Industry-lead organizations already know that human assets are the most valuable within any company’s portfolio. And this fact gives added gravity to the hiring decisions we make – who we choose to hire can have a lasting and extraordinary impact on our bottom line.

Putting the Data Back in Your Data-Driven Hiring Strategy

So hiring is always a risky practice, right? With analytics on our side, it doesn’t have to be. In fact, it shouldn't be. Even a slight increase in Hiring Intelligence (from sourcing to recruiting to onboarding and everything in between) can drive a monumental yield in business value. 

We have the tech in place – data-informed recruitment practices are nothing new. And Crosschq’s Intelligence Cloud enables smarter hiring through elegant, reliable data sourcing (including info such as employee performance, EQ, technical skills, and much more) and advanced analytics. All organizations need to do is catch up. 

The reward? Comprehensive, multi-sourced, AI-enhanced prediction for Quality of Hire (QoH), for every hire your organization makes.

5 Key Data-Driven Insights to Improve Quality of Hire

The war for talent has companies scrambling to fill their employee rosters and keep desk chairs warm. If this is true for your org, you’re not alone. But for just a moment, let’s step back, take a breath, have a seat. Are you really going to risk candidate quality and longevity for a quick-and-easy onboard?

The answer we’re looking for is a resounding and emphatic “NO” from companies new and veteran to hiring intelligence. 

And we promise, you don’t have to. Person-specific data gleaned from the Crosschq platform after analyzing 24+ million hiring decisions can tell you all you need to know about the potential of your latest candidate. But listen, companies must also do the work to find risk-areas within their walls and protocols that could provide an additional pain point to new-hire success rates.

So without further ado, Crosschq Data Labs brings 5 new actionable insights for better Quality of Hire.

Here are the highlights:

• The agency dilemma. Yes, agencies provide a faster and more efficient hiring experience. But 40.6% of agencies exist in the lowest quartile for quality of hire. And what did we just talk about?
  
  Agencies may be your riskiest source for quality hires. 
  
  The problem is this: despite being faster than in-house recruiting, many agencies have excess time-consumption built into their process, and yield underperforming hires once they get to you. You don’t (necessarily) need to break up with your agencies today, but do take a good, hard look at agency performance and evaluate their contribution to your company. In other words, are they delivering quality candidates?
  
  
• Candidate sourcing matters. We all have our favorite platforms to recruit from, but don’t let your brand loyalty get in the way of a better hiring decision. For example, you may be surprised to hear that Indeed sourcing outperforms LinkedIn on Quality of Hire of knowledge workers.  
  
  Indeed outperforms LinkedIn on Quality of Hire.
  Over-relying on one or the other can hurt your mean QoH in the end. A generalist approach with attention paid to best hires per department per source will give you a leg up.

• Time to reprioritize DEIB. This is not the place to go into the business impact of focusing on diversity and equity in our hiring practices – you should know this by now, and you should understand why we can’t let the progress of the past 3 years start to slip.
  
  But that is what’s happening among an alarming number of companies. An 11% decrease in diversity hiring along gender and ethnicity lines is showing a strong correlation to a 9.2% increase in diverse terminations, both voluntary and involuntary.
  
  Diversity hiring has decreased 11% over the last two quarters compared to the prior six quarters.
  
  Want to keep your DEIB up, and your underrepresented employees happy, productive, and at your company in the first place? Reprioritize DEIB as a hiring point.
  
  
• Don’t take a candidate’s word for it. Pre-hire assessments can’t be relied on for a clear picture of a candidate’s QoH. For some roles – such as sales – a better self-rating correlated to a better QoH. Others – including engineering – indicated better QoH when the candidate rated themself poorly.
  
  Impact of traits or self-rating scores on Quality of Hire can vary by role or department. 
  
  So rather than coming up with a complex psychological profile for disparate departments within your organization, we recommend taking a 360-approach to gain insight on performance potential for new hires.
  
  
• Utilize analytics for lay-off decisions. You should be employing data at each stage within the candidate lifecycle. Without, you run the risk of losing some of your best people, and in so doing damaging your bottom line.
  
  You may be laying off your best hires.
  Last year, involuntarily terminated employees held an average QoH that was 15% higher than those who remained on board as companies leaned hard into a last-in-first-out model for separation.
  
  Do yourself a favor: do away with this way of thinking and adopt a data-driven methodology even at the bitter end.
  
  

Crosschq is the world’s first operating system purpose-built for Hiring Intelligence. We can help you improve hiring efficiency, candidate experience and Quality of Hire. For a quick walk-through of our product, set up a good time for a demo here.