Hiring for success — what makes the difference? Why are so many organisations failing?
Please find Hudsons superior sourcing strategies? For further information or advise please contact steven.jagger@hudson.com
2. table of contents
About this research___________________________________________________2
Introduction__________________________________________________________3
Why are so many organizations failing to measure quality of hire?_____________4
Defining quality — the first step to measuring it____________________________5
The benefits of measuring quality of hire__________________________________7
The challenge of data collection_________________________________________8
Made-to-measure metrics______________________________________________9
Hiring for success — what makes the difference?_________________________10
Hiring manager and recruiter skills — keys for success_____________________11
Superior sourcing strategies___________________________________________13
A more rigorous approach to assessment and selection____________________15
Getting off to a great start — the importance of the onboarding process_______16
Hudson’s key strategies for improving quality of hire_______________________17
Case study_________________________________________________________19
Conclusions_______________________________________________________ 20
3. Today’s business leaders are at
risk of focusing too much on
cost and time when it comes to
improving recruitment, yet the real
benefits come from a commitment
to quality. Leaders are critical of
poor quality hiring but sometimes
are more inclined to look at time
and cost than anything else.
Perhaps quality of hire is considered
too hard to define, too complex a
concept or simply just too hard to
address in the short term? Despite
this, we know that improving
organizational performance to create
competitive advantage and long-term
success for any organization means
having the right talent. So our
starting point in this paper is not
whether, but how, quality of hire
can be achieved.
There are a number of market
dynamics adding to the complexity
of the challenge:
`` Talented professionals are in short
supply: Demographics decree that
the situation is likely to worsen.
Baby boomers are starting to
retire; the generations behind
them are smaller in number and
sought after by a more diverse
range of employers.
`` The global quest for talent:
Employers must compete with
organizations from all over
the world to secure the best-
in-class professionals.
`` It’s a talent-centric market: The
most sought-after employees are
becoming increasingly selective,
have high expectations when
evaluating opportunities and
are empowered with information
about employers that was not
previously available.
`` Budgets are tight: Now, more
than ever, organizations need to
be sure they are getting value for
their salary dollars. Unfortunately
there isn’t always a correlation
between paying an individual
a high salary and that person
achieving high performance.
With so much at stake, organizations
are asking themselves how best they
can refine their talent strategies to
ensure they get the maximum return
from their human capital. At Hudson
RPO, we believe that improving
quality of hire goes to the very heart
of this issue.
The purpose of this report is to help
organizations improve the quality
of their hires. The benefits of doing
so include improved commercial
performance, greater efficiency,
reduced staff turnover and, as a
natural consequence, a reduction
in the negative impact of poor hires.
We hope you will find this report
useful and wish you every success
in your drive to attract and select
the very best people into your
organization.
Kimberley Hubble
Global RPO Leader
Hudson RPO
Elizabeth Boudrie
Executive Director
The HRO Today Institute
“Quality of hire remains the most elusive talent metric for many organizations.
Yet it is also the most important metric for driving sustained business success.
Today’s leaders must not leave quality hiring to chance if they want to create
competitive advantage for themselves well into the future.”
Manuel Marquez, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hudson Global, Inc.
1hiring for success
4. 2 hiring for success
Hudson RPO and The HRO Today Institute conducted research across the globe to understand and improve quality of hire
measurement practices.
Both quantitative and qualitative research was conducted to inform the report.
Employers from a total of 246 companies of varying sizes across the globe were sourced from the Hudson and HRO Today
databases and surveyed about their experiences and views. The global benchmarking survey responses were collected over three
months (December 2012 — February 2013).
In addition, we leveraged HRO Today Institute’s global market insights and Hudson’s extensive experience delivering talent
acquisition and retention solutions across the globe to add additional insights to the survey data.
about this research
Commercial/private
sector company
Other (nonprofit,
government agency)
80%
20%
Organization type Revenue/Budget
Less than $50 million
$50 million — $499 million
$500 million — $5 billion
More than $5 billion
30%
27%
22%
22%
All percentages are rounded to whole numbers
and consequently graphs may not always total
exactly 100%.
5. 3hiring for success
This cost is just the tip of the iceberg.
Hiring someone that is a poor fit for
a role can have grave consequences.
