Hiring is a business function, not a support function.
Time To Fill is a common recruiting metric. But why isn’t Time Value of Money?
This month, our colleagues on the Rainmakers side signed a client with 450 applicants to one of their job postings.
You read that right. 450. They still needed a more advanced hiring solution.
Why? Because getting flooded with applications is a problem. Not a solution.
(Every salesperson in the Rainmakers marketplace is pre-screened with a 90%+ response rate but I don’t sell this any further…)
Screening 450 candidates takes a lot of time. No matter who does it. And time is money, as your grandparents liked to say.
This flies in the face of a common internal hiring fallacy: many execs overestimate their internal recruiter’s bandwidth. They think TA can always operate at optimal efficiency, regardless of the workload. Throw more at ‘em.
This is silly. Source: every overworked internal recruiter, ever.
Let’s switch gears. Same concept, different example: that pesky position that’s been open for 6 months.
Every recruiter and hiring manager experienced this more times than they can count. Good chance you have one right now.
There’s a variety of causes. Unrealistic hiring expectations. Lack of recruiting bandwidth. Uncompelling hiring pitch to candidates. Tight market.
Let’s say it’s a sales role. (Easiest function to attribute revenue.) Monthly goal of 100k. You’re not losing 600k per se, but you are delaying it.
How much is capturing that revenue now worth? Is it part of your financial models? Are those financial models integrated into your recruiting plans. (Gonna go on a limb and say no.)
What if it’s not 1 role, but 10? Or 100?
Or if it’s not sales, but developers and product people? The ones you need to build the thing want to sell. What’s the drag on your forecast of not having them onboard?
Most people can’t quantify this. The question is, why?