Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / How a Rehire Audit Boosted Your Talent Pool
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's a moment in every HR leader's year when they look at the rehire rate and think, we should probably let more boomerangs back in. But one software firm in the Pacific Northwest actually ran the numbers and found its rehire policy was quietly shrinking its talent pool. Luna: Shrinking? I thought rehiring was supposed to expand your options, not contract them. Lucas: You'd think so. But this company, a mid-sized SaaS firm with around eight hundred employees, had a formal rehire policy that was technically open — any former employee could apply. But when they audited the actual applicant flow, they found that managers were informally blacklisting people who'd left for competitors. Luna: So the policy said one thing, and the culture did another. Classic. Lucas: Right. And the audit was triggered by a simple observation: their rehire rate had been flat for three years at about six percent, while their voluntary turnover was running at eleven percent. So they dug into the applicant data and found that of the former employees who applied, the ones who'd left for a direct competitor were four times less likely to get an interview call-back than those who'd left for other reasons. Luna: Four times? That's not a subtle bias. Did the managers have a reason, or was it just kind of petty? Lucas: A mix. Some of it was the classic 'they betrayed us' feeling. But there was also a practical concern — they worried about intellectual property, about someone who'd seen their roadmap coming back and then leaving again. And there was a bit of that sunk-cost thinking too: we spent time and money training them, and they walked. Luna: But if they come back with new skills and knowledge of the competitor, that could be a net win, right? Lucas: Exactly. And that's what the audit revealed. When they looked at the performance of the boomerangs they did hire, the ones who'd left for competitors actually had higher performance ratings and lower second-turnover than the ones who'd left for non-competitors. So the bias was costing them talent. Luna: So they changed the policy? How did they actually fix it? Lucas: They did a few things. First, they retrained hiring managers on the data, showing them that the competitor-leavers were actually outperforming. Second, they added a question to the interview scorecard specifically about rehires, forcing managers to evaluate them on the same criteria as external candidates. And third, they made the rehire policy more explicit in the employee handbook, including a section on 'leaving on good terms' and how that would be documented. Luna: Did it change the numbers? Lucas: Within a year, the rehire rate doubled to twelve percent, and — more importantly for their talent pool — the number of qualified applicants from former employees increased by twenty-three percent. Because people who'd left on good terms started telling their networks, 'hey, they actually welcome you back now.' Luna: That's a strong word of mouth effect. But I wonder — did they have a problem with people leaving just to come back for a raise? Lucas: They did look at that. And they found that the salary bump for rehires was actually smaller than for external hires, on average. Because the rehires often came back at a similar level, and they had the benefit of knowing the culture and the systems. So they weren't paying a premium for unknown talent. Luna: So the audit ended up being a tool for both hiring and retention. I mean, if people know they can come back, they might be more willing to leave for a stretch assignment or a startup, and then boomerang back later. Lucas: That's exactly the strategic view of rehiring. It's not just a safety net; it's a talent pipeline. And this company actually started tracking 'boomerang potential' as a metric in their exit interviews — they'd ask, 'would you consider returning in the future?' And if the answer was yes, they'd flag the person for alumni outreach. Luna: That's smart. We've talked before about exit interviews being a hiring tool, but this takes it a step further — you're actually segmenting your alumni by interest and stay-in-touch potential. Lucas: And it paid off. Eighteen months after the audit, they had a senior engineering role that was impossible to fill externally. The recruiter checked the alumni database, found a woman who'd left two years earlier for a competitor, and reached out. She came back with a whole new skill set and a deep understanding of the competitor's pricing model. Luna: So the bias against competitor-leavers would have cost them that exact hire. It's a reminder that our assumptions about loyalty can be blind spots. Lucas: And the audit is the tool to surface those blind spots. You can't fix what you don't measure, and rehire rates are often left out of the standard hiring metrics. This company now publishes a quarterly rehire report, and it's become a point of pride — they even mention it in job posts. Luna: That's a nice touch. It signals to candidates that this is a place where you can leave and come back, which might make it more attractive in the first place. Lucas: If today's conversation gave you one concrete way to look at your own hiring data, that's the kind of practical payoff we're aiming for. And if it did, the way we keep these episodes ad-free is listener support. You can buy us a coffee at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Exactly. It's a small thing that keeps us independent and lets us dig into the numbers without any sponsor pressure. Lucas: So back to the audit. The key takeaway isn't just 'rehire more' — it's 'audit your rehire funnel.' How many former employees are even applying? How often do they get past the screen? And what's the actual performance difference, broken down by reason for departure? Luna: And for listeners who want to run an audit like this, what's the first step they should take? Lucas: Start with the data you already have. Pull the applicant tracking system records for the last two years, flag any applicant who has previous employment at your company, and look at their progression through the pipeline versus external applicants. If you see a drop-off at any stage, you've found a potential bias. Luna: And for the ones who do get hired, track their performance and retention over the first year. That'll give you the evidence to change policies if needed. Lucas: And one more thing — make sure your exit interviews capture the reason for departure in a structured way, so you can actually segment by 'left for competitor' versus 'left for other reasons.' Without that, you're flying blind. Luna: So the audit isn't just about rehiring; it's about understanding the full lifecycle of your talent. And it's a relatively cheap analysis to run. Lucas: Cheap and potentially high-impact. This company saw a twenty-three percent increase in their applicant pool, just by removing an informal barrier. That's like adding a whole new sourcing channel without spending a dime on recruiting ads. Luna: And in a labor market like the one we're in now, where everyone's fighting for the same senior talent, that's a real edge. Lucas: So next time you're looking at your hiring pipeline, take a look at your boomerang rate. If it's low, ask yourself why — and run the audit. The data might surprise you. Luna: And on that note, we'll leave you with that thought. Until next time.