Such hires compromise the rest of
the team, affecting their engagement
and increasing levels of absenteeism,
eroding standards of client service,
reducing productivity and, as a
consequence, profitability.3
Given the business case for
improving quality of hire is so
compelling, it is hardly surprising that
virtually all our survey respondents
understood the value of measuring
quality of hire: 97% said it was
‘important’ (Fig 1).
Yet in spite of appearing to recognize
the value of such a practice, almost
half of respondents (45%) said they
had discussed the issue internally
but did not have plans in place to
establish an appropriate process.
A smaller percentage (15%) has
a plan but has yet to implement it.
The smallest proportion (9%) is not
discussing or planning to introduce
quality of hire measures (Fig 2).
Organizations that consistently make
superior hires reap dividends. A study
by consulting firm McKinsey &
Company demonstrates the
differences in productivity between
average and high performers.
McKinsey reported a 40% lift in
productivity in operations roles, a
49% lift in general management
roles and a massive 67% lift in
productivity in sales roles.1
Imagine
the difference between high and
below average performers.
Getting recruitment wrong can be
very costly not only in terms of loss
of productivity, but also in the high
cost of turnover. It’s been estimated
that the annual cost to US
businesses of hourly worker attrition
alone is about $350 billion, which
translates to an average of $3,500
per hire for hourly workers.2
introduction
How important is quality of hire to your organization?
Do you measure quality of hire for your new hires?
Important Not important
Yes No
32% 68%
97% 3%
Fig 1
1
Winning the talent war in local markets by staying global, McKinsey & Company, 2012.
2
Workforce Performance Report Q2 2013, Key factors impacting the performance — and profitability — of today’s hourly workforces, Evolv, 2013.
3
Next Generation Recruitment: Battle Strategies for the Talent War, Hudson 20:20 Series, August 2011.
Do you measure quality
of hire for your new hires?
Discussed but no plan
Yes, for some or all hires
Have a plan, not yet implemented
Not discussing; have no plan
45%
32%
15%
9%
Fig 2
All percentages are rounded to whole numbers
and consequently graphs may not always total
exactly 100%.
6. 4 hiring for success
This report aims to shed some
light on the process. It will discuss
defining quality in the workplace; the
benefits of measuring quality of hire;
the challenges of collecting data;
and how to improve hiring processes.
It also includes six strategies for
improving quality of hire, plus a case
study demonstrating the commercial
value of committing to a quality of
hire program.
Clients tell us that measuring quality
of hire can be extremely difficult.
In order to measure something
you need to know exactly what it is
you are measuring; how to quantify
and evaluate it; and how to collect,
store and analyze the data that has
been amassed. It’s a big commitment
for any organization, so senior
management must be aligned and
understand its value.
why are so many organizations failing
to measure quality of hire?
7. 5hiring for success
1) Retention of new hires (82%)
2) Hiring manager feedback (74%)
3) Employee performance appraisal
ratings (63%) (Fig 3).
These findings are consistent across
all regions and for companies of all
sizes. Very few organizations are
tracking measures beyond the top
three. However, these are just a few
of many possible quality-of-hire
metrics. Organizations should be
aware that there are multiple metrics
that could be usefully applied to
help create a fuller picture of an
individual’s performance at work.
The next most common measure,
employee productivity, is tracked by
just 34%, and other metrics are
significantly less common. Only 14%
and 9% of respondents track revenue
and profit per employee respectively.
It is important to note that while our
results show new hire performance
appraisal and retention metrics are
very common, they do not delve into
the quality of that data. This is an
important point. If an organization
does not collect performance
appraisal information systematically
or if this information is perceived to
be unreliable, then it loses its value.
So employers need to review the
quality of their data before using
it to measure quality of hire.
Webster’s Concise English dictionary
defines quality as a ‘degree of
excellence’ or ‘high standard’. It makes
sense in general terms, but to make it
relevant for the workplace, employers
must translate this definition into clear
and measurable criteria that align to
the organization’s goals and the
requirements of the role.
While this may be the holy grail in
achieving better quality of hire, the
reality is that it’s a developing
practice: 60% of organizations that
measure quality of hire have been
doing so for less than two years and
most monitor the following metrics:
Defining quality — the first step to
measuring it
What quality measure(s) do you track?
