So you've hired your first recruiter... Now how do you measure impact? It's great when you see startups invest in internal recruiting resources early however it's tricky to figure out what metrics to use to evaluate performance. With a team of 1, not only do you lack historical performance data but you also can't leverage relative performance indicators so it's important to back into some goals based on industry benchmarks while also keeping in mind all the factors involved. Here are a few starting metrics to start tracking once you are building a recruiting team. These will also scale as you grow out the org: Volume by channel: - Raw number of people that are coming in from the recruiting channels that they own. This would be split out into outbound sourcing, applicants, and referrals. - More "credit" is often given to outbound sourcing since this requires the most work on their end but going through a large number of applicants is time consuming so you want to think about how many "qualified" people are they getting overall through all the different channels. - Usually you want to look at how many technical screens are being set up for the hiring manager per week with the goal likely being about 1 technical screen a day to ensure a healthy pipeline (this is just a target based on benchmark passthrough rates). - You can also set onsite goals per week for the team as a way to measure momentum. Efficiency/Passthrough: - Volume is great, but only if the candidates meet your hiring bar at a rate that is efficient. - You want to track how many people that the recruiter submits for a technical phone screen are making it to later rounds of interviews. - Tracking rejection reasons are important in order to diagnose why people are falling out at each stage and ways that you can get better signal on these things earlier in the process. Speed: - Many companies look at recruiting performance as "time to fill". So the date that the role is kicked off with the recruiter until the date someone has signed an offer (some companies will use the start date instead). A role typically takes around 2 months to fill from kick off for an IC position but this can vary depending on the difficulty of the role and stage of the company. - I like to look at "time in stage" that candidates spend in the process as well. So how long does it take someone to go from phone screen to each stage of interviews thereafter. This is obviously not indicative of recruiter performance necessarily but it does give you a sense of any bottlenecks in the process and can act as a red flag for something broken in the process or maybe there is a lack of urgency in how the candidates are being moved forward. I would also encourage founders to actually talk to candidates (even those who didn't receive an offer) about their experience directly. These anecdotes can give amazing color to the numbers. #recruiting #hiring #techrecruiting #techhiring
I don't like punishing recruiters based on where the hire comes from or even measuring their sourcing stats. If quality hires are being made in a timely fashion purely through apps, then what problem does this solve? (not saying you are promoting doing this but many companies do). If we do have a quality of hire or time to hire issue, then it's time to drill down and expand the metrics to include sourcing channel/outreach/etc. Now if we can just figure out and agree on a great way to measure QOH! I'd love to hear your thoughts on the best way to measure QOH Reginald J. Williams 😄
This is fabulous. I especially like your comments on efficiency - "Tracking rejection reasons are important in order to diagnose why people are falling out at each stage and ways that you can get better signal on these things earlier in the process." - This can also become very useful in a look-back on hires that didn't work out.
This is amazing info. Greenhouse actually has a an amazing prebuilt report for this and the pass through rate is my absolute go to. The second thing I look at is time in each stage. Especially early on, we can make decisions and move on. My team has goals built around the different pass through places so that we can be efficient.
Building a recruiting team is a big step. Tracking those key metrics sounds like a solid plan.
Gold.
Great list! I think adding a component of how long candidates stay in submittal review is helpful to gather a clwar picture of “where did all the time for?!”
Thanks for sharing! I will start using this more!!
#datadriven
Founder & CEO of Gem ($150M Accel, Greylock, ICONIQ, Sapphire, Meritech, YC) | Author of startuphiring101.com
3wNice! Huge fan of benchmarks, which are always valuable IMO. Especially when you don't have historical data to compare against. e.g., for a small startup hiring their first recruiter as you called out. We have some of this data (open rate, reply rate, pass-thru rates, time to hire, etc.) broken out by company size in our annual benchmark report. It doesn't get as specific as what to expect from your first recruiter but might be helpful directionally. Some of the data for the smallest company range matches what you're sharing. Figured I'd share in case it's helpful in rounding out a few more metrics! :) https://www.gem.com/resource/2023-Recruiting-Benchmarks?utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin&utm_campaign=sb