And yet, new hires still fail. Companies that come to us have often worked through their own performance metrics, wanting to know where they went wrong.

In this article, we let you into a reality often overlooked in the recruitment industry: that metrics alone are rarely going to get you the results you want to see.

Popular recruitment metrics and what they measure

Most of the metrics we see being used in recruitment concern time, cost, and retention rate: How quickly you fill a role and how quickly the candidate accepts the offer, how much you spent on the recruitment process, and from where you sourced your candidates.

Essentially, these metrics favour efficiency and budget, and avoid asking the most important question: Is the candidate thriving in your company? In his book The Score, the philosopher C. Thi Nguyen advises that we avoid using metrics as the single way to define success. Any system clear enough to optimise will be gamed.

Our Managing Director Emily Aldrich says, “For us, the issue is not that these metrics exist, but they are often optimised independently rather than connected to long-term hiring success and lack grounding in qualitative assessment.”

Metrics to rebalance

Isolated or poorly designed metrics can prioritise the wrong outcomes. Hiring evaluation works best when viewed across early, mid-term, and long-term signals, rather than as isolated metrics.

One of the first measurements to rethink should be your “time to fill the role” metric. Hiring the wrong people but quickly is not a good way to get the best team. Instead, consider tracking “time to effective contribution” to measure how long it takes a hire to consistently meet role expectations.

Another measurement to reconsider is anything that involves short-term evaluations. Performance indicators can only be measured reliably after some time has passed—in the already fast-paced finance and banking industry, we recommend anywhere from 12 months. Key measurements here can be promotions and bonus ratings within that period of time.

Finally, retention measurements that don’t take into account whether that hire was someone you wanted to stay on. Such mistakes left unaddressed will only lead to more mistakes. Consider changing this measurement to “regrettable attrition”, tracking only the hires you didn’t want to lose.

Better ways to evaluate hiring success

Some of the most potent ways to evaluate progress concern your hire’s fit within your team’s culture. Assess team dynamics by looking at their input into cross-team projects and stakeholder feedback. Who has become a natural leader? Who is a great facilitator and communicator? Such people are invaluable to companies who need to make big progress through their teams. Look out for role changes and promotions, as well as employees who have made use of certifications or training opportunities.

To make these assessments more reliable, use consistent peer feedback questions across all hires, run manager debriefs at fixed intervals, and focus on observable, objective behaviours like “shares information proactively” rather than subjective traits like “great personality”.

Another helpful way to see progress is through adaptability. In the finance and banking industry, companies are constantly having to adapt, to stay competitive. Employees should ideally show these characteristics, too. How do they weather change? Look out for their performance during key external events that would directly affect their work, such as shocks and downturns in the market.

Nevertheless, these measures still limit us. We have optimised in one way, but we risk optimising the metric rather than the outcome. So, how can we really make a profound improvement by evaluating our teams?

How to make real progress in your hiring evaluations

Some performances are difficult to reduce into KPIs. Have you noticed how some people can brighten a room just by being there? Or how some people are excellent at remembering details about a client and can break the ice with ease? These performance indicators cannot easily be defined by measuring techniques.

Without structure, qualitative judgment can introduce bias and inconsistency—so it should complement metrics, not replace them. But use metrics consciously and as guides rather than rules: As Nguyen says in his book, the moment you create a system that can be gamed, you have developed a weak system of measurement. Re-evaluate your metrics regularly to ensure that no-one dominates.

*

Remember that recruitment is a people system informed by data, not defined by it! Data has its limits, and knowing where those limits lie is a real skill. If you are looking for a recruitment consultancy that puts people front and centre of everything they do, talk to us. As specialists in London’s finance & banking industry, we can help you find the best team for your needs.