45 second read | 1:30 video | Chime in on LinkedIn here
Some context. This video was from our episode of The Employer Content Show when we talked about companies hiring internal recruiters (and how to attract them.)
Some recruiters (as job seekers) may ask what an organization’s Time-To-Fill is, i.e. how many days it takes, on average, to fill a role.
And if you’re an organization trying to hire a recruiter and you have an average-to-great Time-To-Fill, that’s absolutely something you should feature. You’ve got a well-oiled machine.
Here’s where the mix up happens: some people fixate on Time-To-Fill as a sourcing and talent identification metric. The two phases that are mostly in a recruiter’s control.
But Time-To-Fill is not a recruiting metric, it’s a hiring metric. All the things indirectly in a recruiter’s control (in the greater organization’s control) are what mostly determine it.
How long does it take to schedule interviews?
How long does it take to do debriefs?
How many steps do you have in the process?
How available are the interview teams?
How often are you changing requirements and starting over?
How quickly can you make decisions?
How often can you get people to accept?
Why are they declining and can you do anything about it?
If you’re a job-seeking recruiter and interviewing at a company whose average Time-To-Fill is 5 months...the place is a trainwreck.
What’s wrong? Who the hell knows. Any number of the things I mentioned.
Things clearly need to change. Maybe the org knows that. Maybe they want someone who can help implement new processes. Could be a good opportunity.
But if their take is that they need to hire you to get candidates faster and that will solve all their problems…
Like I said. Trainwreck.
You can follow me on LinkedIn here. Join the discussion on this LinkedIn post (or give it a 👍) here.