BACK TO SCHOOL:

THE ABCS OF CAMPUS

RECRUITING METRICS

Get your unfair share of new graduate talent by building your

campus recruiting program on a foundation of best practice

metrics.

Webinar Takeaways:• How to set campus recruiting goals that align with your overall talent acquisition strategy.

• How to measure and benchmark your program’s success to remain competitive.

• How to analyze your results and make adjustments that drive program excellence.

TODAY’S GUEST STEVE TIUFEKCHIEV

• Chief Evangelist at Yello

• Has spent 20+ years working in the

recruiting space with a focus on university

recruiting

• Led college recruiting programs at SRA,

Deloitte, CompuCom and EDS

AGENDA

• High Level UR Landscape Fly-by

• Metrics – They’re Good For You

• Metrics - Measure Twice, Cut Once: The Importance of Planning

• Why Invest The Time

• Strategic Goals & Metrics – They’re Were Meant For Each Other

• Metrics – A Deeper Dive• Characteristics

• Benchmarking

• Audience Consideration

• Measuring The Formerly Un-Measurable - A New Frontier

• Helpful Resources

UNIVERSITY RECRUITING LANDSCAPE

Campus Hiring is Up, Up, Up• 2,175 hiring managers surveyed (CareerBuilder Survey)

• 65% will hire 1 or more grads

• 162 employers surveyed (NACE Survey)• Will hire nearly 10% more

• 2014 = 8.3% vs. 2015 = 9.6%

• 50% more jobs posted in 2015 than 2014

• More than 30% offering higher salaries

• Most willing to negotiate

SOURCES: CareerBuilder’s Survey, April 23, 2015NACE: Job Outlook for College Class of 2015 Hiring to Increase 9.6%

HIGHLY IN DEMAND SKILLS

• Accounting

• Computer Science

• Engineering

• Finance

SOURCES: NACE: Job Outlook for College Class of 2015 Hiring to Increase 9.6%

“Last fall’s recruiting went later than I’ve ever remembered it going. We finally had to shut it down before the holidays”

--Garth Motschenbacher, Dir., Employer Relations & Career Engagement, College of Engineering, Michigan State University

IN SUPPORT OF METRICS

“Don’t trust your gut: use data to

predict and shape the future”- Laszlo Bock, SVP People Operations

IN SUPPORT OF METRICS

The Language of Business• Sets you on equal footing with your departmental peers

Leadership Prefers Numbers• Especially at the “C” level, metrics are critical to capturing leadership’s

attention

Hard to Argue with Facts

• Increases the chances for success when support if necessary

Keeps Focus on What’s Important• Signals when it’s time to move on

IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don't much care where—" said Alice.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"—so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

- Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland

IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

“If you don’t know where you’re going,

how will you know you’ve arrived?”

STRATEGIC PLANS

Why Invest in Strategic Planning

• Framework for decisions or for securing support/approval

• Assists in benchmarking & performance monitoring

• Keeps focus when distractions arise

• Provides a basis for more detailed planning

• Stimulates change and becomes building block for next plan

STRATEGIC PLANS

Key Component: Strategic Goals

• They are intrinsic to planning

• Create the ideal measurement (metrics) opportunity

• Lends insight into actual vs. desired results

It’s How You’ll Know You’ve Arrived

STRATEGIC PLANS

Strategic Goals: Components

• Defining Goal = “The What”

• Defining Execution Strategy= “The How”

• Defining Measureable Metrics = “The End Game”

Define Strategic Goals

The “What”

Define The Execution Strategy

The “How”

Establish Measureable Metric

The “End Game”

STRATEGIC PLANS

STRATEGIC PLANS

Strategic Goal: Sample Goal

• Strategic Goal (The What)• Increase the number of interviewers certified to conduct interviews from

the current state of 20%

• Execution Strategy (The How)• Sponsor monthly interviewer training sessions

• Measureable Metric (The End Game)• Increase trained interviewers to 60% by year-end

METRICS - DIVING DEEPER

The Point Is….

Utilizing Metrics for the sake of metrics = Objective

Objective = Establish higher credibility within organization

METRICS - DIVING DEEPER

Metrics Should Ideally:

• Clearly relate to goals and objectives

• Be self-generating and provide a leading or predictive indication of performance

• Integrate into a normal part of the business process

• Be unambiguous, actionable, and in your control

• Provide baseline from year to year

METRICS - DIVING DEEPER

Retention Rate Promotion Rate Performance Rate

Applicant Interview Rate Applicant-to-Hire Ratio Interviews-per-Hire (Avg.)

Interview-to-Hire Ratio Interview Offer Rate Offer Accept Rate

Progress-to-Goal Rate Hire Rate Co-op/Intern Conversion Rate

( NACE’s Professional Standards for University Relations & Recruiting)Benchmarking Metrics

METRICS - DIVING DEEPER

Benchmarking Metrics

Business Impact & Performance Process Efficiency & Internal Program

Observed Job Performance * Stakeholder Satisfaction

Retention Applicant Quality

Diversity Offer /Decline % (qualify missed hires)

% to Plan Intern Conversion Rate

Termination Rate Cost Per Hire

Training Failure Rate % of Hires From Tier 1,2,3

Ascension Rate Goals Met

Training Scores ROI (Benefits – Costs)

% of College Hires in Top 50% Website Stats

Average 360 Scores Critical Incident

Plan vs. Actual Staff Engagement

Source: ERE.net Article, Metrics for Assessing College-hire Effectiveness and ROI, March 23, 2009, Dr. John Sullivan

METRICS - DIVING DEEPER

Sample Client Metrics

METRICS – TARGETING YOUR AUDIENCE

IMMEDIATE STAFF/TEAM

“Informational”

