aadil abbas - accelerating recruiting: achieving quality at speed

CEB Recruiting Leadership Council

Accelerating

Recruiting

Achieving Quality at Speed

July 13, 2016

Aadil Abbas

Executive Advisor

CEB - HR Practice

CEB Leadership

Councils help you

take insights from

the best companies

to save time and

make better decisions.

We help you to be both

fast and right.

0

42 40

80

63

2010 n = 28,473 hiring managers (2010); 4,516 hiring managers (2015).

Source: CEB 2010–2015 Recruiting Effectiveness Dashboard.

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. RR30016 15SYN

2015 0.00

5.00

n = 1,071 recruiters (2010); 1,125 recruiters (2015).

Source: CEB 2010 Recruiter Effectiveness Survey; CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit. a Time to fill is assessed by recruiters as the number of business days that passed for their most

recent hire between when the requisition was opened and the new hire’s start date.

No Improvement in Quality of Hire Over the Same Time Period

New Hire Performance Rating by Hiring Managers on 1–10 Scale (Mean)

10.00

7.97 8.02

RECRUITING SLOWER TO HIRE

Average Time to Fill Has Increased Substantially Over the Last Five Years Median Time to Fill (Business Days)a

2010 2015

∆ = 21 Business Days

SLOWEST WHERE YOU NEED TO BE FASTEST

Time to Fill Also Higher for Critical Talenta

Median Time to Fill (Business Days)

2010 2015


0

50

100

49

8

1

n = 1,071 recruiters (2010); 487 recruiters (2015).

Source: CEB 2010 Recruiter Effectiveness Survey; CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit.

Critical Levels Critical Functions

n = 487 recruiters.

Source: CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit. a Critical talent is defined as roles that the organisation considers critical to the organization’s success. Time to fill is a ssessed by recruiters as the number of

business days that passed for their most recent hire when when the requisition was opened and the new hire’s start date.

Breakout of Critical Roles That Take Longer to Fill

Median Time to Fill in 2015 (Business Days)

120

Marketing IT/Systems Sales (B2B) Corporate Executive Hires

University Hires

60

0

76 8

1 78 84

95 106

© 2015–2016 CEB. All rights reserved. RR16 1788P RINT

OPPORTUNITY ABOUNDS FOR QUALITY AT SPEED

Recruiting Organizations Can Significantly Improve Time to Fill Without Sacrificing Qualitya

Impact of Time to Fill (Median, Business Days) on Quality of Hire (0–100)

n = 487.

Source: CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit; CEB analysis. a Quality of hire was measured on a 100 point scale using CEB Recruiting’s measure that assesses a new hire’s current and potential

performance. We conducted this analysis across different roles and functions, and the difference between the median time to fill and the lowest

time to fill before quality is sacrificed was never less than 22 days.

Average Organization’s

Time to Fill: 63 days

Lowest Time to Fill Without

Sacrificing Quality: 31 days

Qu

alit

y o

f H

ire

50 100 Time to Fill

100

0

The Quality at Speed Gap: 32 days

50


0

The Pain of a Longer Vacancy to the Business

■ Risk of losing highest quality candidates to

competitors

■ Lost productivity in the role

■ Damaged productivity of employees dependent on

the vacant role

■ Higher burnout and disengagement for role’s

immediate network while it compensates

for the vacancy

■ Increased spend on temporary staffing

■ Higher recruiter and hiring manager time spend

EXTENDED VACANCIES HURTING THE BOTTOM LINE


For each additional day that a single vacancy is

open, the average organization loses roughly

US$407 per vacancy.a

At an average time to fill per role of 63 days, that

amounts to an additional annual cost

of roughly

US$8,550,000 per 1,000 vacancies.a

Source: CEB analysis. a Cost of vacancy accounts for lost productivity in the role, decreased productivity of the role’s immediate network, and cost per hire (including higher recruiter and

hiring manager time spend), as well as savings to the organization due to deferred salary and benefits costs. Calculations were made using the Turnover Cost

Calculator (CLC resource), a proprietary algorithm that integrates dozens of potential cost inputs to calculate the overall cost per turned over employee. CEB

Recruiting accepts all of CLC’s assumptions except for the following inputs: median salary (US $65,000), average turnover (16%), average organization size

(15,000 employees), and percentage of salary paid in benefits per employee (24%). Time to fill was also updated to reflect today’s average time to fill of 63 days.

