Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/182340
Talent Management Quantifying Quality of Hire Putting metrics around your top talent offers some useful insight. By The Editors Recent research from The Conference Board reports that the top challenge CEOs face is human capital, a finding that further emphasizes the potential impact talent has on the bottom line. If talent is so valued, how can organizations quantify their quality of hires? That complicated question was researched by a recent study undertaken jointly by Hudson RPO and the HRO Today Institute. The research sought to glean information on global opinions of the importance of quality of hire and the efforts to measure it quantitatively. The study surveyed 246 companies worldwide, with 47 percent coming from the Americas, 35 percent from the Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA) region, and the remaining 18 percent from Asia Pacific (APAC). Of those 246 organizations, 80 percent were from the private sector with the other 20 percent being government or nonprofit organizations. "I think most of us who are in professions of recruitment or HR because we fundamentally believe that talent makes a difference," says Global RPO Leader for Hudson [54] HRO TODAY MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER 2013 RPO Kimberley Hubble. That feeling was reflected in the study. Among the companies surveyed, 97 percent believed that quality of hire is a critical element of business success. Earlier studies have provided evidence of this. As Hubble explains, "The differences between average performers and high performers create real business impact." A McKinsey study provides empirical proof. McKinsey reported that in operational roles the difference in business impact between an average and high performer can be as much as 40 percent, while it approaches 50 percent in general management roles and reaches as high as 67 percent for sales personnel. In spite of these quantified impacts, only about onethird of the companies surveyed were measuring quality of hire with a formal process and 45 percent report they had discussed the issue internally but did not have plans in place to establish an appropriate process (see Figure 1). While measuring this metric is on the table for many organizations, very few have taken any action, and among those that had, most had only began their programs in the past two years.