In the realm of hiring and onboarding, what matters most is finding the right person for each job and bringing them up to speed so they can become productive members of your team. As a result, time-to-fill and time-to-hire calculations definitely matter.<\/p>\n
What is \u201ctime to fill\u201d (or T2F), and how do you calculate it?<\/h2>\n
Many believe this metric is fundamental to recruiting efficiency. Most organizations want to see the calendar days and hours from when the hiring manager submits a job opening for approval until the ultimate candidate accepts the job offer. With this approach, time to fill encompasses the entire process. We’ll call this Option 1. However, some businesses prefer and adopt alternative starting points, with the exact end dates as Option 1. These occur when HR approves a job requisition (Option 2), or when a professional recruiter advertises the job opening (Option 3).<\/p>\n
So, to recap, three possible options for time to fill:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Option 1: From when the hiring manager submits a job for approval until a candidate accepts the offer.<\/li>\n
- Option 2: From when HR approves a job requisition until a candidate accepts the offer.<\/li>\n
- Option 3: From when a recruiter advertises the opening until a candidate accepts the offer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
![\"candidate](\"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/christina-wocintechchat-com-eF7HN40WbAQ-unsplash-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\nT2F microscopic focus<\/h2>\n
A few highly HR-centric companies choose to record all three time-to-fill options. Why? It enables two calculations:<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n- \n
- Option 1 \u2013 Option 2 = Time to approve job opening.<\/li>\n
- Option 1 \u2013 Option 3 = Time to advertise the job for applicants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
You might find this segmentation is excessively detailed. However, the equations above often highlight inefficiencies in the initial stages of the process. Also, data analytics and AI software can handle the breakdown seamlessly, speeding things up with additional insights. Whichever option or combination works for you is a step in the right direction, but ensure your calculation formula applies consistently to all departments, projects, and teams.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nWhat is time to hire (T2H)?<\/h2>\n
T2H begins when the eventually successful candidate applies for the requisitioned job until the incumbent accepts the position with your company. In other words, T2H erases all the time spent getting the process underway and on the other candidates considered during the process.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nWhat’s the difference between time to fill and time to hire?<\/h2>\n
Time to hire is always shorter than time to fill, so T2F – T2H = The extra time spent on the search outside of processing the eventual job winner.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nFrom another angle: T2F\/T2H = A crucial multiple. Why?<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nA. It provides broader analytics and insights. For example:<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n- \n
- A T2F of 45 days with a T2H of 10 days (i.e., 45\/10) tells us one needs 4.5 x T2H to investigate the talent field before the successful candidate joins the team.<\/li>\n
- If that could be cut down to (say) 2.5 times with improvements, costs would be reduced and the bottom line would benefit. How?\n
- \n
- Devising ways to attract better quality candidates from the get-go.<\/li>\n
- Scanning applications more efficiently.<\/li>\n
- Deciding on a short list with fewer interviews.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
B. Another massive motivation for quickly establishing new staff positions with matched talents and experience (i.e., a lower T2F\/T2H) is to thrive in the intensely competitive employee marketplace. Consider the following:<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n- \n
- The Great Resignation<\/a> of 2021 indicated that employees hold power over their career destinies by picking and choosing their employers – demanding better working conditions.<\/li>\n
- As a result, employer procrastination (dragging its heels) in deciding on hiring for a job position frequently results in strong candidates opting out of the process prematurely.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
C. Finally, lingering time and skill gaps in disrupted projects (because an employee, for whatever reason, has exited the team) may severely impact revenue and the bottom line. A reduced T2F\/T2H works to address these issues.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nOnly a few T2F calculations tell us little<\/h2>\n
Remember that job types within an organization are diverse, and not all skillsets can be found within a broad search of the general marketplace. For example, the time and scrutiny it takes to recruit a COO (chief executive officer), a bookkeeper, an IT specialist, a janitor, an engineer, and a social media manager may differ significantly from one another (in T2F calculations). Consequently, a more telling metric is the average time to fill, embracing all positions.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nSo, how do you calculate average time to fill?<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n- \n