Additional costs per 1000 vacancies were calculated by multiplying the cost per day (US $407) by the difference in time to fill from 2010 to 2015 (21 business days),

and again by 1000 vacancies.

33

WORKLOADS HIGHER AND MORE COMPLEX

15

0

2010 2015

n = 1,071 recruiters(2010); 426 recruiters(2015).

Source: CEB 2010 Recruiter Effectiveness Survey;

CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit.

n = 426 recruiters.

Source: CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit.

a Business units as defined by the recruiting executive.

Recruiter Workloads Have Increased…

Median Number of Open Requisitions per Recruiter

∆ = 25%

…And the Typical Recruiter Now Supports

Eight Different Business Unitsa

20

25 30

32 © 2015–2016 CEB. All rights reserved. RR16 1788P RINT

34

NAVIGATING A MORE COMPLEX PROCESS

The Recruiting Process Has Become Overly Complex Percentage of Recruiters Who Agree That

the Recruiting Process Has Become More

Complicated Since They Started Recruiting

Examples of Increased Complexity of the Recruiting Life

Cycle

Compared to five years ago, we have...

■ …more hiring stakeholders involved in the process.

■ …more compliance and regulation requirements to

meet.

■ …more systems that need to be integrated to

execute different parts of the process.

■ …more diversity expectations when building a

shortlist.

■ …more talent pools to source from.

■ …more HR staff to collaborate with.

■ …more frequent shifts in organizational and talent

strategy. n = 934.

Source: CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit.

61%

33 © 2015–2016 CEB. All rights reserved. RR16 1788P RINT

35

HIRING DECISIONS MORE COMPLEX

Source: CEB analysis.

I think the first candidate was better, but since this is a new role I need more people to compare her to.

I viewed this candidate on LinkedIn and their responsibilities

don’t match their résumé. Why?

2010 2015

n = 1,071 (2010); 617 (2015).

Source: CEB 2010 Recruiter Effectiveness Survey;

CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit.

Can we see more candidates? This is a new position, so I’m not sure what great looks like yet.

Which competencies are weighted as important for

this role? I’m not sure I agree.

New and Different Hiring Needs Result in Complex

Hiring Decisions…

...That Slow Down the Decision Making

Process

Number of Business Days (Median) Between

Interview and Offer, 2010 Versus 2015


? ?

? ? ?

? ?

© 2015–2016 CEB. All rights reserved. RR16 1788P RINT

ENABLING HIRING TEAMS HAS LITTLE EFFECT

Complexity Across Recruiting’s Typical Responsea the

Hiring Workflow

More Complex

Hiring Decisions

n = 487. Source: CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit.

Enabling Hiring Teams Provides

Negligible Improvements on

Time to Fill

More Complex

Recruiter Workloads

When Recruiting adds

additional resources, it

improves time to fill by

only one business day.

Add Resources to Alleviate Workload Complexity

“If I could make the case for two more

recruiters, we could solve our capacity

challenge.”

Head of Recruiting,

Manufacturing Organisation

More Complex

Recruiting Process

When Recruiting

provides additional

standards and tools, it

improves time to fill by

only one business day.

Add Standards and Tools to Alleviate Process

Complexity

“Experienced recruiters share tips with newcomers

on our complex, matrixed process.”

Recruiting Manager, Pharmaceutical Organisation

? ?

? ? ?

? ?

When Recruiting

adds information and

stakeholders, it

improves time to fill

by only three business

days.

