Do you remember the HR manager who put you through your last job interview? Remember the impossible questions he asked you, borrowed from Microsoft or Google? At the end of it all, if you hadn’t wanted the job so much, you would probably have told him where he could get off. He was clearly a sadist, getting his kicks from putting interviewees in uncomfortable situations. Why didn’t the company ask the applicants to rate him? He wouldn’t behave so badly if such feedback had been sought.

One school of thought says that tough interviews and recruitment procedures are necessary. They separate the sheep from the goats. The other school feels it is purposeless. After putting applicants through the ringer, you don’t really know who the sheep are and who the goats.

Companies have long held that hiring managers are successful if they score well on two parameters -- time-to-fill and cost. The efficient recruiter is one who can fill up a vacancy in quick time. Additionally, the company doesn't have to pay the moon for the new hire.

In a less competitive world, this was perfectly acceptable. Today, you can’t afford to make mistakes. The “cheap” new salesman you acquire may be a disaster. And his effect on the customer and the brand may be much more that you think it is. Quality has become important, says the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in an article titled Measuring Hiring Managers.

How do you measure quality? Therein lies the rub. You can check how long people stay in the organisation (the attrition rate per manager) or how much it cost. The latter metric is available immediately, while it will take you time to discover the attrition rate. Says the SHRM article: “HR’s metrics in recruitment and talent selection have been concentrated on efficiency data. Now, experts maintain that efficiency is only part of a winning formula; quality must be the other part.”

A recent global survey by FutureStep, a Korn/Ferry company, confirms this. The survey found that “Performance of individuals” was the No. 1 or No. 2 parameter for 67 per cent of the respondents (see chart). “The performance of new hires is the most important criteria used by HR professionals globally to measure the success of their recruitment processes,” says the survey. Retention comes in next with a 35 per cent vote. “Retention is important -- it promotes continuity and team building,” says the survey.

Losing out are both cost and speed. These two metrics had been favoured earlier because they were easy to measure.

How would you measure performance and correlate it to the hiring manager? Most companies assume that they have got the best guy for a position. If they don’t perform, it is probably a culture misfit and the organisation is equally culpable. It is only when a hiring manager starts bringing in a series of lemons that fingers are pointed his way. What's more, a large organisation would have several hiring managers. To employees of the organisation, they would be an anonymous mass. You will have to lay down parameters and observe some discipline to rate the hirers on the basis of the performance of new employees.

The FutureStep survey adds another complication. Performance is important, it says, but that's immediate performance. “76 per cent of respondents indicated that the impact of a new hire on the organisation was measured within the first year. Only 15 per cent reported that measurement of a recruit’s impact took place after one to three years with the organisation... For new recruits, the race is on from Day One.”

These are far-reaching changes. Can we hope to see an improvement in measuring hiring success and, consequently, an improvement in procedures, soon? When the hiring manager’s job depends on your immediate performance, you can only expect the initial grilling to be tougher. Hitler the hirer will ride higher.

JUDGING THE HIRERS

Important factors in the recruitment process

Performance of individuals67
Retention35
Line managers’ satisfaction with the process29
Costs of hire27
Promotability21
Time to hire18
Others1
Note: Figuring as the respondents’ first or second choice.

Source: Understanding the Race for Impact; FutureStep