ROI

I don't get the feeling that HR understand real ROI. Nigel Dunn said in his blog recently that a Manchester Partner study indicated that senior hires were inaccurate 40% of the time.

I have to agree with him and state too that this is a frightening figure based on a fast and ignorantly enginereed process that hides behind a Preferred supplier list. The recruiters who made these guarentees of delivery will have been full of cliched promises from the vendors. I know because I used to make them. An example please, I hear you ask?

"We have a database of 20,000 candidates"; "we like to work in partnership to assure a match"; "candidates come to us because of our standing in the market"; " we've been doing this for (insert number of years here) so our track record speaks for itself"

That's fine and they are valid sales concepts but they aren't USP's. The one common factor is that these companies will flex to the rate dictated to them by the company who has the requirement. They will deliver candidates at a margin which is just viable on the promise of volume. However, 40% of those candidates will fail meaning that the rate has to be paid for the cost of hiring in the first instance, the cost of missed opportunity for a more credible but inaccessable candidate and the cost of re-hiring the failed hire. Needless to say there are huge implications about the failed impact on delivery within the employees remit so the cost of one poor decision drives higher (not hire) and higher.

So who works this out as the most cost effective way to bring senior personalities into a business? Answers on a postcard please?