talent acquisition 2008: survey and analysis of the changing recruiting landscape

WHITE PAPER

Talent Acquisition 2008:Survey and Analysisof the ChangingRecruiting Landscape

By Sally Millick, SPHRConsulting DirectorThe Newman Group

Background: The Changing Talent Marketplace

While recent economic turbulence has changed the global business landscape,

the forces that drive talent acquisition remain in place. Companies must continue

to rely on talent as a core foundation for growth and productivity. At the same

time, the need for advanced, specialized talent and leadership will continue to

provide challenges for enterprise recruiting efforts.

The conditions shaping today’s talent acquisition environment are well-known.

The retirement of the U.S. “baby boomer” generation, the globalization of

markets and operations across all industries, and the shortage of talent in critical

areas such as engineering, healthcare and leadership are all important. The real

importance of talent acquisition, and the door-opener for talent management at

the proverbial seat at the boardroom table, is the recognition that a business

cannot grow without the right talent. Just as importantly, businesses cannot

reach the right talent without making a conscious strategic effort to do so.

Today, business leaders understand the strategic significance of talent acquisition.

They are carefully looking at how they are going to fill the gap in skills and

company knowledge left by retirees. They are applying new uses of technology

for virtual workplace options that can make them more flexible to employees,

more attractive to candidates, and open to talent from around the world. They

are adopting advanced strategies and tactics to evolve their talent acquisition

operations, and they are embracing a range of emerging best-practices, from

workforce planning to employment branding. In short, they are recognizing the

need to continue to advance their abilities not only in talent acquisition, but also

to support retention and employee development.

TALENT ACQUISITION 2008:SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGING RECRUITING LANDSCAPE www.tng.futurestep.com

PAGE 1

The Survey: What’s Shaping Real-worldTalent Acquisition Today?

In the real-world business environment,recognizing the need for improvement andacting on it are two different ideas. Resourcesare tight. Companies must invest in changesneeded to compete for talent in the future,but they must also address the immediateneeds of the present. So, when it comes tocompeting for talent, it’s natural that leadersask, “What are other companies doing?”How well are organizations doing in relationto their peers? Are they putting next-practicestrategies into place, or are they still planning,waiting to do so in the future? What are thepriorities?

To shed light on these issues, The NewmanGroup, in conjunction with the ElectronicRecruiting Exchange (ERE) conducted a surveyin July 2008 of practitioners and decision-makers involved in talent acquisition. This isthe latest edition of what was formerly knownas the “Sourcing and Recruiting Survey” seriesconducted annually by The Newman Group.As no function truly stands alone in anintegrated environment of talent management,we’ve re-titled the survey to reflect a moreholistic and strategic talent acquisition focustaken by most companies today.

We polled approximately 500 staffingprofessionals in companies ranging fromsmall and medium sized businesses to largerenterprise organizations. Respondents includedrecruiters, line-level managers, executivedecision-makers and consultants. Five mainareas were covered in the survey: sourcing,recruiting operations, technology, recruitmentstrategy, and metrics. In our analysis, we alsodrew from our experience with clients at TheNewman Group.

Not surprisingly, the picture that emergedfrom their responses is one of progress, notrevolution. The issues and drivers are the sameeach year: people, process and technology.That is, there is a constant push to becomemore competitive for talent by driving processimprovements and supporting them withexpanding technological capabilities. Whatis changing is the extent to which companieshave begun to implement forward-thinkingtalent acquisition practices. Few arequestioning the if’s of strategic talent initiatives,and the focus now seems to be on the how andwhen of implementation, whether of newsystems, revised processes or a combinationof both.

The result is an environment drawn betweenthe forward-thinking and status quo. Towardthat end, what follows is an analysis of eacharea covered in the survey, and a comparisonof results-driven versus passive approachesthat are in practice in each of these areas.The good news is that innovation continues.Most organizations are a blend of bothcharacteristics, but understanding where youare today can provide insight on how you mayimprove your ability to compete for talent inthe future.

Sourcing

When asked about the most pressing pain pointin talent acquisition, the number one answeramong respondents was sourcing (See Figure 1).Lack of available technical skill sets, along withjob location (or inability to re-locate) top the listof challenges to sourcing candidates. So whereare companies sourcing to be successful intheir quest? Not surprisingly, the most effectiveapproach cited by respondents is throughemployee referrals. Across all respondents,68 percent rated employee referrals as either


PAGE 2

Effective (38%) or Very Effective (30%), so timespent on marketing and enriching thoseprograms is well spent.

