5 key outcomes:
- A small change makes a big impact
- Traditional recruitment is slow and expensive
- A bad hire can cost $82,000 / R1,200,000
- Objectivity is cheaper, faster and better
- We see 90% time savings with measurably better talent
About the webinar:
The Zero Talent Waste webinar was hosted by HFMtalentindex MD Benjamin Buckingham, together with Nick Smith from CHRO and two international industry experts: Emma Engebretzen, Country Manager of Assessio Sweden, and Fabian Åhlin, Sweden’s HR employee of the year and Senior Talent Acquisition Specialist at BillerudKorsnäs.
Watch the recording below:
Key outcomes from the webinar
A small change makes a big impact
Zero Talent Waste turns traditional recruitment on its head by using technology to lead with objective measurements of talent. This reduces the dependency on the manual, subjective aspects of hiring. The approach uses an uncapped model to conduct unlimited online assessments before manual screening and interviews.
While it may seem like a small shift in terms of commercial thinking, this simple change has a huge impact on talent quality and HR efficiency.
Traditional recruitment is slow and expensive
When polled, 70% of webinar delegates indicated a desire to improve the effectiveness of their recruitment process. 20% indicated that significant time and resources are spent on the cost of bad hires, while 48% felt that sourcing talent and manual screening take up most of their focus.
This negatively impacts on time and resources, and it relies primarily on CV criteria that are subjectively supplied and interpreted.
A bad hire can cost $82,000 / R1,200,000
Hiring is never free. Besides the time it takes and its impact on the company’s employer brand, it’s also expensive. It takes, on average, 36 days to make a decision, with an average cost per hire of $4,400 (R64,000). This figure rises exponentially when dealing with leadership roles (SHRM). Research by PWC shows that a bad hire in an important role costs the organisation, on average, $82,000 (R1,200,000).
Objectivity is cheaper, faster and better
Recruitment traditionally starts with poor predictors of performance: years of education, years of job experience and reference checks have correlations with performance of less than 0.30 (Schmidt & Hunter).
We are better off leading with the strongest predictors of performance and supporting the process with objective data, such as general mental ability (GMA), personality and competencies. These criteria demonstrate a 2x – 2.5x stronger correlation with performance.
Subjective input is still important. However, we should lead with objective data first, consider subjective input towards the end of the process, and not screen candidates out because of it.
We see 90% time saving with measurably better talent
Clients who follow a Zero Talent Waste report saving 90% of their time, increasing leadership effectiveness by 35% and increasing sales revenue by 25%. Findings show that data-led recruitment is 9 times more effective while decreasing the risk of bad hires and increasing talent retention by 170%.