Add Information and Stakeholders to Alleviate

Decision Complexity

“We provide more information where possible, since

hiring managers often hire for skills they don’t

themselves have.”

Global VP of Talent Acquisition, Consumer

Goods Organisation

a Based on interview feedback from nearly 100 recruiting leaders. © 2015–2016 CEB. All rights reserved. RR16 1788P RINT

2015 RECRUITING EFFICIENCY AUDIT

Hiring Manager Survey

CEB surveyed nearly 6,000 hiring

managers from over 65

organizations across the globe to

assess hiring manager behaviors

and their impact on time to fill and

quality of hire.

Recruiting Executive Interviews

CEB interviewed nearly 100

recruiting leaders from across the

globe to assess recruiting

efficiency and steps taken to

accelerate time to fill.

Recruiting Survey

CEB surveyed over 900 recruiters

from more than 70 organizations

across the globe to benchmark

and assess the impact of recruiting

structures, capabilities, and

activities on time to fill and quality

of hire.

Participating Organizations

Partial List


THE WAY FORWARD

Streamlining hiring workflows to drive sustainable

improvements in hiring speed

Enabling Hiring Teams

Add resources to alleviate workload

complexity.

Add standards and tools to alleviate

process complexity.

Add information and stakeholders

to alleviate decision complexity.

Liberate to Accelerate Alleviate to Accelerate

Enabling hiring teams to execute the more complex

workflow

Source: CEB analysis.

?


?

? ? ?

? ?

Streamlining Hiring Workflows

Reprioritize resources to liberate

recruiters from the distractions of

workload scatter.

Remove hidden process inefficiencies to

liberate the recruiting process from clutter.

Reduce and reorganize information and

stakeholders to liberate hiring decisions from

input overload.

CAPITALIZING ON STREAMLINED HIRING WORKFLOWS

Streamlined Workflow Cuts Time to Fill by Nearly Half Median Time to Fill (Business Days) for Organizations with Complex Versus Streamlined Hiring Workflowsa

Recruiters at organizations with streamlined hiring workflows have nearly half the average time to fill

of those with complex hiring workflows, saving the organization an average of

US $16,280 per hireb.


0


50

100

82

42

Organizations with

Complex Hiring Workflows

Organizations with

Streamlined Hiring Workflows

n = 487 recruiters.

Source: CEB 2015 Recruiting Efficiency Audit; CEB analysis. a We built a composite measure that combines prioritization of resources, complexity of the recruiting process, and recruiter and hiring

manager effectiveness at influencing and making selection decisions. This chart compares median time to fill for organizations in the

bottom decile and top decile on that composite measure. Organizations with a streamlined hiring workflow have no different quality of hire

compared to those with a complex hiring workflow. b Calculated as the difference between the cost of an 82-day vacancy (US $407 X 82) and a 42-day vacancy (US $407 X 42).

THE WAY FORWARD


Realign Recruiter

Resources

Design a Simpler

Recruiting Process

Shape Hiring

Decision Making

Stop trying to alleviate recruiter

workloads by adding resources,

and start realigning resources to

liberate recruiters from the

distractions of workload scatter.

Prioritize Recruiting Resources

Across Requisitions

Prioritize Business Units

to Shape Demand

Focus less on helping recruiters

navigate increasingly complex

recruiting processes, and more on

removing hidden process

inefficiencies to liberate processes

from clutter.

Examine Cause and Effect

Across Process Steps

Adopt a User-Centric

Implementation Approach

Shift from giving hiring managers more

information and stakeholders, to

liberating hiring decisions

from input overload by reducing and

reorganizing information and

stakeholders.

Help Hiring Managers

Consume Candidate Data

Limit Non-Critical

Decision Makers

Manage Critical

Decision Makers

CATEGORIZE REQUISITIONS BY RECRUITING

DIFFICULTY AND BUSINESS IMPORTANCE Lockheed Martin Categorizes and Assigns Requisitions According to Whether a

Transactional or Strategic Recruiter Is Needed

Lockheed Martin’s Requisition Categorization Grid; Illustrative

Cyber

Intelligence

Analyst

Manufacturing

Engineer

Business Development

Analyst

Low

Air Force

Technical

Instructor

High

Low High

Business Importance

Sample Criteria

■ Revenue-generating roles

Recruiting conducted

conversations with select

business leaders to determine business-critical criteria.

