Response To Dave on "Strike Out"

Dave Lefkow posted some great questions on the site regarding the post "Strike Out." The comments were so thoughtful that they deserve a direct reply:

Dave: A company might not embrace a strike zone because they fear that client expectations could become very subjective. What would you say to this objection?

Jeff: All client expectations are subjective. They are never, ever objective. The expectations of the client can either be subjective and explicit or subjective and implicit. At least with the strike-zone measurement you are creating an explicit and agreed-upon target, as opposed to what usually happens now, where the target is neither explicit nor agreed upon.

Dave: In your model, it would seem that historical time-to-fill by position could be a valuable data point for the Consultant/Recruiter negotiating a "strike zone." Agree?

Jeff: Great point. Absolutely agree.

Dave: Here's a complex question - how could you measure opportunity cost with your "strike zone" or a "strike zone variance" statistic to come up with hard data that not only motivates recruiters, but makes sense to executives?

Jeff: You need to know the anticipated economic impact of the talent once it is in place. In project-based hiring situations you can measure the impact of the failure to hit the strike zone by the possible slip in schedule due to the degree of variance. In sales / deal-oriented sales situations you can measure estimate the TVM (Time Value of Money) for the lost time (which assumes that the deal will close no matter how much time elapses before the talent is enlisted), or you can measure the statistical probability of close based on elapsed time (standard funnel measurements). The analysis of probability will be subjective, but still informative.

Your last question could be the subject of a book (and probably should be). I look forward to future exchanges around this topic, as it is a core question in the "How do I make recruitment strategic?" issue. Being able to consult with a client about the economic impact of their behaviors is core to a business perspective.

Thanks Dave! And everybody else, make sure you read Dave's most excellent posts at the Jobster site!

Comments

[Heather]

Wow...really great points. I just want to add my .02 (if it's worth that much). With regard to Dave's second questions about TTF variance and benchmarking; doesn't the subjective nature of candidate selection and client expectation really make TTF stats irrelvant for the purposes of benchmarking? I could see utilizing these metrics for benchmarking if you had one hiring manager who has multiple positions with the same requirements, and who consistently devotes time to recruiting/interviewing. But once you get into recruiting for different managers who may even be looking for different profiles (for example, one only wants candidates with MBAs), one has a better interviewing team and they each have different levels of engagement, doesn't your benchmark become irrelevant?

Heather Hamilton | Staffing Programs Manager
Microsoft Corporation | 425.706.2312
heathham@microsoft.com | http://blogs.msdn.com/heatherleigh

[Jeff Hunter]

Thanks for the great comments Heather. I think Dave's point was that all clients will have an "I need to fill this position YESTERDAY!" kind of mentality. You need to have data to demonstrate to them that "YESTERDAY" is not a realistic target. The data could demonstrate such statistics as "Well, it takes you on average 5 days to get back to me with feedback, so if we could cut this down to 1 day, I can cut 4 days from the strike zone target." The point of the article was to say that there are internal metrics that you can use for process efficiency, and Dave extrapolated that you could also use that data to negotiate achievable strike zone targets with the client.