Talent Acquisition Metrics

How good are your hiring and onboarding processes? Consider the latest “12 month survivorship” benchmarks We often discuss annual attrition, but here's a sometimes underlooked metric: “12 month survivorship”. What percentage of new hires make it to their 1-year anniversary? As mathematician Edward Lorenz noted, “Small changes in initial conditions can lead to large-scale variation in future outcomes”, a phenomenon coined as the butterfly effect. For talent management, this means nailing the initial conditions of how new hires enter your company is crucial. So how are you doing at your hiring hit rate and onboarding success outcomes compared to the market? Let’s take a look at some benchmarks. _______________ 𝟭𝟮 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗕𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲: The following benchmarks are from an analysis of 200,000+ employees with start dates in 2023 and 2024 across Pave’s customer base. –51-100 employees median: 25% of new hires leave within a year –101-200 employees median: 24% of new hires leave within a year –201-1,000 employees median: 24% of new hires leave within a year –1,001-3,000 employees median: 20% of new hires leave within a year –3,001+ employees median: 17% of new hires leave within a year _______________ 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: 1️⃣ 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀. Perhaps driven by more robust onboarding processes, more successful hiring patterns, and/or less of the “hire fast and fire faster” early-stage ethos? There are also likely other additional confounding variables at play. 2️⃣ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝟮𝟱𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝟳𝟱𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲. E.g. for 1,000 to 3,000 employee companies, the 25th percentile is ~12% and the 75th percentile is ~27%. This suggests that there is a wide array of outcomes across the market. _______________ 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 & 𝗛𝗥 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: What percentage of your employees successfully make it to the 12 month mark? How does your figure compare with the industry benchmarks from today’s post? Use this to help inform whether or not it might be useful to invest more in improvements to your hiring and/or onboarding processes. For example: structured 30-60-90 day check-ins, buddy systems, role clarity assessments, etc.

Most HR leaders would hate me for saying this, but 90% of hiring metrics are useless. You don't need a dashboard with 47 KPIs. Here’s 7 numbers that actually predict whether your hiring is working: 1. Quality Applications Track how many candidates meet minimum qualifications versus total applicants. If you're getting 200 applications but only 10 are qualified, your job postings or employer brand need work. Quality beats quantity every time. 2. Time to Fill Days from requisition to accepted offer. Every day a role stays open costs productivity and team morale. Track by role type to identify bottlenecks…is sourcing slow? Interview scheduling? Decision-making? 3. Interview-to-Offer Ratio What percentage of interviewed candidates receive offers? If you're interviewing 20 people to make one offer, your screening process is broken. This reveals whether your pre-interview assessments actually work. 4. Offer Acceptance Rate What percentage of your offers get accepted? Low acceptance rates signal problems with compensation, candidate experience, or employer brand. Track by seniority level to see where you're losing top talent. 5. 90-Day Retention What percentage of new hires are still engaged and performing after 90 days? Early turnover is expensive and usually preventable. This metric reveals misalignment between expectations and reality. 6. Hiring Manager Satisfaction How do managers rate the candidates you deliver and the hiring process? Your internal customers' satisfaction predicts whether hiring best practices will stick. Low scores mean misaligned expectations. 7. Cost Per Hire All-in recruiting costs divided by hires made. Include recruiter time, tools, assessments, and external fees. Understanding true cost-per-hire enables better resource allocation and ROI discussions. TAKEAWAY: Most hiring teams measure activity instead of outcomes. These 7 metrics focus on quality, efficiency, and long-term success. Track what matters, improve what you measure.

What do employers really want from early career talent? Our new report, "What Matters Most: Employer Priorities for Early Career Talent," shares national survey data from UpSkill America, commissioned by the Gen Ed team at #WGU, and gives some insights. Across sectors and markets, employers agree on one thing. Reliability and execution are non-negotiable. Core expectations include: trustworthiness; responsibility; attention to detail; teamwork; and ethical behavior. From Day One, these matter most. Beyond that core, priorities shift by organization type and reach. Publicly traded companies emphasize creative problem solving, analytical thinking, and service orientation. Seventy percent say they prioritize skills over attitudes. Privately held companies value communication most (65%) and place strong weight on a growth mindset. Government and nonprofit employers lean more toward attitudes. Nonprofits, for example, report 72% prioritize attitudes over skills at hire, with empathy and service orientation leading. Market reach matters, too. Global firms elevate analytical thinking and adaptability. Local employers prioritize communication and customer service. The takeaway for educators and workforce leaders is clear. Context matters. Preparing students means building durable skills and attitudes, and helping them understand which environments align with their strengths and goals. The paper is one of five on durable skills produced by UpSkill America for #WGU. Read it here: https://lnkd.in/gDDrjUCb

