Why your ‘time to hire’ could suddenly be your biggest weakness
You can have a strong job advertisement, run effective campaigns and still end up being too late. Not because the market isn’t interested, but because the process loses time along the way: waiting for feedback, too many rounds of interviews, unclear decision-making criteria or a schedule that keeps changing.
Improving time to hire It’s not about running faster, but about eliminating friction without lowering the bar. That starts with measuring properly: only once you know where the days are being lost can you make them up.
Exactly what you’re measuring (and why definitions are everything)
Many teams say, “Our turnaround time is too long”, but then end up comparing apples with oranges. One department starts counting from the job vacancy request, whilst another starts from the publication date. And some teams only stop counting when the contract begins, whilst others stop at the point of acceptance.
You should therefore spell out two definitions and then stick to them:
- Time to hire: from the initial contact with the candidate (or application) to the signed offer/acceptance.
- Time to fill: from the job vacancy being advertised to a signed offer/acceptance.
Time to fill is particularly relevant for capacity and planning. Time to hire is the best indicator of how quickly you respond to candidates, and has a direct impact on the candidate experience.
The basic set of tools that almost always does the job
You don’t need a data team to carry out meaningful measurements. An ATS export or a simple spreadsheet will get you a long way.
- Date the vacancy was advertised
- Date of first response to the candidate
- Date of first interview
- Date of the second round/case study
- Date of decision
- Date of offer
- Date of acceptance
Break down your time-to-hire into process steps
If you simply report an average (“38 days”), you still won’t know what you need to do differently tomorrow. The gains almost always lie in 1–2 bottlenecks.
Would you like to find out more about data-driven recruitment?
- Recruitment using AI and data
- Takes an average of 3–8 weeks to complete
You should therefore use a simple funnel with time intervals between each step. This makes waiting times visible, and waiting times are usually the real problem.
Example: where are the days actually?
Use the table below to identify, step by step, where delays are occurring. Complete this for each job category (e.g. operators, technicians, sales), as patterns vary by target group.
| Process step | What you measure | A sign that it’s rubbing | Rapid intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Response | Job application → initial response | > 24–48 hours | Daily “inbox scan” + standard templates |
| Planning | Initial response → First interview | > 5 working days | Regular interview slots in diaries |
| Decision-making | Final meeting → decision | > 48 hours | Decision rule in advance + scoring immediately after the interview |
| Offer | Decision → offer | > 2–3 days | Agree on bandwidths and approvals in advance |
| Acceptance | Offer → acceptance | > 7 days | Clear deadline + review of objections within 24 hours |
KPIs that improve speed without compromising quality
Focusing solely on “speed” can create perverse incentives. Teams are then more likely to reject applications, carry out fewer checks or make an offer too quickly that isn’t appropriate. You should therefore combine speed KPIs with quality and predictability KPIs.
A practical set of KPIs (up to 6) for continuous improvement
- Median time to hire by job category (the median is more stable than the average).
- Time to first response (target: within 24 hours on working days).
- Time between the last interview and the decision (target: < 48 hours).
- Offer acceptance rate (an indication of whether your offer and expectations are in line).
- Drop-off by stage (At what stage do candidates drop out?).
- Quality check: 90-day review (retention/manager satisfaction) to prevent speed from becoming “cheap”.
If you want to make your selection more predictable whilst picking up the pace, an objective benchmark will help. A selection scorecard for hiring managers prevents you from falling behind later on due to discussions based on gut feeling.
The 7 biggest time-wasters (and how to get rid of them)
In many organisations, lead times are not prolonged by a single major error, but by small delays that build up. Listed below are the most common causes in practice.
1) Responding to candidates too late
If you reply after three days, there’s a good chance you’ll be left with nothing but the undecided. That’s precisely the “don’t be slow” problem, but now made quantifiable.
- Set aside a daily review slot (15 minutes) to check for new comments.
- Automate the confirmation of receipt, but follow up with a personalised message within 24 hours.
2) Interview rounds without a clear role
Every additional round should yield new information. If round 2 is mainly about “getting to know each other a bit better”, it takes up time and introduces bias.
A structured interview helps to gather more evidence with fewer interviews.
3) No pre-determined decision-making rule
If you only start thinking about what “sufficient” means after the meeting, you’ll end up with procrastination and endless back-and-forth. Decide in advance what’s a deal-breaker and what can be worked on.
4) Waiting for one busy stakeholder
A hiring manager who isn’t available until next week slows down your process. Sort this out by setting fixed interview slots, even if no candidate has been scheduled yet.
5) Offers that require approval each time
A lot of time is wasted between “we want him” and “the offer is ready”. Agree on the parameters in advance (salary, allowances, start date) and make sure that exceptions are truly exceptional.
6) Uncertainty regarding privacy and retention periods
Teams are sometimes reluctant to record or share information, which leads to feedback becoming scattered and decisions being delayed. Ensure there is a clear process for handling application data, including retention periods and transparency towards candidates. The Explanation from the Dutch Data Protection Authority regarding job application data helps to organise this neatly.
7) Quality becomes ‘opinion’, not data
If quality is not defined, the loudest voice prevails. This leads to re-evaluations, doubts and having to start all over again. You should therefore link selection criteria to observable behaviour and score candidates immediately after the interview.
If you recognise several of these mistakes, this ties in with the broader pitfalls described by FosFor in These 4 mistakes are costing you your best candidates.
A practical improvement plan in 30 days
A major overhaul of your process sounds appealing, but it rarely works. It’s better to choose one job category and implement small, measurable changes.
Week 1: baseline and definitions
- Choose your definition of ‘time to hire’ and set it out in writing.
- Export the last 10–20 hires and calculate the medians for each step.
- Identify your biggest bottleneck (usually response time, planning or decision-making).
Week 2: Resolving one bottleneck
- Response: Agree on an SLA (e.g. within 24 hours) and assign ownership.
- Planning: fixed interview slots and a stand-in interviewer.
- Decision-making: scorecards are mandatory and a decision must be made within 48 hours.
Week 3: Streamlining the supply process
- Work with pre-approved bid ranges.
- Arrange a call within 24 hours of the offer to address any concerns.
Week 4: Ensuring compliance and reporting
- Create a weekly dashboard (max. 6 KPIs) and discuss it with stakeholders for 20 minutes.
- Define what constitutes ‘normal’ for each job category, so that exceptions stand out immediately.
Please note: faster is only better if your choice remains justifiable
A fast-track process that ends in uncertainty, a reopening of the case or a hasty exit is not an improvement. The combination that does work is: speed in planning and decision-making, and thoroughness at the moments that really matter.
Research has shown for years that structured selection methods are better at predicting outcomes than “informal interviews”. You can find a clear summary at the The American Psychological Association on structured interviews.
Next step: make your process measurable and open to discussion
If you want to improve your time to hire, start small: define your metric, break the process down into steps and tackle one bottleneck. After two to four weeks, you’ll often already be able to see where you can save the most time.
If you’d like to discuss a data-driven approach that combines speed, selection quality and the candidate journey, it would be a good idea to talk to FosFor about this and compare your process with the figures.