Having participated in several interviews in the past months as a candidate, this was a constant topic. To my surprise, though, it was not because the interviewer was bringing it up, but most often because I was inquiring at the end what metrics they use to measure success. In recruitment, there’s often a tendency to lean on intuition and overlook data. While I am a strong believer that instinct and experience are helpful, I also consider that to make an informed decision and avoid biases, it needs to be data-driven.
I observed that many teams ignore important recruitment metrics that could improve their processes. In this article, we will touch base on three metrics that are overlooked, in my opinion, and how you can measure them to optimise your hiring approach.
Quality of Hire
Why I think it’s important:
A fast or cost-effective hiring process doesn’t necessarily mean success if the new hires fail to contribute meaningfully or stick around, and it will most often translate into higher costs and, eventually, operational disruptions. In my opinion, the quality of the hires measures the success of any recruitment process.
How I measure this:
I track how many employees pass their probation period and remain with the company beyond their first year. In my experience, compulsory probation periods vary in length (e.g., in Germany, it is six months; in other countries, it is three months). Easy to do with innovative software, as well as with good old Excel. So what is your excuse?
While adapting to the local legislation, I include an evaluation system as part of my onboarding process. I conduct a check-in midway through the probation period for necessary feedback and another at the end. Since probation tracking is already required, why not keep a close eye on these milestones?
Working closely with my leaders and peers every step of the way is part of my culture and deep in my genes. This is also helpful when I run performance reviews. I aim for a fair and accurate process, so I do my best to keep this structured.
What do I track here? The ability to meet KPIs, OKRs, goals, and overall contribution.
While my quality-of-hire metric focuses on data from the first year, ideally, tracking continues throughout employment, transitioning to annual reviews.
Since I mentioned working closely with peers, 360-degree feedback systems also reveal highly relevant data for this metric.
Candidate Experience
Why I think it’s important:
I remember the good old days when to determine the NPS, we had to pay an external agency to randomly call people from our database and ask for their feedback. Yes, I am so old that I ran the recruitment call centre before electronic surveys were a thing!
Now, while back in the day I was working with higher volumes and a different profile of candidates, one thing has not changed: candidate experience shapes how applicants perceive your organisation. Just because a candidate is not selected does not mean their experience can’t be positive. And if their experience is not positive, under no circumstance does it mean it should be ignored.
How I measure this (nowadays):
I track whether candidates are dropping out of the process and where (e.g., during application submission or after interviews). There will be an evident pattern if there is an issue at a specific stage.
I also set automated post-interview surveys (when GDPR allows). Most software includes this feature (but if not, when I own the full recruitment cycle, I still ask for and encourage candidates to share their feedback). While the surveys allow for including an NPS question, e.g., “How likely are you to recommend our recruitment process to others?” when asking verbally for feedback, it might not be as easy to quantify, but it is still better than nothing.
On a positive note, from my recent experience as a candidate, around 40% of the companies I applied for are sending automated surveys. Some had poor timing; others could work on the relevance of the questions, but A+ for the effort, and I am happy to discuss further should anyone want feedback.
Source of Hire Effectiveness
Why I think it’s important:
This metric is also connected to measuring the quality of your applicant pool. If you’re getting plenty of applications but very few end up being shortlisted or hired, it could, of course, indicate that your job description isn’t clear or that your sourcing methods aren’t attracting the right candidates. However, if you keep track of how effective the channels you use are, you can easily understand whether the issue is with your communication or rather with the audience you target through the respective channels.
This metric has become more relevant than ever due to the current market. Not only does one have significantly more channels and strategies to reach candidates compared to ten years ago, but there is also a tendency for candidates to apply to almost anything. Finding a job really reminds me these days of when I was younger and experienced dating apps. There are so many options on both ends that it becomes difficult to filter and easier to ignore red flags. On different channels, you will find the same offers but packaged differently (e.g., on LinkedIn, the level of seniority required will be mid-level, but the same role on Stepstone will require an executive – just like on Tinder, most users are open to something casual, but if you get on Bumble, the same users want three kids and a dog by next year).
At last, back to our sheep, not all recruitment channels target the top candidates. Some sources may provide volume, but when you target skilled candidates, volume should not be what you aim for. Understanding which channels provide the best talent will allow you to use your resources and time wisely.
How I measure this:
Ensure each candidate’s source is logged in the ATS (and if none, we get back to the old but gold Excel). Many software solutions will automatically track which channel the candidate came from, but I personally never rely fully on automation for this metric.
When in the hiring process, I measure every week the number of candidates from each source who progress to interviews, offers, and hires.
Why Data Beats Gut Feeling
While intuition has its place in recruitment, making decisions driven by data is essential for keeping quality standards high from all points of view.
The metrics presented above should, of course, not be the only ones you look into, but are, in my experience, often neglected.
Taking these three metrics into account can set your recruitment process up for long-term success because they are essential for ensuring you not only fill roles but actually find people who will thrive and drive your team forward.