How many sources of input does it take to make a decision? In the rapid-paced profession of talent acquisition, the answer is almost certainly “TOO many.” As the pressure to fill seats intensifies, the challenges in clearing that final hurdle continues to pad the cherished “time to fill” metrics valued so much by top brass.
CEB just released their annual report on “Top Insights for World’s Leading Executives” and it proves a good (if lengthy) read. And it offers a few revealing trends that may surprise you. [*Spoiler Alert:] The job of putting butts in seats is getting slower. How much slower? According to this study, it’s over 60% slower than it was just five years ago. How in the…..???
We know the influx of resumés has increased steadily. We know that the ATS and the use of mobile recruiting offers additional channels for applicants. Maybe it’s because some internal recruiting teams are still operating with recession-level headcount. Maybe it’s additional Financial oversight in the requisition approval process that slows the pace. But, come on…does that explain 62% slower?
No. It doesn’t. So what else could it be?
How about consensus?
The ambitious and well-intended goal of “agreement” as it pertains to the hiring decision is blowing the tires off the recruiting vehicle. How much? “If an interview process expands from including three people to five [people], the length of time-to-fill doubles.”- CEB
If you consider the hiring manager as one of the “three,” that means the inclusion of only two more colleagues in the selection process can actually double the time-to-fill. How does that stack up to your current interview gauntlet? I’ve worked for companies with 50 TOTAL employees and had candidates interview with 10 different people before a decision was made, so I’m familiar with how the process can be thoroughly confounding. Remembering all the while that “time-to-fill” includes this dynamic that is completely out of control of the recruiter.
Why is this happening?
- Perceived Value – We (Talent Acquisition) are partly to blame for this. There’s no shortage of metrics quantifying the cost of a “bad hire,” so one unintended consequence is to offload some of the accountability for the decision.
- Technology – Why do we do it? Because we CAN! Hey, let’s add Mike in Wisconsin via Skype; let’s get the Nashville group on via teleconference, or better yet arrange a Google Hangout. It’s fun! Not for the candidate, I assure you.
- Can We All Get Along? – Human Resources, as we know, are the cobbler’s children, so we tend to take the additional step of including internal clients or even potential team members in the selection process. In theory, that looks like a completely rational decision, but in practice? A few reasons that could bite you (besides the time suck):
- Potential Team Members could see the candidate as a threat to their own professional advancement. Why would they want a superstar joining the competition?
- Internal Clients are important and valued, but do we want them making our hires? I don’t necessarily want a perceived co-ownership of my direct report; sometimes that muddies the waters, yes?
Ultimately, it also boils down to this – what is measured is what matters. If your focus is on expediency (instead of, say, quality) of the hiring process, you may be sacrificing that quality for expediency. But if you want time-to-fill to be the most important metric for recruiting, caveat emptor m’friend.
First rule about asking for opinions…be careful – you just might get them.