Most leaders agree that attracting and acquiring quality talent is Recruitment's primary function. As Peter Drucker once famously opined, "what gets measured gets managed"
If we all agree this is important, why do most companies struggle with measuring the quality of their hires?
No doubt part of the issue is that there is no agreed upon definition for what a "quality hire" actually is. It is a very complex discussion.
The issue of jurisdiction makes it an even greater challenge. Answering the question involves shared information and cooperation across different groups, and there is rarely a clear owner to drive the conversation, or to make final decisions on balancing priorities.
As a result, the one area that could help us tackle these challenges is never included in the conversation. Any organization could cobble together a customized scorecard weighing new hire length of stay with various new hire performance ratings and/or statistics, but they would need a lot of technological help. Most organizations simply don't share information from different streams effectively and if you can't pull the info, you can't tie it to a metric, so it remains "un-managed".
Most companies struggle with this because new implementations (e.g. ATS or HRIS) are focused on recreating past functionality.
Could your organization benefit from using a new technology implementation as an opportunity to step back, wipe the slate clean and start thinking bigger?
Companies don’t have a single view of a candidate or have access to all the data about that candidate to make strategic decisions overall about hiring strategies for the company. You have no idea what kind of candidates turn into great employees. The data on candidates who become employees is disjointed. There’s no view of the full candidate lifecycle.