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

Is Shadow AI Putting Your Small Business at Risk?

Behind the closed doors of modern office spaces, nearly half of the global workforce is currently leveraging unauthorized artificial intelligence tools to meet increasingly aggressive deadlines without the knowledge or consent of their management teams. This phenomenon, known as shadow AI, creates a sprawling underground economy of digital shortcuts that bypass traditional security protocols and oversight mechanisms. While these employees

Is AI-Driven Efficiency Killing Workplace Innovation?

The corporate landscape is currently witnessing an unprecedented surge in algorithmic optimization that paradoxically leaves human potential idling on the sidelines of progress. While digital dashboards report record-breaking speed and accuracy, the internal machinery of human ingenuity is beginning to rust from underuse. This friction between cold efficiency and warm creativity defines the modern office, where the pursuit of perfection

Is Efficiency Replacing Empathy in the AI-Driven Workplace?

The once-vibrant focus on expansive employee wellness programs and emotional support systems is rapidly yielding to a more clinical, data-driven architecture that prioritizes systemic output over individual sentiment. While the early part of this decade emphasized the human side of the workforce as a response to global instability, the current trajectory points toward a rigorous pursuit of optimization. Organizations are

5 ChatGPT Prompts to Build a Self-Sufficient Team

The moment a founder realizes that their physical presence is the primary obstacle to the growth of their organization, the true journey toward a scalable enterprise begins. Many entrepreneurs fall into the trap of perpetual micromanagement, believing that personal involvement in every micro-decision ensures quality and consistency. However, this level of control eventually becomes a debilitating bottleneck that limits the

Trend Analysis: Recycling Industry Automation

In the current landscape of global sustainability, municipal sorting facilities are grappling with a daunting forty percent employee turnover rate while simultaneously confronting extremely hazardous environmental conditions that jeopardize human safety on a daily basis. As these facilities struggle to maintain operations, a new generation of robotic colleagues is stepping onto the sorting floor to mitigate this chronic labor crisis.