Recently, there has been much industry buzzabout companies who are using today’seconomic environment to strategically sourceand hire “A-Players” from competitors. Oneway to gain exposure to competitors’employees is through participation inprofessional organizations, and through onlinesocial/business communities. Both of thesevenues are effective sources according to ourrespondents.

Once the door has been opened to top talent,from competitors or otherwise, the challengeshave just begun. Meeting these individuals is

one thing, turning them into candidates isanother. Why would a passive candidate lookat the opportunity? If you are reaching out tothe candidate, what are the differentiators thatyour company has to offer? What are theelements in your organization that will move acandidate’s career forward? In many ways, thequalities that make an organization an effectiverecruiter of passive candidates are the samequalities that make it strong in retainingemployees. In this respect, a clearunderstanding of your Employment ValueProposition (EVP) is essential.

Toward that end, many companies areconducting analyses to identify the uniquecharacteristics that comprise their employmentvalue proposition to their current employees.


PAGE 3

Figure 1: Talent Acquisition Pain Points(Ranked Based on Respondent Feedback)

Candidate Sourcing 43%

Candidate Qualification and Screening 15%

Requisition Approval and Initiation 14%

Interview Setup and Execution 11%

Offer/Pre-employment Processes 7%

Other 10%

Figure 2: Sourcing Challenges(Respondents Selected “As Many As Applied”)

Lack of Available Skill Sets 61%

Job Locations 49%

Competitive Salary 47%

Lack of Direct Labor Pool 28%

Company or Industry Reputation 11%

Lack of Recent Graduates 9%

Benefits 6%

They are realizing that it’s not the volume of thecandidate pipeline or the speed with which theyfilter candidates that will determine theirsuccess in competing for talent. The keydetermining factor ultimately lies with theirability to know the candidate. It’s not enoughto simply network with potential candidates;recruiters must be armed with succinctinformation that will appeal to thosecandidates’ unique values. This is wherethe concept of EVP applies.

Although a new concept to many organizations,EVP is rapidly becoming an importantcomponent of many companies’ talentmanagement strategies. By recognizing thatthe ‘skills match’ is only half of the candidateevaluation equation, companies are taking thetime to identify the other half: that is, thealignment of the candidate’s employmentpreferences with what the company representsand supports as its EVP.

For example, two candidates may have similarskill sets. One candidate, however, may place apriority on stability, benefits and establishedreputation, while another may be driven byopportunity for growth, excitement, risk andthe potential for high earnings. Understandingthese priorities, and understanding howcandidates view your company, can make thedifference between a reactive recruitingfunction and an effective recruiting operation.Companies are engaging in focused activity tounderstand their EVP and the values that drivethe candidates they seek. They are also lookingfor a better understanding of how their EVPdiffers from those of their competitors. Afterdetermining what value proposition attributesdefine a company’s competitive advantage,that company can utilize those attributes toidentify the correct matches in the candidatesthat they hire.

A well-tuned talent acquisition effort will notonly help you turn prospects into candidates,but candidates into employees who then staywith the company. An effective employmentbrand helps make that possible by matchingthe reality of the company with theexpectations of prospective employees.By aligning EVP attributes with employeeexpectations, employees become moreengaged, more productive, and less likelyto leave.

Another sourcing focus, and one where EVPoften comes into play in attracting the rightcandidates, is campus recruiting. Accordingto survey results, campus hiring has becomemore competitive, with a majority ofrespondents (67%) ranking this tactic as aneffective approach to sourcing. Again, thequestion is, “How does a company differentiateitself and entice a new graduate?” Thedifferentiators may be different with thecampus population than with the experiencedprofessionals, but in all instances an effectivecommunication of the EVP must be true. Acompany that misrepresents its EVP in anattempt to attract particular candidates willultimately pay the price with reduced retention.

Another area of note on the sourcing front isthe use of online databases. Searching onlinedatabases was cited as an effective approachby 78 percent of those surveyed. This strongshowing came as something of a surprise,simply because such searching requiressignificant effort from recruiters who arecommonly overstretched in their current roles.Utilizing online databases involves searching,contacting, and selling opportunities tocandidates who had not already indicatedinterest in the company or a particulargeographical location.


