Lagging Talent: Do You Jack Them Up or Not?
Learn From the Masters: How to Slot Speakers for Your Next Corporate Retreat...

Quality of Hire - The Simple Way...

Spent some time with a member of the HR Capitalist community over the past few days to talk about one of those simple concepts - Quality of HIre.

I kid - Quality of Hire is an elusive concept.  The biggest problem with any type of QoH metric is that performance of the candidate in question usually has to be taken into account.  And most companies are really, really bad at measuring true performance.

So I'm here to give you a simpler way to get at Quality of Hire.  Here's my back on the napkin thoughts:

1. Define the baseline related to QoH as someone who sticks at your company for a year.  After all, if you fire them or they leave voluntarily in a year, it wasn't a quality hire.  Note that I'm not saying who's responsible for that "fit".  Ultimately, everyone's responsible, including and probably most importantly, the hiring manager.

2. Survey your hiring managers and ask them to rate their satisfaction of the new hire according to:

    -Overall quality of the hire, 

    -Quality of hire for the money they could spend in salary, and

    -Quality of the hire for what was available in the marketplace for all the "must have's" they listed.

3. Survey the hiring managers on the questions above on the new hire's first day and then at the one year mark.  Bring the stat geeks in to help you analyze the difference.

So my definition is pretty simple.  It's not a quality hire if they're not there in a year.  Once that's been established I'm interested in the hiring manager's opinion, but I'm not going to be boxed in by what they think overall - I'm going to make them give me how we did for the money they could spend, and for what the reality is related to the actual presence of the perfect candidate in the marketplace.

If you do a good job as an HR pro/Recruiter with educating hiring managers about what the market looks like (comp and skills/experience available), you should get a more realistic quality rating.

Quality of Hire - it's subjective.  Like porn style, you know it when you see it.




Thanks for that - nice and simple.


This is simple but probably far too simple. People leave positions for any number of reasons and often within the first year. I have known (not my hires, so no bias) many quality employees who were great hires who moved on within a year. It's sometimes a function of hiring Generation Y; they see something better and they take it. I would say there are enough exceptions to make "simple" rule #1 invalid unless you're clinging to outdated perceptions of the workforce. (Now, if you fire them, yes, that's a bad hire, of course).


Maybe it was the company that was not of quality. It takes two and companies can mislead potential employees as much as potential employees can mislead companies.


Way too simply in my opinion. In your 3 points, you're basically trying to measure if someone is a 'quality' hire. Quality based on what? Quality based on a 1-10 measurement system or on other successful hires or on revenue the new hire brought to the company or new programs they developed?

The last point was to bring in the stat geeks, but in reality, the HR/Recruiting Pro should be able to develop and bring those stats to the table. The 3rd point could have 100 sub-points. I suppose my message is: The 3 'napkin' items will not give you any measurable data on the level of a quality hire other than a statement of, "Ya, he seems like a good guy."


Hi Guys and Gals -

Thanks for stopping by - until you tell me what your formula is, I'll take simple, even too simple, as a complement. The only other thing you have to fall back on is performance data, which is hopelessly jaded for most jobs in most companies. But I like you telling me I'm full of it - just take the next step and tell me how you would do it...

Thanks - KD

The comments to this entry are closed.