As a recruiter in the Human Resource department of a bank, I am well-versed in constraints. There are four recruiters on my team, including myself, and we cover the entirety of our organization’s footprint (approximately 4800 employees across 400 locations). At any given time, each recruiter has between 60-80 open positions that they must recruit for. At present, the hiring process includes the roles and responsibilities below:
Because there are so many different moving parts involved with the background, onboarding, and training responsibilities, I highlighted these tasks in orange to indicate that these roles can have additional processes and parties involved (pending the situation).
As one might suspect, the process above does not happen overnight. Although we do not have concrete KPIs in place, our “average time to hire” is recorded and presented to senior management. Time to fill consists of the moment the manager creates the replacement requisition (which then has to go through multiple lines of approval before it even gets to the recruiter) to the time the new employee starts their position. At its quickest, the process includes the time it takes for the manager to get through all of the interviews, for the recruiter to extend an offer, for the applicant to give two weeks’ notice to their current employer, and then for the new hire to actually start. Currently, our average time to fill is 59.48 days.
This, naturally, varies based on line of business. The process of hiring a teller in Baltimore, MD will be much quicker than hiring a Vmware administrator in Hermitage, PA. When there are limited applicants in an open position, it is the responsibility of a recruiter to source for candidates (via platforms like Indeed, LinkedIn, etc.) or to attend networking/recruiting events (ex: TechElevator, career fairs, etc.). Unfortunately, attending these events results in lost time spent on screening candidates, conducing intake meetings with managers, extending offers, displacing candidates, or working on other initiatives.
Throughout the process, hiring managers are still responsible for conducting business as usual, despite being short-staffed. This results in delays in returning feedback on candidates to recruiters. If an offer is ultimately extended, multiple situations can arise: (1) the candidate can accept the offer and start the background process (2) the candidate can counter-offer, at which point the recruiter would bring the counter to the hiring manager and HR business partner, who evaluates internal equity (3) the candidate can decline the offer. If a candidate counters an offer and a new offer is extended and then the candidate declines, a hiring manager may decide to extend an offer to a ‘runner-up’ candidate, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that runner-ups are still in the market due to length of the process. This can lead to the entire recruitment process starting over.
After months of hearing complaints regarding “burn out,” my manager put together a spreadsheet of tasks and asked each of the recruiters to write down how much time they allotted, per week, to that task. Although it certainly wasn’t an affinity diagram, it did reveal that the majority of the problems the recruiters faced were a result of (in some way/shape/form):
- Poorly defined responsibilities (internal employees and external vendors/applicants reaching out to recruiters for information or direction unrelated to recruitment)
- Difficult position to fill (due to limitations in compensation/schedule/location/skill/etc.)
Ultimately, resolving the above issues would likely require deeper root cause analysis. As it currently stands, identifying the issues that recruiters face, despite being a great way to vent, would ultimately be “treating the symptoms, not curing the condition.” Curing the condition would require a much larger group of participants at a much higher level.