PAGE 4

One notable passive sourcing practice revealedby the survey is the tactic of posting positionsto a number of job boards and waiting forcandidates to apply. Although this tactic wasranked as somewhat effective (43%) byrespondents, such a ranking seems to fall shortof expectations, considering that the approachhas traditionally been viewed by hiringmanagers as the first “real step” in therecruiting process. In the past, it wascommonly believed that a job was notadvertised properly without such postings;however, as the survey shows, job boardpostings should not necessarily be the centralfocus of a sourcing effort.

While job boards may not be as effective asonce believed, they remain a major part of thesourcing landscape, and can provide access toa large volume of candidates. Companies arerecognizing that with some effort they canimprove the results of their job board postingsby simply making their postings more clear.For example, they are posting jobs with easilyrecognizable titles, such as “Database Analyst”rather than “Analyst II, IT.” They may alsocreate a company summary paragraph toinclude in the posting. Anyone looking toimprove posting results should also bemindful that the posting clearly conveysresponsibilities, qualifications, and futurecareer opportunities. Finally, there is a need totrack the effectiveness of these sources, or gainaccess to recruitment advertising research sothat the right sites are selected for posting.Carefully choosing where you are posting andensuring clear communications can go a longway toward improving job board effectiveness.

The job board issue may not just be a reflectionof the medium itself; rather, it underscores theshortcomings associated with the underlyingphilosophy of passive sourcing. If job postings

aren’t attracting as many candidates, yetsearching external resume databases is yieldingcandidates, this highlights the need to reach outto candidates rather than depending on them tofind you. The highest quality hires can comefrom more passive candidates who are makingthe assumptionthat you aresearching a Website’s resumedatabase forthem.

The overallsourcing picture,the renewedemphasis onEVP, and thecontinuedemphasis onemployeereferrals as thebest source ofcandidates allpoint to theneed to replacethe more-is-better approach to sourcing witha know-the-candidate-better approach.Companies are beginning to focus on reachingout to the right candidates with the rightmessage rather than large numbers ofcandidates in the hopes of filtering down to thehigh-quality choices. The employee-referredcandidate is already known (by the employee).The company that understands its EVP is givingitself the knowledge to understand who theright candidate is for the company. In bothareas, knowing the candidate is a central theme.

The knowledge-based approach to sourcingalso includes use of Web 2.0 and socialnetworking to actively reach out and knowmore people. It is a continuous and proactive


PAGE 5

SOURCING TACTICSAND STRATEGIES

Results Driven

• Employee referralprograms (ERP)

• Networking withprofessional organizations(in person and online)

• Campus recruiting

• Searching onlinedatabases

Passive

• Depending on jobboard postings

• Waiting for candidatesto find job postings oradvertisements

approach. Recruiters can’t wait for the job tocome open to start building a network ofcandidates. Companies have realized this,and they are actively engaged with a varietyof resources to help them build networks ofcandidates. As in the past, LinkedIn remains aleading resource used by respondents, with 85percent of respondents using it as a key sourcingtool. Professional networks as well as other Web2.0 resources such as MySpace and Facebookalso play a large part in sourcing activity.

These results underscore the growingemphasis on the need to build networks tosource candidates. As with anything that yieldshigher quality results, building networksrequires more time and effort. The results, interms of improved quality and the ability toreach the right candidates for the job, are worththe effort in a competitive talent environment.

Recruiting Operations

When it comes to recruiting operations, ananalysis begins with the question of structure.Are your recruiting processes centralized ordecentralized? In previous annual surveys, thegeneral trend has been toward centralization.Companies that previously relied on disparate

localized processes and resources to findand hire candidates were moving to createconsistent, centralized processes utilizingresources and technology available across theenterprise. Centralized talent acquisition helpscompanies measure, manage, and improveprocesses across the company. It also affordseconomies of scale.

In this year’s survey, 43 percent of respondentshad a centralized model, but the mostinteresting trend revealed in the responsesis a marked shift toward a hybrid model.Companies are increasingly moving tocentralize processes and technology whileaccommodating decentralized aspects of therecruiting process in certain areas. Thesupporting technologies allow configurationto multiple scenarios required by business orregional units—all supported by a centralrepository for tracking and reporting onhiring activity. In the survey, 38 percent ofrespondents categorized themselves as“hybrid.” In a later question, 17 percentreported they are moving to that model. Thisis a forward-thinking approach, as it maintainscentralized processes and technologies whileenabling the company to tailor delivery to theneeds of the business.

