Too busy to measure?

24% of our survey participants don't measure at all

In talking with HR and Staffing professionals most, if not all, express the hectic nature of their work. Always being asked to do more and more. Being pulled in thousands of directions. Putting out fires. Responding to executive demands. Doing more with less. The list is endless. Based on our research nearly a fourth don’t measure at all. For those that don’t measure the explanation usually falls into two categories –not having the time to measure but wanting to and not believing measuring is a priority because of all the other things that are more important (usually getting butts in seats). When professionals that are currently measuring are asked why they measure what they are measuring - the responses are nearly identically to not measuring at all. They are typically too busy to analyze why they are measuring and what real value their measurements bring to the organization. The other response is typically that other areas of focus are more important (such as getting butts in seats). Very few actually feel confident that they are measuring the right things and can articulate how they can impact their organization. It is easy to fall into the perpetual cycle of “treading water” to fulfill the objectives of the moment. Take a moment to review the stats below from one of our metrics surveys. We are hopeful that by addressing some of the things listed we’ll be able to help HR and Staffing professionals break the cycle, start measuring more effectively, and change their focus day-to-day.

24% of participants do NOT measure at all

59% of participants measure Time to fill

68% of participants do NOT measure quality

89% of participants measure Turnover

If you are aligned with any of the responses above, we’d suggest that addressing some of these interrelated measurements should fundamentally change your outlook and break the cycle. The first area of focus is easy. If you are part of the 24% of respondents that don’t measure, start today. Research has shown that measuring alone improves performance. To reference what you should start measuring, visit our website or contact us.

The next three measures are all interrelated and, when measured properly, should help your organization both day-to-day and long term. If you are part of the 59% of respondents that measure time to fill (or even time to start), you are setting yourself up for failure. Both of those measures perpetuate the behavior that the shortest time frame to get someone hired is preferred without consideration of the following: when hires are actually needed to start, the cost implication of hiring as fast as possible, the quality implication of hiring as fast as possible, all requisitions are not created equally. This measure also does not take into account any responsibility from the hiring manager for the hiring process. All in all measuring this forces your team to focus on the wrong things and makes everyday seem like a fire drill. Using time to fill as a measure can also negatively impact quality of hire, which in turn can negatively impact turnover, which causes the cycle of recruit, retain, recruit, retain, recruit, retain spiral into the day-to-day drama that many have expressed to us. There is a better measure regarding time on our website.

If you are like 68% of respondents that do not measure quality then we’d suggest now is a good time to start. Based on our survey the most measured metric for organizations is Turnover with 89% of participants measuring it. It seems almost natural that one of the causes of turnover could be quality of candidate yet the vast majority of organizations do not measure quality. On average the response to not measuring quality is attributed to the complexity of measuring it, the lack of time, as well as the definition of quality among other things. We believe the quality measure we utilize addresses all of those concerns. In fact, our measure forces a shared responsibility with the hiring manager in defining what quality means and when it will be measured. To effectively impact the cause of turnover quality of hire must be measured. There is a better measure regarding quality on our website.

Chances are you are part of the 89% of participants that measures Turnover. Typical measures of Turnover are cost related insomuch as how much it costs an organization when an employee leaves. The fact is any cost related measure regarding turnover, in its most conservative form, can cost an organization a significant amount of money. The cost analysis is typically conducted to garner funding for retention initiatives but we believe it only tells part of the turnover story. We believe the focus of turnover should be shifted to measuring if an organization is losing top performers in key roles (based on the company’s short & long term business goals) and why. This approach will significantly align your department with the organizational goals and allow you to focus your retention efforts and funding.

By drawing a line in the sand today and focusing your effort on one (or more) of the items listed above you can dramatically change the focus of how your HR and Staffing function operates. The fire drill will happen periodically and not every day. Your team’s effort will be focused on key components of the recruiting process that will allow them to be viewed differently and interact differently with hiring managers. While it will take upfront effort, resources and change management, it will set you on the path to long-term success.

Stranded in the boardroom with the CEO, which 5 metrics would you choose?

Many of us have been asked, “If you were stranded on an island which 5 items would you choose to bring”. Another variation of the question is sometimes, “which 5 people would you include in your life boat if you were stranded at sea”. Regardless of the question, the exercise remains the same – choose a limited number of things that are the most important in overcoming a situation. While this is a fun to ponder many of us put a great deal of thought into our answers. Furthermore, we base those answers on our objective, which is typically to survive on the island (or in the boat) and/or to be rescued. HR and Staffing professionals can use a variation of this exercise to improve or create their own objective based metrics.

I would suggest that you start by asking the question – “If I were stranded in the boardroom with the CEO, which 5 metrics would I choose to discuss?” Please suspend disbelief that being stuck in a room with the CEO would lead to a conversation about metrics or performance in your organization (though it has in mine). Keep that question in mind as you go through the exercise. Below is a step-by-step process that will help you separate and prioritize your metrics. It may seem simple but it is a necessary and can provide valuable insight.

