…that’s not really about poaching. In an article (may require free membership) about “The Cost and Benefit of ‘Poaching'”, the author presents the case of Yoh, a technical and professional staffing firm and argues that the ethics of poaching have overshadowed the more important issues of costs and bnefits. Fair enough.
But the title does nothing but incite a riot – and has nothing to do with the article which has as its premise that direct recruiting drives up labor costs. In citing the now infamous Watson Wyatt survey, the author relays the belief from Jamie Hale, National Practice Leader for Workforce Planning, that as a result of hiring directly from competitors, equity issues often arise that can cause morale and productivity problems. Hmmm…so can stocking an organization with average employees.
In using healthcare as an example – all my healthcare recruiter friends know the issues involving talent acquisition in their vertical – the difference in pay between the 50th and 75th percentile is now 7-9% whereas other industries typically see a 12-15% difference. This is attributable, according to Hale, to the 10-20% premium that has been paid to those who have been directly recruited. The article also attempts to finger the high TPR fees associated with direct recruiting as another factor that has thrown the cost structure out of balance. In the final analysis, the article asserts that proper workforce planning and developing talent from within are necessary to maintain a proper labor cost structure – and only use direct recruiting when absolutely necessary.
So what’s wrong here? A blanket statement generalizing the C/B of direct recruiting in healthcare to all industries is the kind of broadbrush approach that enables some to create fictitious arguments against direct recruiting. Further, to conduct a C/B analysis without
utilizing any performance measures demonstrates a remarkable short sighted view about the impact of recruiting. Correlate the costs with the outcomes – sales revenue generated, products developed, costs avoided, etc. – and see what develops. I’m not telling you what the results will be just offering that if you don’t conduct a proper analysis – well, garbage in, garbage out. Don’t ever forget that recruiting is an art, science, and business element.
utilizing any performance measures demonstrates a remarkable short sighted view about the impact of recruiting. Correlate the costs with the outcomes – sales revenue generated, products developed, costs avoided, etc. – and see what develops. I’m not telling you what the results will be just offering that if you don’t conduct a proper analysis – well, garbage in, garbage out. Don’t ever forget that recruiting is an art, science, and business element.
Advertisements
