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

NHS Federated Data Platform – Review

While the global financial landscape reacts with fervor to the immense valuation of enterprise reasoning software, the National Health Service currently navigates a paradoxical reality where it owns one of the world’s most advanced data engines yet struggles to activate its full operational power across its vast network of trusts. The NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) is not merely a

Is the Bitwise NEAR ETF the Future of the AI-Crypto Economy?

The digital asset landscape is currently witnessing a profound convergence between decentralized finance and artificial intelligence, a shift that is redefining the “agentic economy.” At the heart of this evolution is the NEAR Protocol, a blockchain designed by pioneering AI researchers to serve as the high-speed settlement layer for autonomous transactions. To help us navigate the implications of this technological

AI Skill Development – Review

The rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the way professionals and students approach complex problem-solving, creating a precarious balance between unprecedented efficiency and the potential erosion of independent human reasoning. This integration into the modern workforce represents a significant advancement that moves beyond mere automation toward a collaborative cognitive environment. This review explores the evolution of this

Is Agentic Commerce the Future of Shopify’s Growth?

Introduction Digital storefronts are no longer merely passive destinations for human browsers but have become active nodes in a sophisticated network of autonomous purchasing agents. This evolution marks a decisive shift in e-commerce strategy as platforms move toward environments where algorithms, rather than individuals, navigate the catalog to make buying decisions. Shopify has positioned itself at the epicenter of this

Will Ethereum Hold as ICO Whales and Founders Cash Out?

When an original ICO whale deposits $36.37 million into a centralized exchange after a nine-year dormancy, the broader market must weigh the impact of sudden sell-side pressure. As the digital asset landscape navigates this influx of liquidity, Ethereum continues to maintain a critical defensive perimeter above the $2,700 mark, displaying an unexpected level of resilience. Despite the potential for a