Employee performance
appraisal ratings
Employee productivity
Promotion speed
of new hires
Revenue per employee
Profit per employee
The total may exceed 100% because respondents could select more than one option.
63%
34%
18%
Retention of new hires
Hiring manager feedback
82%
74%
14%
9%
Fig 3
8. 6 hiring for success
Similarly, using employee
performance ratings without
integrating retention data only tells
half the tale; an organization that
hires good people who leave within
the first six to 12 months needs to
know more.
The final, and perhaps most critical,
point, is that quality is relative.
A quality hire in one job family
will be different to another. When
defining quality you need to think
about it in terms of job families
and select the measures relating
to business performance for that
segment of your workforce.
It’s also necessary to cross-reference
metrics to create a multidimensional
view of performance when measuring
quality of hire — a single metric in
isolation may not reveal the full
story. For example, using only data
relating to retention of new hires
may be unhelpful if a company does
not have a strong performance
culture and therefore retains poorly
performing employees.
9. Although employee productivity is
not one of the top three most used
metrics, 70% of companies that do
measure it report that doing so has
resulted in a marked increase in
productivity.
It is difficult to determine whether
quality of hire programs are solely
responsible for lifting new hire
retention levels, performance
appraisal scores and positive hiring
manager feedback on new hire
quality. Other factors including
changes to leadership, organizational
strategy or the competitive
environment may have played a part.
Nevertheless, all respondents were
confident that measurement made a
significant difference.
This raises the question of why so
many resourcing functions are still
focused on efficiency, service and
cost metrics in favor of quality-
oriented metrics. Most key
performance indicators for resourcing
functions focus on metrics such as
time to fill, time to shortlist, conversion
rates from shortlist to offer, hiring
manager and candidate service
satisfaction and cost per hire. In
addition, the cost-per-hire metrics
rarely take into account the true costs
of getting recruitment wrong, such as
the costs of turnover or the costs of
hiring poor performers. Cost metrics
are therefore more transactional than
strategic in nature.
A clear majority (85%) of organizations
that measure quality of hire and take
action as a result believes doing so
has a positive impact (10% or more
improvement) on hiring quality.
Close to half (45%) believe there is
a significant impact (improvement
of more than 25%) (Fig 4).
Small- to medium-sized organizations
are most likely to have experienced
a positive impact as a result of
measuring quality of hire: over 60%
say they have seen a significant
impact (more than 25% improvement).
Larger organizations report
experiencing slightly less impact:
only about 35% say they have
experienced marked improvements.
Of the top three quality of hire metrics
used, (retention of new hires, hiring
manager feedback, and employee
performance appraisal ratings) it
appears that retention of new hires
is most significantly affected by
the introduction of quality of hire
measures: 62% say there is a
dramatic impact (more than 25%
improvement). Employee performance
appraisal ratings and hiring manager
feedback are also boosted with the
introduction of quality of hire metrics:
56% and 52% respectively report a
significant impact.
The benefits of measuring quality of hire
7hiring for success
How much impact
does measuring the
quality of hire have
on actual quality of hire?
No impact
Up to 10%
11%–25%
26%–50%
More than 50%
4%
11%
40%
29%
16%
Fig 4
10. 8 hiring for success
3) Inaccuracy of data collected
4) Difficulty in manipulating data and
reporting it
5) The organization does not
prioritize capturing and analyzing
the data.
Sometimes the data required to
measure quality of hire is captured in
several different systems and these
systems are either stand-alone or
insufficiently integrated. For example,
performance appraisal and retention
data may sit in the HRIS, financial
data generally sits in the financial
systems and hiring manager
feedback and other hiring metrics
typically sit in the Applicant Tracking
System (ATS). Unless these systems
are set up to talk to each other, or
unless the data feeds into a common
data warehouse, the systems will not
be able to provide a fully integrated
picture of individual performance.
Some system failings may be due
to lack of compliance among users.
For example, if staff are not required
to input the necessary data, or are
unclear about why this is important,
they probably won’t do it.
However, as real time information
becomes increasingly available
through new technology platforms,
companies committed to improving
their quality of hire will employ
appropriately skilled professionals to
deal with data collection and analysis.
