In response to Denise Walker’s letter on key performance indicators (KPIs) (Recruiter, 26 November), KPIs can have a role to play, there’s no doubt. For example, focusing the recruiter in their time management and providing a useful analysis of their overall performance. However, I have strong opinions about using purely the ‘hit rate’ in ascertaining a recruiter’s performance when, in my opinion, so many other factors can distort the figures for any number of reasons.

Recruiters can do everything right in preparing, meeting and discussing the role with the client and similarly with the candidate to get the perfect fit. This results in a ‘firm’ offer made and the candidate has two other offers to consider — a ratio of 3 to 1 — and decides to take one of the offers. This type of scenario can heavily distort any KPI figures, hence I tend to take them with a ‘pinch of salt’. As the manager, I should know — and so should the recruiter — whether they are actually ‘cutting the mustard’ or need to improve.

An episode last year illustrates this. I remember having 12 interviews resulting in 11 placements and receiving the resulting plaudits from my colleagues. However, I was acutely aware I could have provided exactly the same level of service with a resultant four, five or six placements.

So KPIs should only be used as part of the equation. Denise Walker’s quoted ratios of 1/1 or 2 for senior consultants and 1 in 5 for trainees seems a bit far fetched in reality when assessing a recruiter’s overall performance, which can in fact have a counterproductive or even demoralising effect on some recruiters.