Most hiring benchmarks are measuring the wrong thing entirely. Everyone's obsessed with Time-to-Hire. I get it it's clean. It's trackable. It looks easy to digest on a presentation slide. But here's what I keep seeing: companies hit their Time-to-Hire targets and still wonder why their new hires aren't working out at 6 months. Because speed isn't quality. It's just speed. The benchmarks most TA teams inherit were built to satisfy finance, not to improve hiring. They measure activity: CVs sent, interviews booked, days elapsed. Not outcomes. What would actually matter? Retention at 12 months by hire source. Hiring manager satisfaction scores. Offer acceptance rate by role type. Time-to-productivity, not time-to-start. All of these make up your Quality-of-hire. None of those are hard to track. They're just inconvenient, because they hold the whole process accountable, not just the recruiter. 🤷 The teams I see doing this well have stopped defending their metrics and started questioning them.

In recent years, we’ve seen a steep decline in employers using GPA to screen candidates for entry-level roles—dropping from about 73% of Job Outlook respondents in 2019 to just 42% this year. So what are employers prioritizing when they hire early talent? Beyond academic major (which most employers still consider), the factors cited by more than half of employers center on experience and skills—whether that experience comes through an internship or through meaningful campus involvement like extracurriculars, leadership roles, and student organizations. To me, this is a clear signal of where hiring is headed: skills-based hiring isn’t a buzzword—it’s a shift in how employers define readiness. And it’s also a reminder that the most effective employers don’t treat internships as a nice-to-have. They treat them as a core talent strategy. Employers are telling us that industry experience matters. And for students who are still in school, the most direct way to gain that experience is through internships—especially when those opportunities are within your organization. My advice for employers looking to recruit top entry-level talent: lean into your partnerships with colleges and universities. Use your resources to help develop students who bring both relevant experience and strong, transferable skills—communication, collaboration, problem-solving, and professionalism. Those are the candidates you want to hire. And working directly with colleges is one of the best ways to build a steady, sustainable pipeline of talent. National Association of Colleges and Employers

How one company is triangulating quality of hire ⬇️ Carmel Galvin, Chief People Officer at Klaviyo, shared the three key focus areas they look at to measure quality of hire. Instead of tracking dozens of disconnected metrics, they focused on three key areas: 1. Time-to-value metrics - Sales: Days to first quota attainment - Engineering: Time to first PR - Support: Time to handle tickets independently 2. Manager feedback loop - Direct manager rating vs team baseline - Skip-level assessment (manager's manager) - Clear expectations set during onboarding 3. Leading indicators - 30/60/90 day milestone completion - Peer feedback on collaboration - Onboarding satisfaction scores The magic? They back-tested this framework against 6 months of hires and found it highly predictive of future performance. Too many companies try to measure everything and end up measuring nothing well. Pick your core metrics. Test them. Iterate. What metrics do you use to evaluate quality of hire? Drop them below. Link to the full episode from MPL Live Boston in the comments. #HR #CHRO #ChiefPeopleOfficer #Podcast

Everyone talks about quality of hire. Almost no one operationalizes it. But who actually owns it? In most companies… no one. 😬 Talent Acquisition is expected to “deliver great hires.” HR and People Ops are expected to drive performance and engagement. The business expects results. Without shared definitions and shared data, “quality of hire” becomes a matter of opinion. A few patterns I see: 1️⃣ Connecting the dots is a mess. Interview feedback lives in one system. Performance reviews in another. Engagement data somewhere else. No one has a complete picture. 2️⃣ Speed is winning over structure. We’re hiring fast (I get it!). But when documentation and calibration slip, it’s nearly impossible to trace the why behind a hire to eventual performance. 3️⃣ You’re interviewing for X, reviewing for Y. When hiring criteria and performance criteria aren’t aligned, quality of hire plateaus. Here’s the real issue: None of this is a talent problem. It’s a systems problem. This is why unified people data matters. Bringing performance, engagement, and talent decisions into the same system allows teams to move from intuition to evidence. It connects hiring decisions to business outcomes, not just activity metrics. That’s exactly how we think about this at Lattice. If quality of hire feels fuzzy in your org, it might not be a definition problem. It might be a data and ownership problem. Curious: How does your team define and measure quality of hire?