Furthermore, the consolidation of
structured and unstructured data
from different systems within a single
data warehouse — so it can be
viewed as one data unit — has the
potential to generate much more
meaningful findings.
For example, companies may be
able to analyze the qualities most
characteristic of high performers
and adapt their candidate screening
procedures as a result.
Organizations investing in the
systems and people needed to mine
this big data will be most likely to
uncover the richest business insights.
This data will impact decision-making
at the highest levels and give them
the greatest commercial advantage.
One of the key reasons organizations
are unable to measure quality of hire
effectively is that their Human
Resources Information Systems
(HRIS) are simply not up to it.
Only around a third (35%) say their
systems work ‘very well’ or ‘fairly
well’ in delivering the data needed.
The remaining two thirds say their
systems are ‘okay’ (31%), ‘poor’ or
‘very poor’ (34% total). The largest
and smallest organizations are most
likely to be satisfied with their HRIS’
ability to deliver the necessary data to
assess quality of hire. This is simply
explained — the largest have the
most sophisticated systems and the
smallest have the least complicated
needs. In fact, for many small
organizations, data can be collected
manually, which is just not possible
for medium to large organizations.
According to survey respondents, the
top five reasons HRIS does a poor job
providing data about hire quality are:
1) The system does not capture the
necessary data
2) The organization cannot integrate
the HRIS with systems that do
capture the necessary data
The challenge of data collection
Top three data sources
Recruitment systems
generally house data on the number,
location, role type and source of new
hires as well as resumes, competency
ratings and test results. They may also
include metrics such as time to hire,
interview/placement ratios and hiring
manager satisfaction.
HRIS
usually cover employment and
promotions history, performance
appraisal data and retention and
engagement statistics.
Finance systems
often contain employee-related
finance data such as revenue or
profit per employee, or performance
related to budget.
11. 9hiring for success
Companies should also consider that
there are other metrics, beyond the
top three, which may be greater
predictors of success in a job. As
we’ve seen, only 14% and 9% of
respondents track revenue and profit
per employee respectively (see Fig 3).
Yet for job families like sales, a
financially oriented metric such as
revenue or profit per employee could
be more useful than performance
appraisal data and may have more
credibility with business leaders.
Collecting this data may not be easy
and is likely to require commitment
and collaboration between the HR or
talent acquisition and finance teams.
It’s also worth noting that actively
measuring performance seems to
have a beneficial effect in itself:
70% of respondents said including
employee productivity as a quality of
hire metric has delivered significant
improvements in this area (Fig 5).
Companies need to consider
developing specific metrics to fit
each job group or family. Currently
most employers that measure quality
of hire do not differentiate between
quality of hire measures for
executives, managers, professional,
sales and customer service staff and
so on. To deliver the greatest value,
quality of hire must be assessed with
metrics including those that are
specific to the role being measured.
Made-to-measure metrics
How much overall impact would you say measuring
the quality of hire has had on specific quality measures?
2% 9% 27% 29%
3% 7% 38% 27%
33%
25%
28%34% 28%
Retention of
new hires
Hiring manager
feedback
Employee performance
appraisal ratings
Employee productivity
No impact
More than 50%
Up to 10% 11%–25%
26%–50%
6%
8% 23% 35% 35%
4%
Fig 5
12. 10 hiring for success
and the widespread use of
psychometric assessments and other
behavioral simulations to add more
rigour to the selection decision. Asia
Pacific is still a region heavily reliant
on the use of professional recruiters,
whether via recruitment agencies or
RPO providers, so this may account
for the importance placed on recruiter
skills relative to other factors.
In North America, the most pressing
factors were identified as the
recruitment preparation process,
followed closely by hiring manager
skills and the selection process. This
region’s focus on the preparation
process may be in some part due to
the sheer size of the market and the
critical importance of differentiating
one organization’s roles from others
to make it stand out from the pack.
The relative importance of hiring
manager skills over recruiter skills
may also reflect North America’s
slightly reduced reliance on third
party recruiters in favor of in-house
recruitment models.