List the top 3-5 objectives of your organization (as stated by the CEO).

List the top 3-5 objectives of your HR department (as stated by your CHRO or leader)

List all of the things you currently measure

Beside each measurement state briefly why you measure it

Match up each measurement with each objective (CHRO or CEO). If you have measures that are not associated with any of the objectives you've listed then throw them away and stop measuring them. They are a waste of time and resources.

Pick the top 3-5 measurements that most strongly identify whether or not you are achieving the specific objective. Those are your METRICS.

The additional measures that are left are what we’d call "activity indicators". They may be important to running the day-to-day operations of the business but are not Metrics associated with objectives.

We believe that some of the top Metrics below can be associated with most company objectives and that there are optimal ways to measure each. There are clearly others but these metrics can help you get started.

Time, Quality, Cost, Satisfaction, Retention & Engagement

Benefits Metrics

We believe the most valuable and relevant metrics support objectives. In our quest to standardize metrics we believe that we can find several common objectives among companies of all sizes and across all sectors in relation to categories of HR. For instance, we believe that most people would agree that a common objective of most businesses would be to make a profit. In the staffing function of HR, we believe that most people would agree that a common objective would be to attract and retain employees that perform adequately in achieving the company’s objectives.

Can a common objective be identified in relation to the HR function of Benefits? What are companies really trying to achieve in relation to benefits? We ask these question as one of the first steps in tabulating the results, capturing any commonality, and then developing meaningful standardized metrics. Below please find a sample “Benefits Objective”. Does it mirror your company’s objectives? If not, would you be willing to share your company’s objectives with us? Post your ideas, thoughts, and metrics.

Sample Benefits Objective - Competitive benefits efficiency that supports the attraction and retention of key employees

We’ve developed sample metrics that support the objective above. They can be found on our Benefits Metrics page. This page also contains some common benefits metrics that are being used and we’ve set up a message board dedicated to sharing information regarding benefits. The page is a prototype for other metrics pages on our site within other functions of HR so please provide us with your feedback.

Visit our Benefits Metrics Page Now

What to look for in 2007

First, we’d like to thank all of you for your feedback, sharing of information, committee involvement, and dedication to metrics in 2006. For 2007 we plan on greater participation, greater sharing of information, and increased learning from each other. This year we also plan on rolling out new tools and enhanced content to help you along your journey with metrics.

Case Studies – our metrics promotion and adoption committee has completed several interviews with companies who use metrics. In the next 90 days, look out for case studies on what other organizations are doing regarding metrics and how they are doing it. The intent is for these case studies to be learning tools for our members. They will highlight both successes and failures and provide useful tips. We are continuously searching for more case studies – contact us if you’d like to participate. Rest assured that you company information can be omitted from the case study if you’d prefer.

Content – we are in the process of enhancing our content on both our website and member area to better serve the group. In the next 180 days you can expect to see greatly increased and enhanced content. We are taking suggestions and submissions for content. Contact us with any metrics information you feel is valuable.

Those are just a couple of highlights of what to look for in 2007. Expect to see more improvements throughout the year.

Your Metrics in 2007

With the holidays and year-end fast approaching there is no better time to step back and reflect on the past year. Take a break from making your list and checking it twice. Sit back and assess 2006 from a professional standpoint. Did you accomplish your goals? Did you measure them along the way? Whatever your answers are there is no better time to plot out how you will measure success in the New Year. People all around the world use the coming of the New Year as a catalyst for personal change and improvement. Harness that mindset and energize your team by setting proper metrics for 2007. Here are a few tips on how to stay focused in terms of metrics and how to maximize the adoption of them.

In order to stay focused on your metrics it is important to determine what constitutes a metric.

Metrics measure results associated with objectives.

Continue to ask - are our metrics associated with our objectives? Why are we measuring that? You may be surprised to find out that you are measuring things that are not associated with your objectives and therefore are a waste of resources and can cause you to lose focus.

Metrics should be easily calculated.

They do not need to be complex. In fact, the simpler they are the more likely they are to be focused on an objectives. Having complex metrics also leaves plenty of room for error and lack of understanding throughout the organization.

Metrics should be limited to 3-5 for any objective.

Don’t get trapped in measurement overload. Take the 3-5 metrics that are best associated with your objectives and forget about the rest. We know that is hard to do. Chances are that some of the other measurements are good activity indicators that you can use to help manage your day to day business but fall short when it comes to associating them with your objectives (which are typically broader in scope and longer in execution). Forget them and don’t look back until you are at the stage of goal setting and refinement.

The BEST Metrics are fairer to HR and are in the public domain.

Far too often HR is charged with measuring things that are not completely in their control and scope of responsibility but are held ultimately responsible for the outcome. Metrics are meant to be fairer to everyone involved to spawn continuous performance improvement from everyone. Some fairer HR Metrics include the ratio of Actual vs. Contracted Time-to-Start, Hiring Manager Satisfaction, and Quality. Check them out.