One enabler of the hybrid trend is theevolution of technologies for sourcing,managing, and communicating withcandidates. Using systems and toolsthat support and drive the process,hiring managers and HR generalists cantake a deeper role in requisition andrecruiting activities than ever before.Many companies have implemented atalent acquisition system and as a resulthave centralized the staffing function.For those companies, the question is,“Can the staffing organization now give


PAGE 6

Results Driven

• Tactical—Optimizingrecruiter time forrecruiting, notadministration

• Tactical—Improving hiringmanager engagement

• Strategic—Balancing needfor consistent globalprocesses with localizedrecruiting needs

Passive

• Tactical—Recruiter jobpostings

• Tactical—Recruiterinterview-setup andcoordination

• Strategic—Staticdecentralized orcentralized structure

RECRUITING OPERATIONS TACTICS AND STRATEGIES

up part of its previous role to concentrate onmore productive activities, or will it feel out ofcontrol of the process?” Can others take onadministrative activities to allow recruiters tofocus on their main task of recruiting? Do hiringmanagers and HR generalists have the time,attention, and interest in recruitment tactics totake ownership of tasks such as inputting therequisition, conducting phone interviews, andupdating the status of candidates in thesystem? How will the change be implemented?How will training and compliance of hiringmanagers be sustained? It may make sense asa process improvement, yet the success of thisapproach will depend on company culture andhiring managers’ time and attention.

Whether or not recruiters can gain more focusremains to be seen, because in most cases theystill handle broad responsibilities. In last year’s

survey report we highlighted the fact that themajority of recruiters were managing allaspects of the recruitment process. This year,85 percent of recruiters in the survey reportedmanaging the entire lifecycle of the requisition,and it is a situation that has a negative impacton recruiting. Valuable recruiter time is notbeing spent with candidates or hiringmanagers. Recruiters will give differentopinions of whether they want a sourcingspecialist on their team, citing the potentiallyawkward hand-off between the sourcer and therecruiter. However, recruiters spending timeposting jobs or scheduling interviews may notbe the best allocation of those resources.Specializing recruiting and administrativefunctions is somewhat dependent on the sizeof the overall organization. Smaller companiesmay not have as many options for offloading


PAGE 7

Figure 3: Recruiting Models of Respondents

Centralized 43%

Decentralized 10%

Hybrid 38%

Outsourced 4%

Don’t Know 5%

Figure 4: Who Handles Job Postings?

Handled individually by the recruiter 48%

By the recruiter using posting services 23%

By support staff 27%

Don’t know 2%

recruiter administrative tasks, but companiescan explore this resource allocation as anopportunity to become more aggressive intheir search for talent.

Technology

When it comes to talent acquisition systemsand solutions, the key question driving thecompetition for talent is, “How well arecompanies equipped to foster continuousimprovement?” There is no single perfectsolution for any company, and the assumptionthat the “right” systems are in place or thatthere is no need to review performance orconsider improvements is misleading. Thecompany that waits until next year to make

neededimprovementsruns the riskof driving usersto utilizeworkarounds tocumbersomeprocesses. Oncedata stopsmaking its wayinto the system,the path backto optimizationgrowsexponentiallylonger.

Optimizingcurrentprocesses andsystems isan ongoingprocess at themost successfulrecruitingorganizations.

They are concerned with making sure theirsystems are configured to their processes, andthey are looking at new functionality offeringsas a way to drive further process improvement.When asked about focusing on improvementsin the coming year, 61 percent of respondentsindicated that they are consideringimprovements in recruitment technologies,and 67 percent pointed to career Web siteenhancements.