Across Europe, the most pressing
factors influencing quality of hire are
perceived to be skills-related — both
hiring manager skills and recruiter
skills. Respondents in this region
also stress the importance of the
recruitment preparation process. This
involves clarifying the requirements
of the role, agreeing on a sourcing
strategy and engaging high quality
recruiters who can add value to the
process at every stage. Given the
fairly strict employment legislation
and the challenges involved in
terminating non-performers
throughout this region, it is surprising
that the selection process was not
rated more highly.
Survey respondents indicated hiring
manager skills have a very significant
impact on quality of hires: 61% cited it
as the most important factor, closely
followed by recruiter skills (59%)
and thorough preparation for the
recruitment process (58%) (Fig 6).
Asia-Pacific respondents ranked
the selection process as the most
important factor influencing quality
of hire, followed by recruiter skills
and then the orientation/onboarding
process. This finding is supported
by the importance placed on
competency-based behavioral
interviewing practices in this region
Hiring for success — what makes
the difference?
Which factors have you found
to have had the greatest impact on quality of hire?
Orientation/onboarding
Selection process
Recruitment
preparation process
Recruiter skills
Hiring manager skills
45%
Employment branding 41%
Candidate source 29%
54%
58%
59%
61%
The total may exceed 100% because respondents could select more than one option.
Fig 6
13. 11hiring for success
`` Have a well-articulated value
proposition that you can market to
quality candidates, helping you sell
to the highest calibre candidates.
`` For particularly senior or critical
appointments, get buy-in on the
job and person profile from all
key stakeholders. Often great
candidates are lost during the
recruitment process because key
people cannot agree on what type
of person they are seeking. The
job and person profile should be
socialized and agreed upon by all
who have a vested interest in the
decision. Managers must share a
vision of the job and what success
looks like to align their views on
candidates they interview and
ensure the new employee can
achieve success.
`` View the recruitment process
as a sales process. You are
competing for great talent with
many competitors, so it is
important to communicate what
sets this opportunity apart and
why candidates would want to
work for your organization in
this specific role.
`` Similarly, create a sense of
urgency in the recruitment
process and maintain excellent
communication from start to
finish. Great candidates are
impressed by a robust process
conducted efficiently. A long
delay caused by hiring manager
unavailability does not give a
candidate confidence that the
organization is disciplined or
serious about the appointment.
`` Be open and provide specific
details about the role to
candidates. Potential employees
must have enough information
to have a very clear idea of what
doing this job would be like — and
to be able to imagine themselves
doing it.
`` Be objective. Most of us are drawn
to people like ourselves, which is a
natural inclination but not helpful
during the recruitment process.
Hiring managers need to take
steps to address bias of this kind
and ensure assessment methods
are objective rather than subjective.
Hiring manager and recruiter skills
were selected as the most important
influences on quality of hiring
globally. Given that finding, how can
they drive quality hiring outcomes?
Hudson RPO’s experience of
recruiting tens of thousands
of candidates worldwide, combined
with the survey results, has enabled
us to identify the key ingredients
for success:
`` Be really clear about the job and
person — this should cover the
following critical elements:
— What the role involves
(function, objectives, reporting
lines, key tasks).
— How performance is
measured, including what
success in the role looks like
at 6, 12, 24 months or longer.
— A person profile that defines the
skills, knowledge, behaviors and
attitudes needed for success in
the job and fitting with the culture.
Hiring manager and recruiter skills —
keys for success
14. 12 hiring for success
`` Lastly, as candidates often make
critical decisions about their fit
within the organization and role
within the first three months, it is
important for the organization to
ensure this process is managed
effectively so that the new
employee experience is first class
from day one. Nothing impacts a
new employee’s engagement levels
more fundamentally than turning
up to work on their first day with no
welcome, no desk or computer and
no training scheduled.
All is not lost if your hiring managers
do not have such systems in place
yet. Here are some simple strategies
to help lift their skill levels:
`` Provide formal training in
recruitment skills, especially
interviewing techniques
`` Buddy up the least skilled
managers with the most skilled
recruiters for co-interviewing
and one-to-one coaching
`` Create some competition — share
quality of hire results and other
hiring metrics across relevant
peer groups so hiring managers
understand how they are
performing relative to others
`` Consider outsourcing elements
(particularly role groups, divisions
or even steps in the recruitment
process like sourcing or
assessment).