Ask any People Leader what recruiting metric they care about the most, and ‘Quality of Hire’ is usually at the top. But here’s the problem: Few teams measure it well. Upstanding how to assess QoH is essential for better hiring decisions, stronger teams, and long-term impact. Here’s a practical breakdown based on insights from Screenloop’s Anton Boner Talent Operations data: 1️⃣ Separate the Signal: Application Quality ≠ Hire Quality ↳ Quality of Application (QoA): How strong a candidate looks at the point of submission. ↳ Quality of Hire (QoH): How the person actually performs on the job, measured months after hire. 2️⃣ Define What QoH Means to Your Organization There’s no universal formula. QoH depends on what success looks like in your company. Common metrics used: ↳ Year 1 job performance ↳ Hiring manager satisfaction ↳ Retention in first year ↳ Time to productivity ↳ Culture fit/alignment 3️⃣ Use a Consistent Scoring System ↳ Whatever your inputs, use the same scale (e.g., 1–5 or 1–10) across all metrics. It creates clarity and makes comparison possible. 4️⃣ Simple Formula, Actionable Insight ↳ QoH Score = (Sum of all input scores) ÷ (Number of inputs) It’s not about perfection. It’s about creating a repeatable baseline for reflection and improvement. 5️⃣ Review Trends and Act Patterns in low scores? Don’t just blame the hire, look at: ↳ Onboarding gaps ↳ Team dynamics ↳ Hiring manager expectations QoH data is only valuable when it drives changes in how we hire and support talent. Why This Matters: If you're serious about building high-performing teams,  you can’t rely on instincts or speed alone. Measuring Quality of Hire aligns your hiring process with what actually matters; ✅ performance ✅ retention ✅ cultural fit Do you measure QoH? If so, what inputs do you use; and what’s working? ♻️ Share this post with your Network to help hiring managers start measuring Quality of hire. ➕ Follow Ben Henley for actionable tips on finding your best work.

"𝐈 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 100+ 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥" I've been receiving MANY messages like this. Especially from HR job seekers. Yes, the market is brutal right now (but, that's not in our control). But what you can control is how you position your Resume. And the biggest gap I see in HR Resumes is: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬. How do you fix that? By including (not just what you did), but how well you did it. And by including KPIs and metrics, where applicable. Here are examples of HR KPIs you should include: 1️⃣ 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 & 𝐇𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 • Time to Fill: Average number of days to fill a position. • Cost per Hire: Total hiring costs divided by number of hires. • Quality of Hire: Performance and Retention of new hires after 6-12 months. • Offer Acceptance Rate: % of offers accepted by candidates. • Candidate Satisfaction Score: Feedback from applicants on the hiring process. 2️⃣ 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 & 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 • Training Completion Rate: % of employees completing assigned training. • Training Effectiveness Score: Post-training assessments or surveys. • Internal Promotion Rate: % of leadership positions filled internally. • Learning & Development ROI: Business impact of training investments. 3️⃣ 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 & 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 • Employee Turnover Rate: % of employees leaving the organization. • Retention Rate: % of employees staying for a specific period. • Employee Satisfaction Score: Survey results on job satisfaction. • Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS): How likely employees are to recommend the company. 4️⃣ 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 & 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐃𝐄𝐈) • Diversity Hiring Rate: % of diverse candidates hired. • Pay Equity Index: Analysis of compensation fairness across demographics. • Inclusion Survey Score: Employee perceptions of inclusivity. 5️⃣ 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 • Goal Achievement Rate: % of employees meeting performance goals. • Performance Appraisal Completion Rate — % of appraisals completed on time. • High Performer Retention Rate: % of top performers retained year over year. Would you like to see a sample HR Resume that includes the above? -------------------------------------------- 👋 Hi, I’m Yauhan! 🎤 LinkedIn Top Voice | Career Success Coach 🚀 I help you land amazing jobs fast! 🔔 Follow me for career advice that gets you hired

If your TA dashboard is celebrating “time-to-fill”, but your hiring managers are quietly regretting their last few hires, you don’t have a talent problem. You have a decision-quality problem. Speed can improve while quality silently declines. We automate sourcing, tighten SLAs, and proudly show a lower time-to-fill… then watch: - Early attrition climb - Teams rework poor decisions - Top candidates walk away For aspiring HR leaders, the North Star is simple: Speed is a constraint. Decision quality is the objective. Start measuring the decision, not just the process: - Hiring manager confidence at offer stage - Early attrition (0–6 months) by recruiter, manager, and role - Performance and cultural contribution at 6 months - Offer acceptance reasoning: why strong candidates say yes or no This is exactly where AI should help us, not replace us: - Structured evaluation instead of unstructured “gut feel” - Consistent criteria across interviewers and roles - Reduced noise from bias, halo effect, and random first impressions AI can give us cleaner signals. HR must still own the judgment and the courage to slow down when decision quality is at risk. So, to all recruiters and HRBPs: which metric on your current dashboard would you consciously trade or deprioritize to materially improve quality of hire decisions? #HR #TalentAcquisition #HRLeadership #PeopleAnalytics #FutureOfWork