Does it really matter?
No problem, pt 11
One of the problems with recruitment industry is that it’s hard to find clear data to support the arguments that are put forward.
A job board put it best when I asked if they collected data on advert fill rates “There’s no way for us to tell, and agencies don’t want to divulge this to us, because they are worried we’ll put our prices up”.
And because the evidence isn’t there, why should an employer take a risk on an uncomfortable approach, when they are comfortable enough with approaches with an acceptable failure rate?
If vacancies are eventually filled or aren’t so important that they can remain vacant, does Better really matter?
I did a bit of research on the numbers that make up the recruitment industry.
Apparently, between 12 and 15% of job adverts result in filling their vacancy, according to studies by CareerPlug and Workable.
I expect this will vary across industry, function and seniority, but it’s an interesting range to work with.
Also telling is the view-to-applicant stats - 2 to 5%.
While, anecdotally, I’d say that most recruiters would be happy if 5% of applications were worth following up with, from the various posts and discussions I’m aware of.
Given, in my experience, most adverts are employer first, generic with no selling, it’s not surprising the results are so poor.
‘Job boards don’t work’ is a natural assumption.
For an employer, they’ll likely use other channels, if indeed they advertise, agencies being a natural choice, especially when those agencies are chasing leads from adverts that fail 85 to 88% of the time.
In the UK it’s estimated that agency fill rates are between 20% and 33% - according to Bard, the REC states 26% although that’s hidden behind a membership wall, so I haven’t been able to verify it.
It’s no wonder with so much failure built into recruitment, employers will be sceptical that functionally different approaches can have different outcomes.
I’m an effective writer but, aside from puns, an unimaginative writer.
However I have strengths in iteration, experimentation, problem solving and continuous improvement, so my adverts invariably get better with time and experience.
I recently did a back-of-napkin analysis of my job advert performance, for a LinkedIn post:
This looked at the past 10 job adverts on LinkedIn, where an outcome has been reached.
Average number of applicants: 26.7
Applicant to 'view' ratio: 31%
Those are accurate figures, these are fingers in the aired:
Applicant-to-candidate ratio: 60%
Applicant-to-suitable-candidate ratio: 30%
Advertised vacancies filled from applicants: 50% (I use other job boards too, so the LinkedIn percentage will be lower)
The vacancies I don’t fill from adverts, I fill through other means.
Since 2020, my fill rate for exclusive vacancies has been 100%, except for economy related cancellations (the pandemic etc).
I also work on roles I don’t advertise for reasons of confidentiality.
However, my messaging is still a consequence of the same process as my adverts.
You can click on the archive for the philosophy, backbone and details of my approach that has led to these stats.
That’s quite a stark difference from the industry figures, isn’t it?
I’m by no means unique in this, and I’m pleased to know a number of recruiters with exceptional track records, many of whom are either good writers or employ good writers.
And yet, it’s rare for employers to jump down our throats for vacancies we can fill, that we want to fill and that they can afford for us to fill. Proactive business development is key, as it should be in any multichannel, multi-touch, campaign.
Why the hesitation?
I expect it’s because they think they get suitable access to the market, and that ‘a better way lol’ doesn’t make a substantive difference.
Because they believe the outcome will be ultimately the same.
A filled vacancy.
Most vacancies are filled - approximately 85 to 90%. Not sure I believe that with the millions of unfilled vacancies, even in the UK, but dem’s the stats.
And if that’s the case, the acceptably high failure rate throughout recruitment is still good enough to fill the vast majority of vacancies.
But the mistake they make is the outcomes they aren’t considering.
What is the cost of a vacancy remaining open for 6 months compared to 3? Actual, notional, opportunity. How about the technical debt?
What’s the cost of a failed hire? What is the break-even point where it’s acceptable for a new hire to move on?
In 12 years of trading, 4 of my ‘key hire’ placements have left before their first anniversary, and in 2 of these cases, I was asked to honour my guarantee and replace them for free.
Aside from that my average tenure is 3.8 years, and I commonly get feedback that they exceed expectations, especially compared to other agency hires.
Yes, it really does matter that we try to recruit better, with a better candidate experience, better adverts, better interviews, and all these other elements that work for the candidate, and in service of the vacancy.
Because for key hire recruitment, it isn’t just about getting bums on seats, who may or may not stick around for the long term.
Even with transactional vacancies, a better approach to recruitment has many commercial benefits, such as improved profit margins.
It can be about ensuring we find the right people, and engage them in a way that brings them forward.
The stats are pretty damning especially because they seem acceptable.
Isn’t there a better way?
Regards,
Greg