The Requisition Backlog Under a Hiring Freeze
A software company of 1,400 employees froze headcount mid-year but approved 45 'critical' requisitions. Recruiting has 4 recruiters and a historical time-to-fill of 52 days. The VP of Engineering reports that 9 senior engineering roles have been open 70+ days, and two candidates declined offers citing slow process. Meanwhile, 30% of the requisition load is in sales and support roles with a 21-day market expectation. Agency spend has crept to $340K in the quarter because hiring managers bypass recruiting when roles age past 45 days. The CHRO wants a triage model that protects the critical roles without adding recruiters, and asks HR to justify any reallocation of the existing team.
1. How should HR triage the 45 requisitions given fixed recruiter capacity, and what principle should drive the allocation?
Read the worked answer
With 4 recruiters and a 52-day historical fill time, capacity is the binding constraint, so the question is where each recruiter-hour produces the most business value per day of delay-not first-come-first-served.
Segment the 45 requisitions on two axes: business criticality (revenue impact, single-point-of-failure risk, project dependency) and market difficulty/time sensitivity (senior engineering with 70+ day searches and offer-decline risk vs. sales/support with a 21-day expectation). That yields a triage:
- Tier 1 - senior engineering (9 roles): highest cost of vacancy and highest competitive risk; assign dedicated recruiter capacity and a compressed process.
- Tier 2 - high-volume sales/support: standardize and batch these (shared screening, pooled interviews) so they consume fewer recruiter-hours per hire, matching their 21-day market rhythm.
- Tier 3 - deferrable roles: pause or batch until Tier 1 stabilizes.
The principle to state explicitly to the CHRO: protect the roles where delay is most expensive and where candidates are most likely to walk. Reallocation is justified by expected cost-of-vacancy avoided, not by loudest hiring manager.
2. Hiring managers bypass recruiting after 45 days, driving $340K in agency spend. What should HR change, and how would you measure whether it worked?
Read the worked answer
The bypass is a symptom of lost confidence in the process, so the fix is to make the internal path faster and more transparent than the agency path, and to make bypass visible and costly.
Changes:
- Service-level agreement per tier - e.g., Tier 1 roles get a slate of qualified candidates within 14 days; publish actual vs. target weekly so managers see recruiting is responsive.
- Compressed senior-engineering process - pre-scheduled interview panels and a 48-hour offer decision, directly addressing the two offer declines.
- Agency gate - require recruiting sign-off before any agency engagement, and route agency requests through the same SLA so bypass no longer feels faster.
- Batch the high-volume roles so they stop consuming the capacity that slows Tier 1.
Measurement: track agency spend per quarter (target: decline from $340K), time-to-slate and time-to-fill by tier, offer-decline rate on senior engineering, and bypass incidents (agency engagements without recruiting sign-off). A drop in bypass alongside faster Tier 1 fills confirms the SLA-not enforcement alone-restored trust.