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 Jordan Leading a Digital Government Revolution?

A quiet revolution is unfolding across the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, one not fought with armies but with algorithms and data, fundamentally redesigning the relationship between the state and its people from the ground up. This sweeping change is driven by the “Human-Centered Digital Government” program, a national initiative backed by the World Bank that seeks to move beyond sluggish

What Is the True Foundation of Employee Engagement?

Corporate balance sheets are overflowing with expenditures on engagement platforms and wellness apps, yet global workforce engagement levels remain stubbornly low, reflecting a profound disconnect between organizational effort and employee experience. Despite unprecedented investment aimed at boosting morale and productivity, businesses find themselves in a perpetual cycle of measuring dissatisfaction, implementing superficial fixes, and watching as the needle on commitment

Can Robots Build a Safer Workplace Culture?

Despite decades of progress in workplace safety protocols and personal protective equipment, modern industrial facilities continue to grapple with a persistent paradox where human fallibility remains the greatest unaddressed vulnerability. This gap between safety policy and on-the-ground reality creates a costly and dangerous environment, challenging the very foundation of operational excellence. The core of this issue lies not in a

Robotic Process Automation – Review

Beyond the cinematic portrayals of intelligent machines, a quieter revolution is reshaping the modern workplace by automating the repetitive digital tasks that have long burdened human employees. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) represents a significant advancement in business process management and enterprise automation, offering a pragmatic solution to operational inefficiencies. This review will explore the evolution of the technology, its key

AI Drives Robotic Arm Market to $45.41 Billion by 2035

The global industrial robotic arm market is undergoing a profound transformation, evolving from a specialized tool into a foundational asset for competitive global enterprises. This shift is powered by the convergence of Industry 4.0 strategies, the need for resilient supply chains, and rapid technological advancements. At the forefront of this evolution is artificial intelligence, which, combined with human-robot collaboration, is