What types of improvements can technologyoffer? As a simple example, consider the needfor hard-copy signatures on some documents,such as offer letters or job applications.In some cases these documents are sentelectronically, printed out for signature, andsent as a PDF or faxed back to the company.Many entities accept electronic signatures onmore sensitive documents (for example, theIRS accepts electronically signed income taxfillings). Some companies continue to resistimplementing electronic signatures, causingseveral extra steps on the part of the candidateand the hiring organization. Some backgroundcheck vendors are no longer requiring hard-copy signatures for the candidate’sAuthorization and Consent form, which hastraditionally been treated as a fax-back form.These are just a few of the potential featuresthat can help organizations streamline theirrecruiting operations. Today, companies havean opportunity to take a proactive stance inimproving their system effectiveness byallowing technology enhancements to leadprocess change. The key to staying on topof the technology evolution is to review allfunctionality for potential implementationas it becomes available. An open-mindedperspective is important here.

Even if the functionality doesn’t appear toapply, it is important to ask why. Old process


PAGE 8

TALENT ACQUISITIONSYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS

Results Driven

• Optimizing currenttechnology

• Balancing technologycapability, newopportunities forimprovement and possibleprocess changes

• Continuous review andimprovement

Passive

• Periodic review andimprovement vs. constantoptimization

• Adherence to oldparadigms such as postingand filtering vs. newopportunities such associal networking andactive candidate outreach

• Lack of integration,allowing disparate systemsto remain unconnected

flows and norms can cause organizations tohold back from taking advantage of newfeatures. One example of this is with resumeformatting. In many cases, resumes lose theirformatting when sent on for review through atalent acquisition system. Hiring managers thenask the recruiters to send formatted copiesthrough email, or worse, print them out andsend them through interoffice mail. The right

application of functionality can eliminate thiscumbersome and off-system facet of the talentacquisition process. Another example is theoutdated requirement of approvals for therequisition or the offer; these requirements inthe system can usually be reconfigured to moreclosely meet a company’s needs.

Despite the opportunities for streamliningprocesses and continued advances intechnology functionality, a certain percentageof survey respondents are not satisfied thattheir systems are meeting their needs (10percent claim their systems are not effective,while 30 percent claim that they are onlysomewhat effective.) Experience shows that, inmany cases, such dissatisfaction can be tracedto three main causes:

a. Process points are not adequatelysupported by the system


PAGE 9

Figure 5: Talent Acquisition FunctionsUsed Regularly (by Survey Respondents)Leading areas of technology-related plannedimprovements. Multiple answers possible fromrespondents.

Searches within the company database 64%

Employee referral submittals 63%

Reporting of staffing metrics to management 54%

Conceptual search within the database 44%

Pre-screening questions for Internet applicants 43%

Integrated job posting mechanism to outsidecareer Web sites 46%

OFCCP compliance saved search tools 33%

Agency/search firm direct submittals 31%

Candidate score or ranking based on responsesto pre-screening questions 34%

Interview scheduling tools 35%

Electronic interview feedback capture 24%

Ability to allow candidates to check their status 23%

Integrated third-party candidate assessment tools 19%

Figure 6: How effective is your talent acquisitionsystem in supporting your hiring requirements?

Very Effective 13%

Effective 28%

Somewhat Effective 30%

Not Effective 10%

Don’t know or don’t have system in place 19%

b. Users of the system have not been trainedin how the system can support talentacquisition processes

c. Companies have changed their talentacquisition processes to reflect adoptionof what they were told would be anenhancement to their system

Just ascompanies canunnecessarilyignoreopportunitiesfor using newfeatures, theycan also rushto adoptinnovations thatmay not suittheirorganizations.A danger onthe technologyfront is that,with theintroduction ofnew features,

organizations are often tempted to allow thetechnology to force unwieldy process changes.Each functionality change should be evaluatedagainst specific client needs and workflow; afeature that may seem beneficial at one phasemay add steps later in the process. Forexample, a feature that deposits all candidateswho submit resumes into a requisition file orfolder in the system can be a big timesaver forrecruiters who would otherwise have to searchthe database for each person who responded toa requisition.

In the experience of one company, turningon this feature was a positive, but it had anunexpected impact on recruiters—they now

had to go back and update the status of allcandidates to a requisition before closing thatrequisition. In this case, planners evaluatedthe potential payoff in terms of candidateexperience as well as recruiter experience, toconfirm their solution and, ultimately, leavethe feature turned on. The lesson from thisexperience is that each feature may have arange of positive or negative impacts onvarious users throughout the process. It isimportant to consider all of them to make aneffective decision regarding features andfunctionality.