`` Ensure you understand your
candidates’ hot buttons as these
are factors that will influence them
to accept your offer. Is it purely
money they are after or is the
ability to work from home two days
a week the clincher? Some people
need the trappings of status, while
others simply want to work with a
friendly, close-knit team.
`` Understand what other roles they
are exploring and how they rate
these opportunities relative to
yours. Practice closing the
negotiations to ensure that, when
the real offer comes, you increase
the chances of acceptance.
15. 13hiring for success
Organizations headquartered in North
America are most likely to say they
have identified such a link. Just over
half say they’ve made a connection,
compared with 39% of those based
in EMEA and 31% headquartered in
the Asia-Pacific region.
Of those that have identified a link,
the most commonly cited source of
quality hires is employee referral.
Hudson RPO counsels clients that
referral candidates should be
assessed just as rigorously as any
other applicant for a role. This is
particularly important when a
company pays for referrals.
If a candidate already knows
someone within the organization
and has insights into the company
and role, they are likely to be better
positioned in the screening process,
but that doesn’t necessarily mean
they have the best skill set for the
opportunity. Similarly, organizations
should not assume candidates are
likely to be good quality when they
may have been put forward by
someone who is not necessarily
an excellent employee themselves.
The passive candidate market is often
cited as a rich source of superior hires.
Passive candidates are defined as
those not actively looking for
alternative career opportunities, but
who are open to a new role should an
attractive opportunity be presented
to them. According to the Corporate
Leadership Council, passive
candidates typically achieve 9% higher
performance and 25% better retention
levels than active candidates recruited
via other channels.
Common sense suggests that the
other important source of quality
hires is your own employee base.
Promoting proven performers has
many significant benefits — the time
to productivity is quicker, the cost is
lower and it can have a positive
impact on the engagement and
morale of other employees. So
learning how to mobilize your talent
on a global scale is essential.
Surprisingly, candidate source did
not emerge as a major driver in the
quality of a new hire when compared
to other factors, such as hiring
manager and recruiter skill and the
quality of the hiring process. Hudson
RPO’s research shows that less than
half of organizations have identified
a connection between candidate
source and quality of hire. While 45%
say they have identified links, 38%
say they have not. The remaining
17% do not know (Fig 7).
superior sourcing strategies
Yes
No
Don’t know
45%
38%
17%
Have you identified any
link between source of
hire and quality of hire?
Fig 7
16. 14 hiring for success
exceptional skills in using emerging
online channels with a global reach,
such as LinkedIn. The best recruiters
are those who can put themselves in
the shoes of their ideal candidate —
and use the insights this process
brings to get closer to them.
If you think your sourcing channels
could be improved, consider:
`` Reviewing source of hire reports
to understand your starting point.
What is currently working and
what isn’t?
`` Asking placed candidates
where they first heard about
the opportunity and ensure this
information is uploaded to your
ATS. Then extend the question
to all applicants.
`` Identify your most business-critical
and regularly recruited roles and
build talent pools so that you move
to a more proactive model.
`` Be open-minded. Take the time
to look at the backgrounds of your
high performers. We often find
their experience doesn’t live up
to the expectations of hiring
managers. Are you narrowing your
field on the wrong factors?
`` Think about appropriate feeder
roles (the job the right person may
have been doing a year or two
ago) and competitors who employ
those skills.
`` Get social and make it easier for
your networks to help you recruit.
`` Engage external expertise to
review your existing sourcing
channels and propose practical
ways you can optimize these for
your organization.
One of the issues in assessing the
source of superior candidates is that
it can be difficult to pinpoint precisely
where their application originated.
For example, digital footprints can be
misleading; someone who applied to
a company directly via its corporate
website may have first heard about
the opportunity through their
networks or via a job board and then
looked up the website. Asking the
question: ‘Where did you first hear
about this role?’ is necessary to
create a reliable source of hire data.
Using external recruiters, such
as RPO providers or specialist
recruitment consultants, was also
thought to be a good source of
quality hires. Hudson RPO believes
that the quality of hiring is largely
influenced by the skill of the recruiter.
However, sourcing superior talent
today involves the use of innovative
channels tailored to the role. These
include a strategic long-term
approach to talent-pooling and
17. Reference checking (‘always’ or
‘often’ used by 95% of employers),
resume screening (‘always’ or ‘ often’
used by 75%), and background
interviews (‘always’ or ‘often’ used
by 75%)5
are the most common
techniques used in the selection
process. These are the simplest and
quickest assessment processes but
are the least effective tools to assess
high performance.
