By Dr. John Sullivan, Head and Professor of Human Resource Management College of Business, San Francisco State University

Click here to email Dr. John Sullivan
Click here to see the rest of our web site.
Click here to go to Dr. Sullivan's Index Page

A note to our visitors:

We hope you enjoy the many thought provoking articles by Dr. John Sullivan. Please to review the rest of our web site for our solutions to some of the most troublesome HR problems raised by Dr. John Sullivan.

Thank you for visiting, Gately Consulting


Click here to go to Dr. Sullivan's Index Page

After studying hundreds of employment systems at Fortune 500 firms we have identified numerous metrics or measures that can be used to assess the impact and quality of employment systems.

This checklist can be used as an audit tool or as a mechanism for identifying and continuously improving the employment function. The metrics are categorized by:

• Quality/Accuracy
• Quantity
• Time
• Customer Satisfaction or
• Costs (# = Number)

Quality / Accuracy

1. Performance (quality) of hires (compared to last yr., our average, or industry average) in:
   - performance appraisals,
   - forced rankings or
   - scores of 360 degree or team assessments.
2. # of "superstar" hires in Productivity rates or error rates.
3. Speed of promotions of hires.
4. # of awards / recognition's of hires.
5. 5. Dollar amount of bonuses / pay for performance of hires.
6. # or % of qualified applicants who exceed the qualifications of our best current employees.
7. # or % of hires who exceed the qualifications of our best current EE's.
8. # or % of offers accepted.
9. % of new hires involuntary terminated.
10. % of unqualified applicants sent to managers.
11. % of diverse applicants / hires.
12. Accuracy of work force demand / supply forecasts.
13. # or % of "Agile" hires (Multi-capable, flexible, "continuous learning individuals").
14. # or % of top tier (top 1%) of college hires.
15. Accuracy of pre-employment "tests" in predicting the quality of a hire.
16. Accuracy of recruiters "assessments" in predicting the quality of a hire.

Quantity

17. # of "offered" candidates lost to direct competitors.
18. # OR % of all applicants that are qualified for the position.
19. # of total responses to our recruiting efforts.
20. # of recruits identified / referred per position.
21. % (ratio) of referred applicants who are hired (hit rate)
22. % of required / scheduled employment processes (references, interviews etc.) actually completed.
23. # or % of hard to fill positions filled.
24. # or % of EEO complaints / lawsuits.
25. # of termination's of new hires within 6 months of hire (voluntary and non-voluntary).
26. # or % of internal placements.
27. # of applicants in "Applicant Pool" available for "fast" hire.
28. % or # of "non-active" job seekers (currently employed and not looking for a job) identified.
29. % of recruitment sources evaluated and dropped for newer more effective sources (per year).
30. # or % of hires from our "direct" competitors.

Time or Speed

31. Time to respond to initial requisition (response time).
32. Time until resumes received.
33. Time between receipt of resumes and time received by managers.
34. Time to offer / hire (time to fill).
35. Time until termination / tenure of new hires (months of tenure rate).
36. Time required for new hire "break-in" / Training required by new hires.
37. Average # of days each position is open.
38. Speed to hire for critical / emergency positions.

Customer Satisfaction
(Applicants and Hiring Managers)

39. % of applicants (both initial rejects and those selected for assessment) satisfied with the recruitment process.
40. % of hires satisfied with the recruitment process.
41. % of hiring managers satisfied with the recruitment process.
42. % of satisfied applicants of internal placements.
43. Ranking of employment (by managers) as a contributor to meeting their goals / profitability.
44. # of complaints or legal actions.
45. The ranking of employment by managers (as a contributor to profitability) compared to all other "overhead functions" and compared to last years ranking.

Money or Costs

46. Starting salary of new hires (Compared to industry average or per unit/ $ of their productivity).
47. $ spent on recruiting / per new hire (cost per hire).
48. Relocation expenses per hire.
49. % of total recruitment budget that is "variable" (not fixed) to allow for easy reductions during slow hire times.
50. % of total budget (total administrative and/or HR) spent on employment.
51. Lowest cost per unit of employment service (Ex : per reference check) than our primary competitors.

Other Indications of Quality Employment Systems

52. The extent to which each of our employment practices/ systems is superior to that of our direct competitors.
53. Becoming an / the Employer of Choice (EoC) for our industry or region.
54. Increased corporate "capability" as a result of strategic hiring.
55. All employment systems use technology, require no formal training and are paper less.
56. Managers can access the employment intranet 24 hours a day.
57. All employment systems have international capabilities.
58. Periodically tracks acceptance and turndown reasons / causes and uses them to continually improve our systems.
59. All employment systems produce quality employment documentation.
60. All employment systems continually evaluate the effectiveness of each individual recruiter, screener and employment system.
61. It does comparisons of all of our employment data with last years, industry average, best in industry, our chief competitor in order to continually improve.
62. It continually increases the amount of time, priority and the extent of commitment (or "ownership") of line managers to the employment process

© April, 1998

by Dr. John Sullivan

Click here to email Dr. Sullivan
Head and Professor of Human Resource Management
College of Business, San Francisco State University

Click here to go to Dr. Sullivan's Index Page