accurate. |
Trained effective team, legally sound, process in place, highly accurate. |
|
| 10. Organization, Planning, and Manage Recruiting Resources to Deliver Consistent Results |
|
| No real structure. Every person for himself. Disorganized. Inefficient. |
Very loose, unorganized structure. Little planning. No metrics. |
Good planning. Basic metrics used. Well-organized team. |
Clean, tight organization. Workforce planning works. Strong metrics. |
Well-organized, forward-looking metrics Workforce planning. 110%. |
|
As you look over the 10-factor assessment you'll notice that the factors relate primarily to overall sourcing effectiveness, recruiting department organization, technology utilization and general recruiter competency. From audits we've done in the past it seems that the biggest problems associated with lower scores are largely due to the fact that most corporate recruiters have too many reqs to handle, and the general lack of consistent "best recruiting" practices used among the team. Each recruiter seems to have his or her own approach, and while some are good, many are bad, but it's the lack of consistency that weakens the whole department. If you want recruiting to be a predictable business process it has to be based on an effective process that everyone can learn and everyone uses.
Much of the problem most companies face today is attributed to the fact that too many recruiting managers have bought into the concept of using an "independent contractor" approach to scaling up their organizations. In this model recruiters are hired based on their existing skills and are expected to instantly fill jobs with little or no training. This is like hiring salespeople who have been effective selling other products and then expecting them to be good at selling yours without any product knowledge or formal training. Just like sales people, your recruiting team should be trained to recruit properly and be expected to pass some rigorous certification process. Overall company performance will improve as a result. Unless you're an employer of choice, the quality of your recruiters will determine the quality of the people your hire.
This is meant to be an interactive article. So first, add your scores to our survey, and if you'd like, email me directly if you'd like to personally discuss your scores. If you decide to go the email route, send me your overall score and highlight some of the problem areas.
We all know that hiring top people will become increasingly more difficult as the talent gap widens. Completing this scorecard is one step you can take today to determine where you stand. It will set the foundation for what you need to do tomorrow to either stay ahead or get even.
