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

Strategies to Strengthen Engagement in Distributed Teams

The fundamental nature of professional commitment underwent a radical transformation as the traditional office-centric model gave way to a decentralized landscape where digital interaction defines the standard of excellence. This transition from a physical proximity model to a distributed framework has forced organizational leaders to reconsider how they define, measure, and encourage active participation within their workforces. In the current

How Is Strategic M&A Reshaping the UK Wealth Sector?

The British wealth management industry is currently navigating a period of unprecedented structural change, where the traditional boundaries between boutique advisory and institutional fund management are rapidly dissolving. As client expectations for digital-first, holistic financial planning intersect with an increasingly complex regulatory environment, firms are discovering that organic growth alone is no longer sufficient to maintain a competitive edge. This

HR Redesigns the Modern Workplace for Remote Success

Data from current labor market reports indicates that nearly seventy percent of workers in technical and creative fields would rather resign than return to a rigid, five-day-a-week office schedule. This shift has forced human resources departments to abandon temporary survival tactics in favor of a permanent architectural overhaul of the modern corporate environment. Companies like GitLab and Cisco are no

Is Generative AI Actually Making Hiring More Difficult?

While human resources departments once viewed the emergence of advanced automated intelligence as a definitive solution for streamlining talent acquisition, the current reality suggests that these digital tools have inadvertently created an overwhelming sea of indistinguishable applications that mask true professional capability. On paper, the technology promised a frictionless experience where candidates could refine resumes effortlessly and hiring managers could

Trend Analysis: Responsible AI in Financial Services

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into the financial sector has moved beyond experimental pilots to become a cornerstone of global corporate strategy as institutions grapple with the delicate balance of innovation and ethical oversight. This transformation marks a departure from the chaotic implementation strategies seen in previous years, signaling a move toward a more disciplined and accountable framework. As