Now that you’ve started to determine your new metrics for 2007, how do you implement them?

Tip on implementing them to the HR Team

Approach adoption of metrics in phases

A phased approach is best to determine long-term sustainable change. Fear of the unknown and resistance will dominate if change is drastic and your energy will be focused on dealing with that issue rather than your metrics and objectives. This approach also allows you to focus on components of the measurement process instead of the entire process at once.

Tip on implementing metrics with the Executive Team

Consult with stakeholders and bring a plan to the table

Approach your stakeholders with a proposal that outlines what metrics you believe would be most valuable to them. You should use this proposal as a starting point – allow your stakeholders to provide feedback and adjust the plan based on it. They will prefer to interact with you if you have a clear plan rather than developing the plan mutually from scratch.

How much is too much for a recruiter?

How are you currently measuring your recruiter workload at your organization? If you are like most organizations, you may have many lingering questions on what is the best way to measure recruiter workload.I’ve seen the questions posted countless times. What is the maximum number of openings a recruiter should have? How many requisitions are too many for a recruiter to handle? Why can some of my recruiters handle far more openings at any given time than other recruiters? The questions are so important to effectively operating our businesses. As with many things, I think the question that is being is asked is the problem. Aren’t you really asking how efficient are my recruiters? How can I determine if they are at, near, or over capacity? How do they measure up against one another?

I can address the first question of efficiency. The second question regarding capacity, in my opinion, is a matter of each individual company situation. Benchmarking that data against other companies can be dangerous. How many companies operate exactly the same? Are recruiting roles the same from organization to organization? Is the value proposition for hiring people at your organization different than your competitors? Benchmark internally first to improve quarter on quarter and year on year results before looking externally. Once you look externally for benchmarking, pay close attention to processes that may help your company operate more efficiently. Don’t be too quick to focus on your numbers catching or beating your competition. Ultimately run your own race.

Now let’s get back to efficiency. How can I determine the maximum number of openings my recruiter should have? The first step is really measuring each recruiter equally which shouldn’t be done by calculating the total number of requisitions. If you agree with the premise that it is typically harder to fill a requisition that pays $100,000 salary than it is to fill a requisition that pays $35,000 salary then we are off to a good start. If you don’t agree with that premise then I suggest you stop reading after the next sentence and e-mail us why. Please note that my premise says “typically” a higher paying position is harder to fill but there will certainly be instances when that is not true. No metric or formula covers every situation. If you are looking for something that covers everything I wish you well and believe you’ll be searching endlessly. The second premise that I’d like you to agree with is that positions that pay higher than others are typically more important to the organization. I expect that phrase to stir some controversy based on the common belief that every part of an organization contributes to their success and all are important. I agree with that but organizations pay different people in different positions more than others simply because they have to. It is supply and demand. If you agree with those two premises, then we can move on regarding how to calculate a measurement so we can fairly measure workload of each recruiter. If compensation is the best indicator of both difficulty in recruiting and importance of a hire to an organization, then we should use total compensation recruited to measure workload of each recruiter as well as average compensation recruited to determine the difficulty level of requisitions a recruiter is trying to fill. With both those data points you should be able to fairly compare workload of each recruiter to another.

Recruiter #1 has 25 Open Reqs
Average compensation recruited at $80k
Total comp recruited $2,000,000

Recruiter #2 has 10 Open Reqs
Average compensation recruited at $150k
Total comp recruited $1,500,000

Recruiter #3 has 40 Open Reqs
Average compensation recruited at $30k
Total comp recruited $1,200,000

By the standards that many people measure by today, Recruiter #3 has the most open reqs and therefore has the largest and most difficult workload. Taking only average compensation recruited as a factor, Recruiter #2 has the toughest workload. With only factoring in total compensation recruited, Recruiter #1 has the largest workload. I would probably argue that Recruiter #1 has the toughest and biggest workload compared to the others when I look at all sets of data. While Recruiter #2 is probably recruiting higher-level executives, having 10 open reqs seems manageable. Who has a tougher workload? Who has more of a workload? Those questions are really for you to individually decide. The numbers above do not take into account if recruiters are trying to fill the same positions (say 40 open reqs for CSRs or 40 unique reqs). The numbers above simply give you tools to measure fairly but the analysis is ultimately up to you. you measure top down or bottom up? Over 38% of respondents to our metrics survey have stated that Technology/Data accessibility is the biggest challenge their organization faces regarding adopting metrics. In talking with hundreds of HR and Staffing professionals it has become clear that many of them start the process of measurement from the bottom up instead of the top down. They focus on collecting the most specific and granular pieces of data to analyze and draw conclusions. Frequently they get stuck, become frustrated, and cannot pass go due to the complexity of getting the data, validating it, cross referencing it, etc. Due to the lack of being able to gather data in this way, it becomes quite a challenge to articulate how this information impacts the bottom line of the organization and effects business outcomes either positively or negatively. I’d like to suggest there is a better way.