Recruitment - It's really just a bit of a gamble, isn't it?
In essence, yes it is. There is no certainty in it, and it definitely isn’t science.
But it is mathematics, and it holds a beautiful element of the random in it.
When you advertise there is always a chance you won’t attract the right number of applicants. If you do attract the right number of candidates, there is a chance they aren’t the right fit, or have the correct capability. Your assessment process may predict future performance, or predict who is good at the assessment process. Your offer may or may not hit that balance between being too high and creating a future issue or too low and losing the candidate.
If you understand the basic laws of probability you will also know that this is a cumulative calculation. The longer the odds at each stage, the lower your chances of success at the end. Any flaws in your approach is like putting in an away win for Cowdenbeath in the cup at Celtic in your accumulator. Not impossible, but don’t bank on a return.
So why bother? Actually, when you look at a number of organisations, and short term turnover or the number of poor hires you wonder if they actually do.
However it’s probably quite an important thing to get right, isn’t it? Certainly when organisations talk about their most important asset being people, it seems crazy to play the long odds on finding the new ones.
That’s where the people who manage the process come into play. Essentially when it’s done with thought and rigour you have the opportunity to shorten your odds at each stage.
Make the employer branding proposition believable and real. Home win for Manchester United. Build an attraction strategy that talks to the right people in the right places. Villa failing to score. Build a robust and “what good looks like” assessment process. Hibernian disappointing in a cup run. Make the process about the candidate and you are backing Chelsea to win at Burnley. Know what your offer criteria are in advance and talk to people who fit and you’ve got Arsenal to pitch up in the top four at the end of the season. No guarantees, but a sensible betterment of return at every step.
We often talk about the cost of a bad hire, or the cost of early attrition, but equally there is often a lack of investment in excellent recruitment. I often feel that recruitment is a business that hasn’t quite won the argument about its ability to provide a genuine return on investment that is long term and has an absolute value to the future of the organisation.
I think there is a serious academic study to be done on this return on investment in a recruitment function that will demonstrate the value of seriously understanding the benefit of each dollar spent. I don’t mean unfettered extravagance, but serious business rationale applied to the resourcing spend based on the difference of good and bad hiring.
When you see it happen you absolutely see the organisational benefits in performance and return. There is a case to made.
Apologies to the supporters of all the football clubs referenced above, particularly those who follow Hibs, who surely must win the Scottish Cup someday.
#helpinggoodpeoplewin
9 年Thanks for all the connects guys - good input. The thing I didn't mention (Tony alludes to it) is the importance of the resource or manpower planning process particularly for bulk / volume hiring or of the understanding of capability required at more senior levels. All too often organisations have a disconnect between planning and execution which creates an urgency that can be unhelpful. Furthermore there is often a prior disconnect between the commercial strategy and resource planning, which quite clearly has an additional disruptive impact on the ability to get the right people.
Managing Partner @ Browne Fairchild
9 年John, the problem regarding poor recruitment tends to come directly from the initial process involved that either maximise or diminish the potential probability of successfully filling a role. Most businesses look at advertising a job as the best way to source a candidate, either due to a lack of knowledge of their own industry or poor internal processes, without people who can actually source candidates directly. This leads to a high risk scenario where the company may possible fail to attract applicants to the potential opportunity due to factors out of their control. If companies sold their products and services like they recruit they would only ever advertise and never go direct to the customer. As has been proven time and time again direct sales not only works but it grows business and creates opportunities for companies so why not just take the same approach to recruitment and headhunt everyone? I can’t remember the last time I ran an advert-only recruitment assignment as the results are lucky at best and non-existent at their worst. Headhunting/directly contacting candidates for a role allows me direct access to the people my clients need (the people who are too busy being successful to look for new roles) and de-risks the entire process. It also pinpoints any issues with a role such as non-competitive salary, poor company reputation, location issues, sector problems etc. In conclusion, I would always advocate a direct approach over an indirect approach; or combine direct and indirect approaches via a planned process. Never would I suggest a firm just advertise a role and leave it at that. But they still do – and that is why I still get called from company directors panicking because their own recruitment drive has failed and they want guidance!
Job adverts, not job descriptions.
9 年Most people will look to cut corners when doing something they don't like. And most people don't like doing recruitment - and that includes people who work in recruitment.
MD @ Momentum Spk | Strategic Recruitment Solutions, The Recruitment MOT Audit | LinkedIn training for business and management of individual pages | Non-Exec | Mentoring | New Business sales strategies | Facilitation
9 年Recruiting is a problem - it is something that companies do when they want to hire and not when they don'tm - (knee jerk comes to mind). By this I mean that clients very rarely look to the future which puts the "need" to recruit further up the business ageneda when a vacancy arises. Until companies realise that the best people often move but not always when you are looking to fill a vacancy recruitment might always be a gamble.
Programme Director with global experience, delivering complex programmes in FS. Including AI, Agile Transformation, Digital, IT, Cyber, & Business Change. Prior, I was a Military Pilot with 14 years of service.
9 年It does amaze me that companies put the people who hate recruitment the most, in charge of such an important process. It's the one process that starts the chain reaction of ultimate success! (It even got them hired!!!)