Query at some another WA forum of HR:
Hello Everyone,
I need support & discussion on topics...
Why early attrition to be a part of recruiter’s KRA?
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
+++++
My reply is as below:
Dear Akhilesh,
Failure to recruit proper candidate is considered as failure of the recruiter. In some companies, it is measured with respect to the number of weeks or months spent by the newly joined employee in the company. The formula to measure this Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is:
[(Number of persons left or removed within the six months or an year) ÷
(total recruitment in that period)*100]
Should we measure recruiter’s performance through this KPI? Is no one else responsible for the early exit of the employees? The point is debatable because not all organisations are mature and assigning blame for the early exit at the doorstep of the recruiters would be incongruous.
Recruiter can only filter the CVs of the candidates based on the Job Description (JD). Going further, in few companies if there is a separate recruitment department, then recruiter may take initial interview. However, in the selection process, invariably a functional head is involved. In small companies, even Directors or Managing Directors are involved in the recruitment. Therefore, for the wrong recruitment, functional head or some higher authority should be held more responsible than the recruiter.
The challenge with the most of the companies is that while recruiting a candidate, candidate’s skills and knowledge is tested and not necessarily cultural suitableness. In many companies, those who recruit themselves are not so clear about the culture of the company. More than proper definition, what they carry is their perception about the culture. If hundred employees are told to define culture of the company, then will they define exactly in the same fashion? This is one of the simple test to find out understanding culture of the company. Higher the similarity of the replies, higher the understanding of the culture is. But then in how many companies, we find this similarity? When the candidate is not suitable for the culture, he/she either quits on his/her own or is told to quit.
Lastly, what about behaviour of the HOD? What if he/she is irascible? What if he/she has overbearing pride and looks at his/her subordinates in condescending manner? What if he/she likes to work long but the newly joined employee likes to leave on time? Therefore, the personal variables or preferences also have a fall back on the relationship between HOD and newly joined employee. If the relation is normal, the person continues. If the mismatch is extreme, then the newly joined employee is bound to quit. For this mismatch, should we hold recruiter responsible? That would be unjustified!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
7881Hello Everyone,
I need support & discussion on topics...
Why early attrition to be a part of recruiter’s KRA?
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
+++++
My reply is as below:
Dear Akhilesh,
Failure to recruit proper candidate is considered as failure of the recruiter. In some companies, it is measured with respect to the number of weeks or months spent by the newly joined employee in the company. The formula to measure this Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is:
[(Number of persons left or removed within the six months or an year) ÷
(total recruitment in that period)*100]
Should we measure recruiter’s performance through this KPI? Is no one else responsible for the early exit of the employees? The point is debatable because not all organisations are mature and assigning blame for the early exit at the doorstep of the recruiters would be incongruous.
Recruiter can only filter the CVs of the candidates based on the Job Description (JD). Going further, in few companies if there is a separate recruitment department, then recruiter may take initial interview. However, in the selection process, invariably a functional head is involved. In small companies, even Directors or Managing Directors are involved in the recruitment. Therefore, for the wrong recruitment, functional head or some higher authority should be held more responsible than the recruiter.
The challenge with the most of the companies is that while recruiting a candidate, candidate’s skills and knowledge is tested and not necessarily cultural suitableness. In many companies, those who recruit themselves are not so clear about the culture of the company. More than proper definition, what they carry is their perception about the culture. If hundred employees are told to define culture of the company, then will they define exactly in the same fashion? This is one of the simple test to find out understanding culture of the company. Higher the similarity of the replies, higher the understanding of the culture is. But then in how many companies, we find this similarity? When the candidate is not suitable for the culture, he/she either quits on his/her own or is told to quit.
Lastly, what about behaviour of the HOD? What if he/she is irascible? What if he/she has overbearing pride and looks at his/her subordinates in condescending manner? What if he/she likes to work long but the newly joined employee likes to leave on time? Therefore, the personal variables or preferences also have a fall back on the relationship between HOD and newly joined employee. If the relation is normal, the person continues. If the mismatch is extreme, then the newly joined employee is bound to quit. For this mismatch, should we hold recruiter responsible? That would be unjustified!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Early Warning Attrition Tracker.xls
Early PF withdrawal won’t be easy.pdf