Today’s solutions now afford companies theability to leverage the high success ofEmployee Referral Programs (ERP) withsupporting technology. Many companies nowhave moved their referral program online, or atleast have jobs listed for employees to view forpossible referrals. Traditionally, resumes werepassed directly from an employee to a hiringmanager or a team lead. The continuation ofsuch a process would effectively bypass thesystem. The challenge, then, is one of changemanagement. An organization must make iteasy for employees and hiring managers tochange how they handle referrals—i.e. usingthe system to transfer resumes and othersupporting info.

Within the system, referrals can be time-stamped as they come in. The system canaccurately capture and track the referringemployee information. Another benefit is thatthe system can take the resume handoffresponsibility out of the referring employee’shands entirely. Instead, the system will invitethe referred candidate to apply, even to thepoint of having the candidate answer pre-screening questions. The referring employeegets a confirmation that the submittal wasreceived. Fewer steps means improved ease


PAGE 10

RECRUITMENT STRATEGY

Results Driven

• Workforce planning

• Workforce planning resultsfor sourcing and hiringforecasts

• Recruitment as animprovement initiative,not an overhead process

Passive

• Over-focus on reactiverecruiting/empty positionfirefighting

• Lack of realistic attritionmetrics

• Lack of vision for the futureexternal talent marketplaceand internal talent needs

of use, and that translates into the possibilityfor more employee referrals, a prime sourceof high-quality candidates.

Although there are many smart options forimproving processes and technology, thereality is that many organizations lack aformalized structure for systems review andoptimization. This lack of an improvementprocess is detrimental. Even thoseorganizations that do not rely on an end-to-endtalent acquisition system require some level ofconsistent periodic review.

In this review, it’s important to examine, or re-examine, hiring processes and practices. Foreach step in the talent acquisition process, sucha review should ask, “Does this step add value,or does it detract from the primary goal ofhiring excellent candidates? Is there a solidcommunication and action plan between allparties—candidates, hiring managers, humanresources, and recruiters—in identifying,sourcing, and selecting new hires?” Candidatesare moving targets, and there is an impliedsense of urgency to these activities. Has thecompany leveraged the technologies that areavailable? If there is a talent acquisition systemin place, there should be a plan for reviewing,assessing, and implementing new features, andturning off features and processes that havebecome obsolete.

Recruitment Strategy

A realistic and detailed talent acquisitionstrategy can make the difference between areactive talent operation and one that stayseffective even as company goals, marketconditions, and the capabilities of competitorschange. Companies have long since recognizedthe need to treat talent acquisition as a criticaldriver of long-term business success, and so

the link between talent acquisition strategyand core business goals is well known. As withother parts of the talent acquisition process, thechallenge lies not with knowing what is rightfor business, but instead on finding the timeand resources to put best-practices into place.

It’s good news that more companies areengaging in workforce planning and feedingthat data into recruitment forecasts. Workforceplanning has recently gained much press in thediscussion of recruitment and retentionstrategies. It is seen as a way to gaincompetitive advantage by clarifying andquantifying future talent needs and attrition,and helping to define employee developmentneeds. As the workforce planning concept takeshold with HR and non-HR audiences, there is aneed to clarify what workforce planning is,what information and direction the planning


PAGE 11

Figure 7: Does WorkforcePlanning Play a Part inthe Development of YourOrganization’s SourcingStrategy?

Yes 54%

No 36%

Don’t Know 10%

Figure 8: Are Recruiters inYour Organization Notified ofUpcoming Hiring Initiatives (asfrom Workforce Planning Results)Before Receiving a Requisition?

Yes 52%

No 40%

Don’t know 8%

will provide, and most centrally, how acompany goes about creating a plan.

Although quantifying empty seats and newhire needs based on current conditions maybe important, true workforce planning requiresanother dimension of development. It includesan analysis of business objectives, balancesthose objectives with current conditions andmaps out specific timeframes for meeting the

talent needs tosupport thosebusinessobjectives.Finally, themore effectiveworkforceplanning effortsproviderecruiterswith advanceknowledge oftheir hiringneeds, givingthem theopportunityto put that

workforce planning data to work through moreproactive recruiting. At many companies this isnot the case, and the recruiter may actually bethe last to know when a hiring need emerges.This is an immediate disadvantage in termsof sourcing and meeting timeline objectives.Understanding the importance of the recruiter,companies will increasingly bring the recruitercloser to the workforce planning process.