Cost Per Hire

Invites/Interview Ratios

Acceptance/Decline Rate

Conversion Rate

Tactical Strategic

HIRING MGRS. / LEADERSHIP

“Predictive”

Pipeline

Retention

Quality of Hire

DiversityINTE

RN

ALL

Y C

OM

MU

NIC

ATE

D

Source: Webinar, Recruiting Metrics: Quality of Hire, November 29, 2007, Dr. John Sullivan

EXTE

RN

ALL

Y C

OM

MU

NIC

ATE

D

METRICS – NEXT FRONTIER

Measuring the Formerly Un-Measureable

• Event Centric Metrics• Utilize data captured at career events (career fairs)

• Enabled by mobile recruiting solutions

• Provides predominantly real-time data

• Capable of providing “Aha” insights

• Encourages and allows for course corrections

• Campaign Metrics• Utilizes data captured from communication campaigns

METRICS – NEXT FRONTIER

Benchmarking Metrics

“Ghosts” Cost-Per-Candidate % Resumes Collected

% Candidate Evaluated % Candidates Recommended Candidate Sign-up Source

Candidate Interactions Section 503 Compliance Diversity

Cost Pe r Candidat e Total cost of an event divided by the candidates attended

$ 1 3 .2 9 CPC

$2139.00

Total Cost

161

Candidates Attended

$ 0 .7 5 Average Effective CPC

All Classifications

Re sum e Colle ct ion Pe rce nt age Number of resumes collected divided by the candidates attended

Tot a l % of Resum e s Collect ed

■ Resumes Collected

7 5 .1 6 % RCP

121

Resumes Collected

161

Candidates Attended

Candidat e Evaluat ion Percent age Total number of candidates evaluated divided by the candidates

attended

Tot a l % of Candida t es Eva lua t ed

■ Candidates Evaluated

55 .28%

CEP

All Evaluation Forms

89

Candidates Evaluated

161

Candidates Attended

Recom m ended Candidat es Total number of candidates recommended divided by the

candidates attended

Tot a l % of Candidat es Recom m ended

■ Strongly Recommended

■ Recommended

5 5 .2 8%

Recommended %

Career Fair

89

Candidates Recommended

161

Candidates Attended

Sample Event Metrics Report

University of Colorado - Boulder

METRICS – NEXT FRONTIER

Candidat e Signup Source A graphical representation of how each candidate signed up for

the event

Signup Source

■ Mobile Apps - 118

■ Collect - 36

■ Convenience - 4

■ Self-Registration - 3

161

Candidates Attended

Candidat e Int eract ions A graphical representation of how many times a candidate has

atttended an event up to and including the date of the event

Int e ract ions

■ 20 Interactions - 1

■ 17 Interactions - 1

■ 11 Interactions - 2

■ 10 Interactions - 3

■ 9 Interactions - 3

■ 8 Interactions - 1

■ 7 Interactions - 3

161

Candidates Attended

Sum m ary St at ist ics Event Classification: All Cla ssif ica t ions

As Compared to events from July 01 , 2 0 14 - June 30 , 2 0 15

161 Total Candidates Attended

174 Total Candidates Registered

90 Total Candidates Evaluated

1 /29 Attendance Event Rank

1 /29 Registration Event Rank

1 /2 9 Evaluation Event Rank

METRICS – REALITY CHECK

American Indian/Alaska

Native1

1%Asian

9247%

Black/African American

5930%

I do not wish to provide

21%

Two or More Races

63%

White34

18%

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

Black/African American

I do not wish to provide

Two or More Races

White

Diversity Metrics

METRICS – REALITY CHECK

American Indian/Alaska

Native1

1%Asian

9247%

Black/African American

5930%

I do not wish to provide

21%

Two or More Races

63%

White34

18%

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

Black/African American

I do not wish to provide

Two or More Races

White

Diversity Metrics – National Black MBA Conference

METRICS – REALITY CHECK

METRICS – REALITY CHECK

44% of Attendees

Walked Away? Why?

METRICS – REALITY CHECK

GoalEncouraged Students to

Visit The Employer’s Booth

GoalEncourage Students to Visit

Employer’s Career Page

Note: Significantly higher % of students viewed the message and clicked through to career

website

Note: Open rate > than 50% HIGHER compared to pre-event marketing

METRICS - REALITY CHECK

Lessons Learned• 21% indicated an interest in products and services = possible revenue opportunities

• Nearly 83% had between zero to 4 years of sales experience (NBMBAA = 80%)

• Nearly 24% had at least 5 years of management experience or more (NBMBAA = 40%)

• 3.7 in 10 students will require sponsorship (NBMBAA = 4 in 10)

• Only 8% fell into “Agency” related recommendations, with only 6 strongly recommended

• Only 6% were identified for on-site interviews; 10% identified for recruiter or discovery conversations

• Nearly 44% did not receive a recruiter evaluation. Possible causes:• Attendees left before visiting with a recruiter

• Recruiter spoke to a student but did not complete an evaluation

• Attendees may have only visited for prize registration

METRICS – RESOURCES

• Metrics for Assessing College-hire Effectiveness and ROI

• HR Ranks at the Bottom - Reasons to Adopt Metrics

• What’s Wrong With Metrics? Pretty Much Everything!”,

• Metrics For Executives

• NACE’s Professional Standards for University Relations & Recruiting

• Dr. Sullivan’s Webinar Slides

• High-impact Strategic Recruiting Metrics for WOWing Executives

• The Future of Predictive Analytics – The Next Generation of Talent Metrics To Consider

THANK YOU!

cielotalent.com