I think QoH only gives one part of the employee picture. QoH isn't likely something you can share with the employee and it is also based on a number of subjective inputs (manager surveys, tenure, etc). Additionally, it can't be purely attributed to TA because, a recruiter could find a top-notch candidate and a poor manager could run them into the ground. The best analogy I have for this is TA could be a parent buying their kid a nice car. If the kid crashes it, is that the parents fault or the childs?
I think it is important to pair QoH with objective measures like Quality of Impact (QoI). Eqtble put out an e-book on this in March that is a quick read.
wonderful comment Jeremy. Of course you are correct. Perhaps part of the reason why QoH has been elusive amongst the TA community is how difficult it is to capture the meaning of what Quality of Hire is. I think QofI might in fact entirely replace it - maybe that is the quickest solution here?
Thank you for the compliment in saying I'm correct but it is tough to say what is right and wrong. It is much easier to tell subjective vs objective inputs though.
I think the elusiveness in QoH is people have said it is a TA metric however, all the inputs you need for it is after TA is involved and then using hindsight bias to point a finger back and say, "Well, you should have known!". It is the Spider-Man pointing meme with everyone saying the other group is responsible between TA / HR / HM / Hiring Teams and so many more, so how can you balance the equation?
I do think QoI will likely replace QoH, but I think it is also asking companies to shift how they think about impact fundamentally, and people might think it is making everything into a widget to count. Some companies and some teams aren't there yet. For example, Engineering teams in Tech don't often love something that looks like a restraint/quota, whereas Sales teams have a different outlook. So each company must define what is quantifiable and approach it that way.
This might also be too optimistic but if a company is able to do this, then a TA function would be able to show it is a revenue generator rather than a cost center.
In my opinion, QoH is more of a TA function than an HR one.
A successful recruitment process results in a candidate who 1) fits the job and 2) fits the company.
If there's issues with Quality of Hire, it should be the responsibility of TA to learn from it. HR can't really do much to mitigate a poor job and company fit after the hire goes through.
Plus, the process should be two-sided. I'm biased, but we (Starred) offer surveys to both the candidates *and* the Hiring Managers. If a new hire feels they're not a good fit to the company or team, then that's also indicative of poor QoH. Ideally, the new hire and HM should line up in their perceptions of fit for a solid QoH.
yes....it may be the most important metric yet it falls in between TA and HR, and therefore neither is able to centre it as the orientating principle of the work.
I think QoH only gives one part of the employee picture. QoH isn't likely something you can share with the employee and it is also based on a number of subjective inputs (manager surveys, tenure, etc). Additionally, it can't be purely attributed to TA because, a recruiter could find a top-notch candidate and a poor manager could run them into the ground. The best analogy I have for this is TA could be a parent buying their kid a nice car. If the kid crashes it, is that the parents fault or the childs?
I think it is important to pair QoH with objective measures like Quality of Impact (QoI). Eqtble put out an e-book on this in March that is a quick read.
wonderful comment Jeremy. Of course you are correct. Perhaps part of the reason why QoH has been elusive amongst the TA community is how difficult it is to capture the meaning of what Quality of Hire is. I think QofI might in fact entirely replace it - maybe that is the quickest solution here?
Thank you for the compliment in saying I'm correct but it is tough to say what is right and wrong. It is much easier to tell subjective vs objective inputs though.
I think the elusiveness in QoH is people have said it is a TA metric however, all the inputs you need for it is after TA is involved and then using hindsight bias to point a finger back and say, "Well, you should have known!". It is the Spider-Man pointing meme with everyone saying the other group is responsible between TA / HR / HM / Hiring Teams and so many more, so how can you balance the equation?
I do think QoI will likely replace QoH, but I think it is also asking companies to shift how they think about impact fundamentally, and people might think it is making everything into a widget to count. Some companies and some teams aren't there yet. For example, Engineering teams in Tech don't often love something that looks like a restraint/quota, whereas Sales teams have a different outlook. So each company must define what is quantifiable and approach it that way.
This might also be too optimistic but if a company is able to do this, then a TA function would be able to show it is a revenue generator rather than a cost center.
In my opinion, QoH is more of a TA function than an HR one.
A successful recruitment process results in a candidate who 1) fits the job and 2) fits the company.
If there's issues with Quality of Hire, it should be the responsibility of TA to learn from it. HR can't really do much to mitigate a poor job and company fit after the hire goes through.
Plus, the process should be two-sided. I'm biased, but we (Starred) offer surveys to both the candidates *and* the Hiring Managers. If a new hire feels they're not a good fit to the company or team, then that's also indicative of poor QoH. Ideally, the new hire and HM should line up in their perceptions of fit for a solid QoH.
yes....it may be the most important metric yet it falls in between TA and HR, and therefore neither is able to centre it as the orientating principle of the work.
Great one, as always! Thanks!