One of the least discussed topics in recruiting is the impact hiring managers have on the outcome of the recruiting process. While this is obvious to everybody, hiring managers do not have recruiting KPIs and their impact is almost never measured in other ways either. When I say almost, I am being overly generous. This should really surprise you in our data-obsessed times.

In fact, we have a schizophrenic situation: on the one side, HMs do have skin in the game, since if their team is not complete, they will miss KPIs that are measured. On the other hand, since they don’t have recruiting KPIs, they do not have skin in the recruiting game. If they mess up, the blame is typically pushed to the TA team. (These observations are industry- and size specific and apply mostly to mid-sized manufacturing, logistics, retail and fmcg players. For example, the picture is somewhat different at corporate/big tech, where we find a completely different set of problems.)

Factors to consider when planning the recruitment process

It’s difficult to judge what makes a hiring manager good. If somebody doesn’t create obstacles to the hiring process, is clear with his expectations, is a good communicator and flexible, is ready to adjust expectations to market realities, is responsive, seeks and listen to counsel, exercises critical thinking, etc., it still doesn’t guarantee that in the end the right person will be selected and hired.

Also, who’s in a position to judge who is a good hire, let alone the right hire: somebody who smoothly integrates into the current team, is adjustable and stays 5+ years? Somebody who delivers big things but perhaps leaves after 2 years? Expectations and decision makers below and above the HM  may change every few months – in fact the HMs themselves may change shortly after the hire was made; so do the pronounced and hidden agendas of players and organizations. While it may seem that it’s much easier to define who a bad hire is, even in this case, there are simply too many factors and what seems to be true in one point in time, may prove to be wrong in a few months.

All this being said there are a few things stakeholders, including HMs themselves, should consider when setting up the recruitment process for a particular role. For now, this is only about hiring managers, not the other stakeholders, their cooperation or the overall process.

• The HM’s career stage: are they at the beginning, mid-way or at the end of their career? Also: are they new, relatively new or an old-timer in their current role, etc.
• The HM’s influence and perception in the organization: a linchpin, an outsider, anti-social, a joker, a problem child, a feared dictator, defensive blame pusher, a responsible people supporter, etc.? How are they perceived? How much weight their words carry?
•  The HM’s team. Did the HM inherit or built the team? How’s his perception in the team? Is it a good and stable team? Is the churn-rate consistently high?
• The HM’s management experience and skills: both the measurable ones and the people-related ones, which are immediately perceivable, but rarely measurable.
• The HM’s hiring experience and skills. Many managers, even experienced ones, may have only limited hiring experience…or they may have lots of hiring experience from other companies, but being completely unfamiliar with how their current company hires.

At the very least, these factors should be discussed and considered by all stakeholders when planning the recruitment process, under the assumption that the HM hires foremost for the company’s benefit. The alternative is to make one single assumption – as is often the case at smaller and mid-sized companies: since the ultimate responsibility is with the hiring manager, thus he/she is ultimately right.