See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

The CareerXroads Annex

staffing, recruiting, employment, retention, HR

Employee Referrals are 54 Times as Likely to Result in a Job than ALL the Job Boards Put Together follow this blog post

Catching up on my reading lately I've been amazed by the increasing number of pseudo scientific claims for the relative value of one job board over another so I thought I would make my own.

Q: How much better are Employee Referrals than Job Boards?

A: So much better that the Job Board isn't relevant.

Proof:
Analyzing actual data (as opposed to guesses) from 24 specific firms who filled 188,000 positions during 2005 showed that 32% of the 188,000 were filled with internal movement and promotion. Of the remainder, the folks who were hired externally, 27.1% were filled by Employee Referrals. (source: CXR Annual Source of Hire Survey)

In a second study of employee referrals. More than 50 firms reported that the ratio of the number of hires to the total number of referrals during 2005 produced a yield ranging from 1 hire for every 10 employee referrals to 1 hire for every 2 employee referrals (with 1 hire for every 4 or .25 being the average). (source: CXR Colloquium Benchmark on Referral Practices)

If all companies hired the same percentage of employee referrals (they do not) and, if the average yield for referrals were true for all companies large and small (they are not) then a typical job seeker (there are none) has .271 X .25 chance of being hired if they get a employee to refer them - or about a 6.5% chance of getting hired if they simply focus on getting an employee in a targeted company to refer them.

The Source of Hire study previously mentioned also found that job boards represented an average of 12% of all external hires (that?s all niche sites as well as the big three job boards). There was a flaw with this statistic. Companies continue to report their website as a significant source of hire (and I believe this penchant for attributing hires to a destination rather than a source seriously dilutes the data from other sources- especially job boards) so we?ll double the number of hires attributed to job boards to 24% of all external hires for this calcualtion. We believe this is very generous.

But now the question is ? just how likely is it that a submitted resume will end up becoming a hire? I?ll be conservative and estimate that the average # of resumes submitted for a single job is 200. (We have several sources and anecdotal evidence that the number is much higher.)

So, our typical job seeker can expect that the probability of their resume being selected and eventually being hired for one of the 24% of openings attributed to job boards is (1/200) or .005 x .24 =.12% .

Conclusion:
Therefore, we logically claim that Employee Referrals are 6.5/.12 or 54 times more likely to result in a hire than all job boards put together.

In this context if one job board is twice as good as another - who cares?

Postscript:
I can think of several mitigating factors. For example, job seekers do not use one source. They are likely to target a company because they've noticed on jobboards that the company is hiring. Attributing a hire to an employee referral could oclude the fact that the original lead was spotted on a job board.

On the other hand, I've never seen a job board actually work with a client to ascertain the number of hires that can truly be attributed to it- in full or, in part.

My best advice to job seekeres remains- "Never, for the rest of your life, ever again apply for a job without first getting an employee in the company you target to refer you- even reccomend you if possible."

,

10 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I love this topic of conversation because there are few organizations that can really speak on their employee referral programs.

    As for the topic of inbreeding, I agree that would be a dangerous situation but my research says we are a long way from having to worry about it.

    I just took a sample from the Fortune 500. I randomly picked 10 companies, Microsoft, CitiGroup, AIG, Sony, Goldman Sachs, Coca-Cola, Home Depot, Apple Caterpillar and United Technologies. I went to Hoovers.com and got their employee numbers. Here are my results from my short study:

    Total Numbers: 2004 Employees: 1,287,776 2005 Employees: 1,388,686 Net Increase in Employees: 100,910 est. Total # Hires needed: 121,092 (an add'l 20% for attrition) Referral Hires (27.1%): 27,347 # of Referrals needed: 109,386 (5:1, submittal:hire ratio)

    Assuming that the ratio for employee:referral ratio is a 1:1, the overall percentage of employees that participate in referral programs is approximately 9.8%.

    I agree with Gerry that employee referrals are not only important to any organization but often an under utilized pool of candidates.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I believe that the logic is wrong. The problem is that the source of hires aren't mutually exclusive. Recruiters don't block off a certain selection of jobs just for referrals. Job seekers with referrals compete with job seekers from the job boards. I believe the more logical conclusion is that a job seeker with a referral has twice the chances (.274 + .24 = .514) of getting the job than a job seeker without a referral (.24).

    In the end, it still means that the job seeker should get a referral if they can.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Throwing more money at a referral has never shown to increase the quality of referrals - quite the opposite actually. If you keep people referring for the right reasons, you increase your odds of success.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Throwing more money at a referral has never shown to increase the quality of referrals - quite the opposite actually. If you keep people referring for the right reasons, you increase your odds of success.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I'd be interested to learn what type of referral reward systems the top companies have in place (especially if any of the companies are not household names). I know of a few companies that offer incentives as high as $2,000 for a referral that gets hired. You would be surprised how few of their employees take advantage of what is basically free money.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I look at employee referrals not from the perspective of who is getting hired, but rather from the perspective of the QUALITY of the hire.

    As part of our Financial Sales Indicator(TM) assessment, we measure objective factors in a candidate's background that have been shown to predict actual sales performance, and use this as part of our hiring system. For example, with a large bank, we recently found that Financial Advisors who came in through employee referrals were 16% more productive than those from other sources!

    Steve Torkel, Ph.D. Torkel Research www.torkelresearch.com

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Then is the corporation's own "job board" relevant?

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    The data Gerry presents seems to make that a logical conclusion.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    A significant problem that employers face if they rely too much on employee referrals is that people tend to refer others who are from the same communities, share the same skills, and are otherwise cut from the same cloth. If diversity in the workplace is important (and I'm talking not just about racial diversity but also about diversity of culture, thought processes, skills, etc.), then employers need to recruit from sources other than referrals. Some referrals are good, but too many will lead to an organization that is dangerously inbred.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Gerry,

    After reading this excellent post, I'm thinking to myself... Wouldn't it make sense then for Researcher/Sourcer types to start internally for lead generation activites?

    Thanks, Jeremy Langhans