Hudson RPO recommends assessing
candidates against criteria proven to
accurately predict high performance
in a role. Hudson RPO uses a suite of
tools including psychometric tests;
verbal, numerical and abstract
reasoning assessments; behavioural
tests; and live tests including
simulations and role-playing to
determine the technical and
behavioural competencies, skills and
experience required for the job.
Hudson RPO also measures
candidates’ motivational and
behavioural capabilities. Our
research shows that the alignment of
these two areas is the most accurate
predictor of whether a candidate
could be a high performer in a role:
91% of hires were rated good or
excellent when formal procedures
were used to measure motivation
or cultural fit.
If you think your assessment
and selection practices need
improvement, here are some
recommendations:
`` Spend time interviewing and
assessing high performers to see
what makes them tick
`` Introduce more rigour to the
process with psychometric
assessments, simulations and
other objective measures
`` Create better quality job and
person profiles and establish these
in a centralized library for ease of
access by others on the team
`` Provide structured training or
one-to-one coaching on interview
skills for hiring managers
`` Develop a more compelling
employer value proposition to
present to candidates during the
recruitment process.
Having established a clear idea
of what they are looking for, hiring
managers need to ensure that their
recruitment processes are
sufficiently rigorous to identify those
candidates that best match the
profile of the person they seek.
More than one in four companies
(28%) believe they should do more
to test and discover candidate
competencies and abilities. A further
28% said that with hindsight they
would do more to test and understand
candidates’ competencies and
abilities to ensure the value of
their investment.4
In order to achieve more positive
hiring outcomes, employers must
make hiring decisions based on more
than assessments of past experience
and technical skills. Often people are
hired on the basis of their technical
skills and experience, but are fired
due to attitudinal or behavioural
issues. In addition, ensuring the right
career, motivation and culture fit
between the candidate, the role and
the company is critical to success
and to retaining the person in the
organization long term.
A more rigorous approach to assessment
and selection
15hiring for success
4
Salary & Employment Insights 2012, Human Resources, Australia/New Zealand, Hudson, February 2012.
5
Next Generation Recruitment: Battle Strategies for the Talent War, Hudson 20:20 Series, August 2011.
18. 16 hiring for success
When the employee has completed
their probation, a formal onboarding
interview should take place. This is
the opportunity for organizations to
find out what the employee’s
experience of the company has been
like. Key questions should include:
`` What was it that attracted you
to this company and job in the
first place?
`` What made you choose to accept
this position and not another one?
`` Has the recruitment process
impacted your desire to work here?
And, if so, how?
`` What has the experience been like
since joining? Did the reality live up
to the promise?
This information can be used to
understand the organization’s value
proposition and help communicate it
more effectively to future candidates.
It can also provide valuable feedback
to HR about alignment between
promise and practice, indicating
specific tactics they can employ to
ensure the organization delivers on
its promises.
The onboarding process is a key step
in achieving better quality hires — and
encompasses every aspect of the
candidate’s experience from the time
they first encounter the organization,
to receiving a job offer, to the first few
months of their employment.
Paying attention to a new employee
beyond the initial recruitment process,
in the period up to joining and in the
first three months of their new role, is
critical. This is the period when their
impression of a company is formed. It
can have an enormous impact on their
motivation, their performance in a job
and their likelihood to stay with their
new employer.
Getting off to a great start — the
importance of the onboarding process
19. Based on the research findings and discussions with organizations worldwide, Hudson RPO has identified six key steps to
delivering a successful quality of hire program:
hudson’s key strategies for improving
quality of hire
Identify and
understand business-
critical job families
Determine the most
relevant metrics for
quality of new hires in
your organization
2
3
Create a
compelling
business case
1
Secure executive team support
for a quality of hire program by
demonstrating the commercial
benefits such an initiative could bring.
In order to build the case, establish:
`` Which roles within the
organization are critical to driving
the top line, client satisfaction
and client retention?
`` Which of these roles are regularly
recruited? (It makes more sense
to demonstrate a quality of hire
model with a role that is recruited
frequently.)