On a related note, many survey respondentsindicated success with sourcing throughcampus channels. This indicates that theircompanies had identified their talent needs forthe next several years and are reaching out tothe campus to begin addressing that need. As

campus recruiting has also become morecompetitive, companies are finding that long-term relationships with colleges and universitiesare necessary to cultivate the best graduates.

Overall, the focus on workforce planning andrelated efforts such as campus recruitingunderscore the need for a systematic strategyto maximize proactive recruiting. Toward thatend, smart organizations are viewing theirhiring as an initiative. It is a single activeproject, rather than a collection of individualrequisitions. Contrast this approach with thestatus quo and the difference in recruitingeffectiveness becomes obvious. Lacking aunified recruiting strategy or planning effortto forecast hiring needs, organizations remainstuck in a reactive firefighting mode when itcomes to talent acquisition. They have littlegrasp of their attrition situation, the futureemployment marketplace, or how thecompany’s talent requirements fit within it.

Once again, a deep level of understandingis important here. The recruitment strategyshould include the planting of many seedsacross the target audience, not simply focuson an open requisition and the need to fill it.Knowing that even the best workforce planningcan be derailed in an uncertain environment, itpays for a company to cultivate candidates withjust as much rigor as it applies to cultivatingcustomers.

Metrics

The cliché is true: You can’t improve what youcan’t measure, and in talent acquisition theright metrics can mean the difference betweenpassive operational functionality and realbusiness impact. Most companies continue toseek better ways of quantifying the businessimpact of talent acquisition as well as pinpoint


PAGE 12

RECRUITMENT STRATEGY

Results Driven

• Focusing on actionablemetrics

• Applying metrics to driveimprovement

• Capturing trends

Passive

• Too many metrics

• Measuring processes,not results

• Over-focus on irrelevantmetrics to drive behavior

the areas that represent the greatestopportunities for improvement.

Of all the options we provided, the top metricsreported upon were Open Positions byRecruiter, Aggregate Time-to-Fill, Number ofHires Per Period, and Cost Per Hire. Only a thirdof respondents differentiate between Time-to-Fill for professional versus direct labor/non-exempt positions. In reality, the estimatedTime-to-Fill for these groups can vary greatly.Combining the two provides a result that isinaccurate for both categories, and thereforenot actionable. This fact highlights one potentialshortcoming in the way many organizationsmeasure the performance of their talentoperations—when measures are too broad, thedata is not specific enough to provide a clear

case for action. Conversely, when consideringways to make a measurement more relevant,one option to explore is breaking that metricdown into its components (in this case, time-to-fill by profession and time-to-fill by directlabor/non-exempt).

In searching for relevant measures of success,the idea of quality-of-hire immediately comesto mind. After all, quality hires are the endresult all organizations seek from theirrecruiting operations. Unfortunately, measuringquality-of-hire continues to be a challenge. It isa metric that is difficult to capture. The leadingcomponents used for quality of hire metricsby survey respondents were PerformanceAppraisal within First Year, First YearPerformance Rating, First Year Retention,


PAGE 13

Figure 9: Top Recruitment MetricsUsed By Respondents

Open Requisitions by Recruiter 70%

Aggregate Time-to-Fill 69%

Number of Hires Per Period 60%

Cost Per Hire 57%

Functional Time-to-Fill 47%

Internal Placement Percentage 47%

Offer-to-Accept Ratio 45%

Interview-to-Offer Ratio 44%

Decline-to-Offer Ratio 35%

Diversity 33%

Time-to-Fill by Exempt and Non-exemptRequisitions 29%

Figure 10: Top Means of Measuring Quality of Hire

First Year Retention Rate 36%

Performance Appraisal within First Year 35%

None 35%

Post-hire Manager Feedback 31%

First Annual Performance Appraisal 26%

Revenue Per Employee 12%

Other 5%

and Post-hire Manager Feedback (See Figure10). Thirty-five percent of respondents do nothave quality-of-hire metrics in place.

Source of hire is another elusive metric. Itappears to change as the candidate is askedat different points of the process. This isunderstandable, as most candidates are led toopportunities for multiple reasons or throughmultiple methods. For candidates submittinginterest through an online system, it is notalways easy to answer the simple prescreeningquestion, “How did you hear about us/thisposition?” The system often presents a drop-down menu of potential sources that can bemind-boggling. Anecdotal evidence points outthat many candidates just pick a choice so theycan move on. Not surprising given the integrityof the data, only 14 percent of respondentsregularly analyzed their hires in light of thesources of those candidates.

