Earlier today, I had an interesting call with a long-time acquaintance who is very, very well respected as one of the world’s foremost hiring experts. Every time I get to speak with him, it is a real treat as he’s gracious and full of wisdom that he gladly shares.
The question that he asked was how a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of a large organization can advise their Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) on evaluating the returns on investment (ROI) of their job board vendors. Should human resources (HR) look to the length of time that candidates from one job board remain with the employer versus candidates from another? Should the productivity of those employees factor in and, if so, how do you measure that? Is there a better approach?
At a high level, I made the point that individuals and organizations should be held accountable, but only for matters largely within their control and not for matters largely outside of their control. Job boards are not involved in the screening or selection of candidates, and so job boards should not be held accountable for screening, selection, or anything that comes after those steps, including how long an employee remains with the employer or how productive they were during that tenure.
Although I think that I made the case for not evaluating the ROI of job boards based on factors such as longevity or productivity of employees, I had not yet made the case for how job boards should be evaluated. I recommended a somewhat structured approach to guide this evaluation.