Ah recruiting metrics. They can provide such a wealth of information, but they can also fool you by providing unnecessary data. Some find them the necessary evil while others appreciate their value and have built sophisticated processes in order to capture every possible data point to measure their recruiting effectiveness. I, for one, have always loved recruiting metrics. From the time I stepped into corporate recruiting, I was determined to eliminate subjectivity on all fronts. At the end of the day, I was so determined to be prepared to answer that elusive question from my leaders and/or hiring managers: “Why?”. There was no way I would let myself answer with a vague “I don’t know” or “because” response. Instead, I would rifle through any data I could lay my hands on to put together informed and valuable answers. Remember, this was 15-20 years ago when the thought of recruiting efficiency was at it’s infancy and it was acceptable to point the finger at the recruiter for the blame.
Machines are better at hiring talent than humans. Or so they tell us. Sourcing, candidate screening, job matching, source of hire data, time to hire metrics – all of these and more are aided or provided by tech tools and systems. Technology certainly makes the role of the recruiter more refined, effective, and efficient, but we can't remove people from the mix entirely. We think that the human touch is still a vital component to making successful hires. Even with cognitive technology at our fingertips, the last say on a hire is a person, not a machine.
Your talent community craves personal contact. Who wouldn’t? We live in a world of machines; in a world of a million ways to stay connected without ever having to actually talk to someone. So it’s nice, feeling like someone is taking the time to talk to you – just you. But we know that’s not the most effective way for a recruiter to spend their time, especially if your talent community is made up of thousands of people.