Use broadly accepted models to
analyze financial impact. For example,
studies show that high-performing
sales people can create revenues
67% higher than their average-
performing counterparts. Those in
talent acquisition roles may benefit
from partnering with finance to
ensure a strong financial business
case is developed. Better still,
calculate some rough figures of the
differences in sales performance
between your own high and average
performers. This prevents the
exercise from being too theoretical
and allows you to use real-life
examples that everyone understands.
It is vital to determine which jobs have
the most significant impact on
organizational performance. Resist
the temptation to measure everything
at the outset. It is better to choose a
smaller number of regularly recruited
business-critical role families and
implement a robust program, than to
assess the entire organization with a
raft of generic measures and risk
diluting the benefits.
Encourage debate about the best
measures for each role family to
ensure the most appropriate metrics
are used. Ensure the data your
organization chooses is high quality
and incorporates multiple elements
that validate one another. For
example, a set of qualitative and
quantitative metrics for a sales person
may include financial measures,
performance appraisal ratings,
retention data and client feedback.
17hiring for success
20. Take action and
review the program
annually
6
Once you know what is influencing
the quality of your hires, you can take
concerted action to replicate this in
all hires. Be prepared to challenge
the status quo and seek external
advice and help as needed. Don’t
think you need to do everything
yourself. Document a specific project
plan and keep people up to date on
what is happening.
Revisit your quality of hire program
each year to ensure you are studying
the right roles, using the best metrics,
collating and analyzing the most
appropriate data and driving real
change as a result. Most importantly,
revisit the business case and quantify
and report the benefits the program
has delivered for your organization.
Collect and
analyze the data
4
Collecting data from multiple systems
across recruitment, HRIS and finance
will deliver the richest insights and
consequently the greatest value.
Using only data that can be easily
produced by a single discipline limits
the scope and worth of conclusions.
When analyzing the data, be sure to
draw conclusions that are statistically
significant. Analysis may also help
determine additional performance
indicators that could be incorporated
into the quality of hire program.
Report your findings
to the business and make
specific recommendations
for change
5
To understand the implications,
present the key findings to people
who are sufficiently senior and can
influence change in the way things
are done. Be sure to have a clear plan
supporting the necessary changes as
well as an estimate of the resources
needed and investment required.
18 hiring for success
21. 19hiring for success
Client: A multinational pharmaceutical company
Hudson RPO implemented a quality of hire program for the Australia-New Zealand team of a large multinational during a
15-month period.
case study
Leveraged and improved the
brand experience for existing
and potential employees
`` Conducted a series of workshops focused
on defining the company’s employer brand in
comparison with eight competitors
`` Workshops uncovered the need for better
communication of internal career opportunities
`` Strategy developed to enhance the employer
brand and improve communications
Financial Benefits
`` Cost per hire savings: USD 1,389
`` Total savings of USD 245,853
`` Lower staff turnover: 14% for 2008/9 compared with 23% in 2007/8.
`` Reduction in staff turnover resulted in lower costs for induction training, combined with increase in internal hires,
delivering total savings of USD 465,000.
outcomes
`` Employee engagement score up by 20%
in 12 months
`` Employee referrals up 17% over
two years
`` Internal mobility up by 10% over two years
`` 100% of new hires surveyed reported
satisfaction with the recruitment process
step 1
Improved efficiency, quality
and retention
`` Sales team recruiters spent four days per year
with a sales representative from a different
product area
`` Recruitment team researched factors including
competencies, experience and attributes that
predict high performance for key role families
within the organization
outcomes
`` Improved performance among new
hires (10% at six-month review)
`` Hiring manager interview-to-hire ratio
up to 2:1 from 10:1 in previous year
`` Improved performance of sales
representatives: 18% higher customer
call rates than group average
step 2
24. If you would like to find out more, please contact the
Hudson RPO representative in your region:
Global & Asia Pacific
Kimberley Hubble
Global RPO Leader
kimberley.hubble@hudson.com
+61 416 270 642
Americas
Josh Sorkin
Executive Vice President
josh.sorkin@hudson.com
+1 312 795 4279
Europe
Darren Lancaster
Managing Director
darren.lancaster@hudson.com
+44 20 7187 6041