top of page

Why are there so few Recruitment KPIs?

Why Are There KPIs Everywhere, Yet So Few in Recruitment?

4 arguments that hinder the implementation of performance indicators:

When I talk to commercial teams and ask them what's important when choosing their next job, one criterion that often comes up is the ability to have control over sales and financial indicators.

This means that in the commercial sector, it's rightly believed that the more visibility you have on numbers and activity indicators, the better you can make informed and corrective decisions if necessary.

This is obviously also the case in the financial sector. In the Product line.

And increasingly in managerial functions. And so many others...

So why isn't this as ingrained in Recruitment?

Recruitment KPIs

Argument 1: Hiring is about people, not maths

Since recruitment is about people, it's thought to be mainly a matter of intuition.

But precisely because it's about humans, it's even more necessary to use measurement and indicators.

Just because it's difficult to quantify or qualify something doesn't mean we should abandon rigor in favor of esotericism.

On the contrary, it's because the human dimension is complex and hard to grasp that we need indicators and measures to pilot our activity.

For everything that involves measuring the human mind and its skills, it refers to psychometrics, a key discipline of occupational psychologists.

=> We're not short of tools! We know how to do it, it exists. And there are certainly indicators that could help you, whether you're already advanced on the subject with a desire to become even better, or you're just starting your reflection: there are relevant indicators for all situations and strategies.

Argument 2 : Humans are all different, so why measure them?

A very good argument? Especially since if we followed it, we wouldn't measure sports performances either!

Because humans are all different, they must be considered in relation to a population that resembles them, with common criteria.

That's exactly what you do when you meet several candidates for a recruitment process and compare them to choose just one in the end.

Except that we don't all do it with the same methods and tools.

To have a good measure, you need:

  1. A good definition of what to measure,

  2. The right dimension: we don't measure liquids in length or leeks in liters,

  3. The right unit: if you measure the results of a 100m race in hours and minutes instead of seconds and hundredths of seconds, you won't be able to distinguish between people.

=> If the human being is a complex one to measure as such, it's always possible to compare them to others.

Argument 3 : I have a nose for it.

What I say applies to others. But not to you. You, you have a nose for it. You can sense things that others can't.

Like when you ask a sample of drivers if they think they are in the top 50% of drivers, and 93% say yes (1).

Or during a managerial audit we conducted in a company full of super nice and humble people, but where when we asked their managers to anonymously position themselves on the aptitudes they thought they had compared to their same-level colleagues (amongst their peers), 92% said they thought they were above average.

It's never about "yes, I'm a big shot", but more about "I think I'm a little above", or well put in the following very interesting way: "I think I perceive things that others don't".

Except that... almost everyone perceives different things. And judges based on that perceived information (2).

I know it can be hard to hear, but we all judge with our worldview and a set of biases that make our brains regularly play tricks on us, especially when we make decisions.

Because our perceptions are different, often biased, and always interpreted in our own way, we need to equip ourselves to make enlightened decisions as factual as possible:

=> A good recruitment decision is a decision that can be argued without possible interpretation.

Argument 4 : No time. I really. Don't. Have. The. Time.

You don't have time to implement tools.

Tools take time. And they cost money.

But wait! When I talk about tools: it can be a tracking indicator, a collaboration process, a construction of your interview methods that allows for more rigorous work.

Yes, there are tons of great digital apps and tools on the market.

But if recruiters, HR and managers haven't been trained in the approach to strengthen their recruitment; if the stakeholders haven't had the opportunity to work together on these topics and develop the right mindset, then all the tools in the world won't change your practices and won't solve your recruitment problems.

My belief:

A recruitment tool should only be implemented to replace and industrialize a practice or method already adopted by the team.

Otherwise, it will at best be misused, at worst rejected by users.

Pity for a nice toy. And especially pity for the team.

Want to discuss this topic?

You're under the water, with deadlines to meet and goals to exceed.

Let us help you.

In a few days, we conduct a diagnostic of all or part of your recruitment and/or employer branding issues:

  1. What works well?

  2. What is at market level, or even above?

  3. What needs to be amplified to achieve your goals?

  4. What are the short, medium, and long-term levers possible to strengthen your recruitment activity?

With a concrete, pragmatic, tailor-made action plan as deliverable.

Contact us to discuss and get a free quote:

1. Olivier SIBONY. Vous allez commettre une terrible erreur. 2019. 2. There are actually people who generally perceive a larger spectre of information than the average population. These are often called HPI, which is a topic I am very frequently Oui il y a bien des gens qui perçoivent en général un spectre d’informations plus large que la moyenne, ce sont les HPI ou Haut Potentiel Intellectuel. Et j’ai souvent l’occasion de travailler sur le sujet donc nous aurons l’occasion d’en parler.


bottom of page