Are companies measuring their recruiter’s effectiveness the wrong way and subsequently causing damage to their growth and profits? Some years ago, we worked with a company that had an ongoing recruitment problem in one specific geographic region. In this region there was always a long list of unfilled roles vacant. So the company decided to get proactive and introduced a generous incentive for the recruiters for every role filled. And it worked like setting a fire behind them! Within 2 months, the recruiters filled all roles in unprecedented efficiency and received plaudits and cash bonuses. It’s what happened next that was of interest.

The business results remained at flat line. Filling the roles failed. When an analysis was made of the new recruits, one thing stood out. Less than 30% of them were still working for the company six months later. Yes, the roles were filled, refilled, and filled again…with poor recruits who kept leaving or being sacked. But ironically the recruiters were earning more than they ever had, measured and incentivised only on filling roles, rather than the quality or longevity of the ‘newies’.

We came across this again in recent weeks after analysing a company’s 20 recruiter’s results. Annie, the renowned number one recruiter, confident, enigmatic, a machine at recruiting, had every month topped the charts in number of roles filled. But the company had never looked at the following results. Only 30% of Annie’s recruits were still with the company after 3 months. Other less showy recruiters were achieving over 80%. The solution: Measure, analyse and incentivise recruiter effectiveness on 3 factors, not one.

1.       – No of roles filled;

2.       –Retainment rate. % of new recruits still in the job after 3,6 and 12 months

3.       –In companies where tangible individual targets are measured monthly, say travel agents, estate agents, mortgage brokers, some retailers, bar staff, anywhere that has such a defined system, new recruits can be measured on meeting budget targets within 3 or 6 months. And the recruiter bonus should be linked.

Some recruiters will resist this type of analysis, arguing there are other factors out of their control that can cause staff turnover. And to a degree they are right. But regardless, by introducing Points 2 and 3, the recruiter role becomes one of the prospector digging for gold, of the talent scout looking for ‘the one’, and that is exactly what companies want them to be.

In the above case, Annie was for a long time considered the company’s best recruiter, yet after this new type of measurement, she was highlighted as the worst, causing untold damage and cost to the company. Introduce this system. It’s awesome.