A smart approach to metrics is to focus onmaking them specific and actionable. Ascompanies apply a supply chain model torecruiting, it is desirable to measure timeparameters of each phase of the recruitingprocess for all parties involved: recruiter, hiringmanager, and candidate. Specific actions canbe taken to address bottlenecks or potentialchallenges. With technology available today,there is the danger of tracking too manymetrics, getting wrapped up at the granularlevel. Avoiding this requires planners tounderstand what the metrics are revealingabout the organization and the processes.Do the metrics indicate areas to improve,and will they then effectively measure theimprovements? Are they actionable, orretroactive/trend metrics? If a company is tryingto capture the reasons why candidates areturning down offers, is anyone looking at that

data and following through to improve theoffer/acceptance ratio?

There is a place for retroactive metrics. Theyare useful for looking at trends and possiblecauses of recruiting challenges for a given timeperiod. For example, a company may look atthe requisition load of recruiters and see howthat may correlate to resumes presented oroffers accepted. The results may revealopportunities for improving the “day in thelife” of an overburdened recruiter, and theymay provide the hard evidence needed tomake the case for action, whether that involvesexpanding resources or re-allocating certainroles and responsibilities.

Sifting the Results: Smart vs.Not-So-Smart, Real vs. Ideal

In sifting through the response data from thisyear’s respondents, it becomes apparent thatcompanies generally understand the strategicpriorities that drive effective talent acquisition.For the enterprise respondents, the need foreffective workforce planning is accepted, as is(generally) the need to have an effectiveemployment brand. It can be noted that inevery category, companies continue to engagein activities that are “smart” as well as “not sosmart.” In fact, this report was originallyprepared to highlight tactics with thatdesignation.

The problem here is that such nomenclatureis slightly inaccurate. Companies may have“not so smart practices” in place (i.e. reactivesourcing, lack of workforce planning, notechnology improvement process), but thatdoesn’t mean that they are not smart, or thatthey don’t understand their needs. Often it issimply a matter of priority. They may not have


PAGE 14

the appropriate means to address thoseflawed practices at the moment.

This year, we see that companies do recognizethe smart “results driven” approaches thatcan help them compete for critical talent inthe future. They understand that the passiveapproaches to reaching talent are usuallyrelics of the past. The overriding challengemoving forward is for companies to act onthat understanding. If a company knows thatit needs to mature its workforce planningprocess, how willing is that company to devotethe time and resources to make it happen? Likemost aspects of talent management, talentacquisition will evolve within companies whenthose companies treat it as a priority.

For many organizations, both large enterprisesand small and medium businesses alike, talenthas already risen to the top of the priority list.As competition continues to grow, that needfor improved talent acquisition operations willonly become more pressing, and recruiting willcontinue to grow smarter. That’s good news foranyone involved in the recruiting process.Regardless of economic conditions, companieswill still need to compete for talent—andsmarter recruiting will continue to drive corebusiness success.


PAGE 15

This report was developed by

The Newman Group.

The Newman Group, a Futurestep

company, provides talent management

consulting services for today's Fortune 500

global enterprises, including one out of

three Fortune 100 companies and

recognized industry leaders such as

MetLife, Northrop Grumman, General

Motors and McKesson. Our consultants

combine next-practice vision, practical

solutions and an unparalleled level of

commitment and integrity to help our

clients translate their talent management

strategies into measurable business

impact. From workforce planning, to

competency management, talent

acquisition strategy and execution, and all

vital talent-related initiatives, we help you

align people, process and technology to

achieve talent management success.

To learn more, visitwww.tng.futurestep.com

1-877-639-6262 (1-877-NEWMAN2)Email: [email protected]


PAGE 16

www.tng.futurestep.com 1-877-639-6262 (1-877-NEWMAN2) Email: [email protected]

talent acquisition 2008: survey and analysis of the changing recruiting landscape

Documents

right talent

specialized talent

shortage of talent

talent acquisitionoperations

recruiting survey

realworldtalent acquisition

white papertalent acquisition

changing recruiting