One cool thing about going to a bunch of HR and Talent conferences in the spring is you get to hear what everyone is doing around the world. At one point in the past two weeks, I honestly can’t remember who or where I heard someone speak about measuring their “increase in talent” to the organization.
The actual measure was something like this:
Take the performance appraisal data from the previous employee in a position, and compare it to the new employee in a position.
So, it would be like, Hank used to be our accountant and his last performance appraisal was a 6 out of 10. Mary is the new accountant and her performance appraisal is a 7 out of 10. Thus, Talent Acquisition “increased” the overall talent to the organization.
Yes, you just read that correctly.
This is wrong on so many levels, I couldn’t even speak to the person who thought it was brilliant. But, I’ll try to point out a few here:
- You can’t realistically compare performances of one employee who was in a position for a certain period of time, to a new person in the same position at a different period of time. There are too many variables at play with just time in position.
- Is this really the most important thing you could figure out to measure? What about what it cost to deliver said talent? What about candidate experience? What about overall org performance measures as compared to retention, turnover, etc.?
- Where does the hiring manager relationship come into play in this measure? “I think Hank is an idiot because he was hired by Jim who I took over for and he screwed this entire department up! But, Mary is my hire and… “
- If you truly feel this important, what has your “increase” in talent metric done for the organization?
- Did I mention you are totally ignoring time, space, and circumstance?!?
I get it. We all want to come up with the next rock star HR metric that is going to put us on the cover of HR Magazine. Okay, no not really. No one is actually thinking this! If you are, I’m sad for you.
We are losing our minds with data and analytics right now. Just because you can measure something, doesn’t mean you should measure something.
Yes, you should want to increase the talent in your organization. No, you should not try and measure that by comparing subjective performance appraisal data of two people from different periods of time.
How would I measure whether we/TA/HR are increasing talent in the organization? That is a really tough question to answer, because, like most TA & HR metrics, it depends. It depends on your org, your data, the sophistication of your leadership and team, etc.
If I’m already going to rely on subjective data to measure my team’s performance, I would probably just start with asking the hiring managers directly. Is our talent better today than a year ago? You could then pair that measure up with actual organizational performance and really go crazy. Either way, neither one is really telling you if you actually increased talent!
What we need in TA and HR is a governing body who actually comes up with one standard set of metrics we can build and compare across industries. Wouldn’t that be nice!?
If you Google “Tim Sackett” you’ll find our Tim, and a truck driver chaplain. Our Tim is NOT the truck driver chaplain, although how awesome would that be if he was!? He is a prolific writer in the HR and TA space who just happens to also run an Engineering and IT contract staffing agency (HRU Technical Resources) out of Michigan. He also writes every day at his own blog, the Tim Sackett Project. Weirdly, he’s known as an expert in workplace hugging, which was kind of cool years ago, but now seems painfully creepy, but we still love him and he’s fairly harmless. Tim is also on the board of the Association of Talent Acquisition Professionals (ATAP), lifetime Michigan State Spartan fan, husband to a Hall of Fame wife, 3 sons, and his best friend Scout. He also wrote a book with SHRM called The Talent Fix, you can find it on Amazon.