What Are The Key Differences Between Time to Fill and Time to Hire?

Although some people use the terms interchangeably, “time to fill” and “time to hire” are distinctly different metrics that serve integral parts of the talent acquisition process. The former measures the average number of days it takes to have someone start working in a role, while the latter tracks how fast a candidate progresses through the hiring process until the offer stage, labor experts informed HR Dive. This differentiation can have significant impacts on how companies assess their recruitment efficiency and candidate experience.

Calculating Time to Fill

Rick Hermanns, CEO of global staffing company HireQuest, previously explained his method for calculating the metric known as time to fill. The process involves three essential steps:

  • Define the start and end points for measurement. Typically, the clock might start ticking when a job is posted or when HR receives a job requisition form, ending when the candidate officially begins work.
  • Calculate the duration for a single position by counting the number of workdays from the starting point to the endpoint.
  • Summate the time to fill for each position and divide by the total number of positions filled to obtain the average time to fill.

Adopting these guidelines provides a straightforward way to measure and optimize recruitment timelines.

Trends Around Time to Hire

The report by human capital management company The Josh Bersin Co. and talent firm AMS indicates that time-to-hire rates have risen in recent years, revealing it now takes an average of 44 days to fill a job opening. However, this figure can vary significantly depending on the industry. For instance, energy and defense sectors face more prolonged hiring periods, averaging 67 days for specialists.

The data underscores varying ease and difficulty levels in filling positions, which can inform strategic adjustments to recruitment processes across different sectors. Notably, the findings pointed out that overall hiring in many regions is expected to slow and face more challenges.

The Bottom Line

People often confuse “time to fill” and “time to hire,” but these metrics are quite different and both play important roles in the talent acquisition process. “Time to fill” refers to the average number of days it takes from when a job is posted until a candidate starts working. On the other hand, “time to hire” measures the speed at which someone moves through the hiring process, from the initial job application to the moment an offer is made. According to labor experts consulted by HR Dive, understanding these differences is crucial for companies. It allows organizations to better evaluate their recruitment efficiency and improve aspects of the candidate experience. By analyzing both metrics, employers can identify delays in the hiring process and make improvements to attract and secure top talent more effectively. This kind of insight can lead to more strategic decision-making in talent acquisition, ultimately benefiting both the company and potential employees.

Explore more

How Is AI Closing the Gap in Customer Conversations?

The digital footprints of modern commerce often leave behind a trail of binary data, but the most profound truths about a brand’s health remain locked within the messy, emotional, and often unpredictable nuance of human speech. While organizations have spent decades perfecting the art of the post-transactional survey, they have largely ignored the goldmine of information vibrating through the phone

How Does CRM Fragmentation Drain Your Sales Productivity?

High-performing sales representatives often spend more time acting as digital detectives than closing deals because their customer data lives in ten different places at once. This digital fragmentation forces teams into a perpetual juggling act where navigating a labyrinth of browser tabs becomes the primary mode of operation. When information about a single lead is scattered across disparate platforms, preparing

How to Transform Real Estate CRMs Into High-Yield Assets

The relentless hum of a high-performance computer often masks the silent financial drain of a real estate professional’s most expensive and underutilized digital tool. Most real estate practitioners pay significant monthly fees for advanced Customer Relationship Management platforms, yet many treat these sophisticated engines like digital filing cabinets. While the technology promises to streamline operations and maximize revenue, the reality

AI Reshapes Technical Hiring and Entry-Level Pipelines

The once-reliable path of starting as a junior analyst and slowly climbing the corporate ladder has been fundamentally disrupted by the rapid integration of sophisticated autonomous systems that now manage routine tasks with superhuman speed. Hiring managers are no longer looking for people to organize spreadsheets; they are seeking architects of the future. This shift marks the definitive transition toward

AI Recruitment Tools Invent and Reinforce Their Own Biases

When a recruiting algorithm selects a candidate not because of their skills but because it hallucinated a success pattern out of thin air, the fundamental promise of meritocratic automation begins to crumble. This shift marks a departure from the era when developers merely feared that machines would inherit human prejudices; today, the concern is that they are actively manufacturing their