Friday, June 20, 2008

Time to fill, Turnover %, Cost per Hire are not all the Metrics you Need!

So many times when I ask the question, "What are you measuring in HR?" I receive the following list of measurements:

  • Time to fill
  • Cost per Hire
  • Turnover %
  • Recruiting sources %
  • EEO recruiting %
What I don't hear is the linkage to business strategy with these metrics.

For example, take "time to fill", OK great, it took you 30 days to find a new employee. Where is the measure that shows that the new employee wasn't qualified and left in 120 days? Make sure when you calculate time to fill you also include quality of hire. What is their performance rating at 90 days?

Does it matter if your cost per hire is below the national average when you analyze new hire data and find that management satisfaction with those hires is low and that turnover with new hires is 50%? How does that impact revenue?

Turnover is a universal measure. I see a trend in looking at turnover in more granular way. For example, analyzing turnover further by engagement level and by performance rating. What would you do if you found out all your most loyal and highest preforming individuals are leaving at a rate of 50%? What impact would this have on customers and productivity?

By looking at these types of measures you can play detective and get to causation, which will allow HR to solve business problems and impact the bottom line!

1 comment:

Michael D. Haberman, SPHR said...

I think a great follow up metric is "quality of hire." The problem with this is you have to have performance measures in place, managers need to be trained to use it properly, and HR has to have a longitudinal approach to recruiting. Few have.