Subcontract

Administrator

■ Role in high-growth business unit

■ Vacancy impacting wide network

Recruiting Difficulty

Sample Criteria

■ Level of difficulty to

source

■ How recently the

same role was last

filled

■ Level of difficulty to

convert

Transactional

Case by case

Strategic


Assign Requisition to

Appropriate Team

Source: Lockheed Martin; CEB analysis.

Source: Koninklijke (Royal) Philips N.V.; CEB analysis.

UNCOVER HOW PROCESS STEPS CONNECT

■ Hiring Manager

■ TA Coordinator

■ Recruiter

Connections Verify which other process steps

might cause or be affected by

bottlenecks in this step by asking:

1.How does each input or output

affect stakeholders’

involvement later in the

process?

2. Which previous process steps

produce the required inputs?

3. What is the effect of an error

occurring in each process

activity?

4. Which subsequent process steps

will require the produced outputs?

5. How do handoffs happen

between the suppliers,

customers, and the process

owner?

Input

Inputs List the information, activities,

or materials used in the step ■ Proposed requisition in ATS

■ Recruiter assignment

Process List 4–6 lower-level activities

required to complete the

process step

■ Gather preliminary labor market

analysis

■ Conduct recruitment strategy

meeting

■ Update requisition in ATS

■ Submit job posting

Output

Outputs List the information,

activities, or materials that

are produced

■ Approved requisition

■ Ideal candidate profile

■ Agreement on timeline

Customers List the stakeholders who

will require the outputs

■ Recruiter

■ Sourcer

■ Hiring Manager

■ HRBP

Philips Uses the SIPOC Framework to Identify Connections Between Process Steps

1.Creating and Updating Job Requisition

2. Assessing Job Requisition

Objectives: Agreement on job profile and requisition timeline

Owner: Recruiter


Suppliers List the stakeholders who

will provide inputs

SPEED UP DECISION MAKING BY INVOLVING

FEWER STAKEHOLDERS

Providence Removes Non-Critical Stakeholders from Hiring Decisions and Frontloads Their Input Providence’s Stakeholder Criticality Matrix

■ Shift input from stakeholders who aren’t truly critical to earlier processes.

Dependence on Role

Focus on stakeholder dependence to determine

their relationship with the new hire:

■ Individuals with business outcomes tied to the

new hire’s performance.

■ Individuals who will work with the new hire.

Focus on stakeholder influence,

not just seniority, to determine their

relationship with the requisition:

■ Individuals in positions of

authority.

■ Individuals owning budget for the

role.

Influen

ce in t

he O

rganiz

ation

Helpful

Involve

Stakeholders in

Assessment

Critical

Involve

Stakeholders in

Hiring Decision

Making

Optional

Involve

Stakeholders in

Needs Analysis

Helpful

Involve

Stakeholders in

Assessment

■ Add to interview panels and solicit their feedback.

■ Invite to assessment activities.

Source: Providence; CEB analysis.

■ Invite to the needs analysis meeting.

■ Ask them to provide feedback by e-mail during a pre-determined timeframe.


Continuous

Account

Management

Support

Executive

Networking

Advisory

Support

Research

and Insights Peer

Benchmarks

Getting

Started

CEB

FasterForward and

Leadership

Transition Map

Receive Service Orientation

for You and Your Team Diagnostic for HR

CEB IgnitionTM

Guides and

Support Resources

CEB

Membership

Live and Online

Learning Events

Service Planning with

Your Account Manager

Take CEB Ignition™

Thank You

aadil abbas - accelerating recruiting: achieving quality at speed

Recruiting & HR