- Select a period you want to see the average for (say, a year).<\/li>\n
- Add all the T2F times for recruits over the year. Say it comes to 465 days for 12 positions.<\/li>\n
- Divide the total days (480) by positions (12) = 40 days average time to fill.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
A few points to consider:<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n- \n
- Enterprise organizations hiring consistently and in large numbers may want to derive category averages to minimize job diversity skews.<\/li>\n
- On the other hand, many SMBs find this challenging and not a worthwhile breakdown.<\/li>\n
- Exclude exceptional situations, such as \u201calways open\u201d positions (e.g., servers in a restaurant), as unfairly inflating the averages and deflecting attention away from urgent issues in the hiring process.<\/li>\n
- The average formula similarly applies to \u201ctime to approve job opening\u201d and \u201ctime to advertise the job for applicants.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It doesn\u2019t take much to see that these T2F calculations can grow into an integrated metrics network – tedious to compile manually. The right tools can help you calculate and compile these metrics in a manner that delivers more value than frustration.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/GettyImages-1367318737-1-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\nWhat\u2019s the standard benchmark for time to fill?<\/h2>\n
Again, pointing out that benchmarks vary by position. However, big data evaluation conducted by The Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) underlines that 42 days is a universal yardstick, although industry benchmarks<\/a> vary widely (e.g., engineering is 62 days) – reemphasizing that job recruitment is occupation-specific.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nAnother skew factor rests in different companies in the same industry deploying one of the three T2F options highlighted above. So, for example, an Option 1 average is likely to differ widely from that of Option 3. As a result, comparisons are not apples-to-apples, and benchmark average calculations (across multiple entities) don\u2019t adjust for these variances. In short, I recommend focusing on the averages within your company and treating expansive comparatives with a pinch of salt.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nHow can organizations reduce time to fill?<\/h2>\n
While organizations differ, the goals of improving recruitment efficiency and hiring process optimization are very common. If you’re not already using employee experience management<\/a> tools and talent acquisition analytics, consider balancing these digital assets with your own human resources.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n- \n
- Anticipate job openings by actively building a candidate database.<\/strong> This approach gives you a running start, meaning you don\u2019t begin from scratch each time the same job opens up. How do you do that? Don\u2019t lose touch with unsuccessful (but close) candidates from past searches (i.e., those on your shortlist) or those applying after a job closing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Consider connecting with impressive but passive candidates.<\/strong> The latter category may not be actively looking. Still, a resourceful headhunter always has a few ideas in mind about how to entice seemingly content employees to shift to you at the appropriate time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Segmented analysis always tells you more.<\/strong> Not to belabor this point, but a finer breakdown using Options 1 to 3 above plus T2H can provide extra valuable insights to reduce time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Get everyone in the business involved in a time-to-fill mindset.<\/strong> Consider staff incentives and internal employee reminders to recommend qualified candidates, now and in the future.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Segmented analysis always tells you more.<\/strong> Not to belabor this point, but a finer breakdown using Options 1 to 3 above plus T2H can provide extra valuable insights to reduce time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Consider connecting with impressive but passive candidates.<\/strong> The latter category may not be actively looking. Still, a resourceful headhunter always has a few ideas in mind about how to entice seemingly content employees to shift to you at the appropriate time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Anticipate job openings by actively building a candidate database.<\/strong> This approach gives you a running start, meaning you don\u2019t begin from scratch each time the same job opens up. How do you do that? Don\u2019t lose touch with unsuccessful (but close) candidates from past searches (i.e., those on your shortlist) or those applying after a job closing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- As a result, employer procrastination (dragging its heels) in deciding on hiring for a job position frequently results in strong candidates opting out of the process prematurely.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- The Great Resignation<\/a> of 2021 indicated that employees hold power over their career destinies by picking and choosing their employers – demanding better working conditions.<\/li>\n