I feel very sad to say it but I believe that recruitment really is a poor relation in a corporate organisation. Whereas the purchase of any kind of asset is considered an investment I really feel that recruitment is viewed as a cost and a necessary transaction. And yet, investing in high performing individuals will undoubtedly have a very positive impact on your business.
So, if organisations were to view recruitment as a real asset, wouldn't they be more inclined to include it in their continuous improvement strategy, gaining as much feedback and data as possible to identify how the process can be improved so that an even better person is enticed and recruited next time, risk is minimised and performance incrementally improved.
Data, its communication and use in improving systems and processes is key to this.
As long as recruitment is seen as the transactional poor relation though, nothing will change and the revolving door of failing employees will continue!!
Corporate recruiting, unfortunately, operates as if it were an island. Recruiting can, justifiably, be accused of acting as if it is an autonomous corporate entity because it seldom has any formal processes for sharing information and data with other clearly interdependent business functions. For example, in most corporations, when a recent hire fails, there is no feedback loop to recruiting from the exit interview process. This exit information could alert recruiting about the factors that caused the individual to fail (this information might allow them to improve the hiring criteria for this job). There is also no formal alert process from exit interviews that directly notifies recruiting that there is about to be a position opening (which would allow recruiting to begin preliminary sourcing). All Other Business Functions Are Striving to Increase Interconnectivity.