Share
25 February, 2013 by

JPMorgan’s Good-to-Great Recruiter Scorecard: Part III in Our Talent Advisor Series

SMAC success tape measureIf the old cliché is true—that “you cannot improve what you do not measure”—it should come as no surprise that only 19% of recruiters demonstrate Talent Advisor behaviors in the field. In many performance management schemes, recruiters are neither inspired to reach for that strategic ideal nor recognized for it.

(Want to know more about what makes a recruiter a Talent Advisor? Read Parts I and II of our series.)

More than one-half of recruiters report they are held accountable for process metrics, such as time-to-fill or volume-based metrics. Far fewer are held accountable for Talent Advisor capabilities that will be reflected in business impact, such as influence on hiring manager decisions or business unit performance.

Should they be accountable for these metrics? CEB research says yes. Holding recruiters accountable for business impact metrics, in addition to process metrics, generates an additional 25% impact on recruiter performance.  

JPMorgan designed a scorecard that successfully does this.  Their “Good-to-Great” scorecard embeds strategic metrics—such as hiring manager feedback on key strategic competencies—and weighs these metrics alongside traditional process and compliance metrics. Strategic effectiveness carries up to 40% weight in each recruiter scorecard.

Scores are data driven, and they are articulated with enough detail to enable recruiters to act on them. Rather than a nebulous score for “being consultative,” the scorecard measures specific competencies and behaviors that can then be targeted for improvement.

As a result, the development of strategic recruiter capabilities isn’t a one-off event; it is a repeatable process.

Read more about JPMorgan’s best practice, and customize their scorecard for your organization.

2 Responses

Leave a Reply

*