Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / How a Structured Rehire Policy Turned Boomerangs into Assets
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's a number that's been stuck in my head all week: a mid-sized tech firm in Austin found that its rehires — people they'd hired back after they left — were twenty percent more likely to stay past their second year than brand-new external hires. And they cost about thirty percent less to onboard. Luna: Thirty percent less to onboard? That's a big chunk. Where does that saving come from? Lucas: Well, they don't need the same ramp-up. They already know the systems, the culture, the unspoken rules of how decisions actually get made around here. That's the stuff you normally spend months absorbing. So the firm decided to stop treating former employees as a lost cause and built a structured rehire policy around them. Luna: Before we dive into the details, I want to say something about this show. We've been doing these conversations for a while now, and one thing we're proud of is that we keep it completely ad-free. No sponsor read, no 'this episode is brought to you by...' That's a deliberate choice. Lucas: It is. And if those conversations have moved your work forward in some small way, you can support that choice at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small way to keep this ad-free thing going. Luna: Yeah, exactly. No pressure, but if it's helped you think about hiring differently, that link is there. Okay, back to the boomerangs. Lucas: Right. So the interesting thing is they didn't just say 'hey, we love boomerangs, come back anytime.' They created a deliberate, structured process. And the numbers they saw are pretty compelling. Luna: So what does that structure actually look like? Give me the mechanics. Lucas: First, they put in a twelve-month cooling-off period. You can't come back within a year of leaving. That prevents people from using an offer from a competitor as leverage, and it makes sure the reasons for leaving have actually been resolved. Luna: And what about people who left on bad terms? Is that a hard no? Lucas: Not necessarily. They have a rule: if you left for a competitor, you're out for at least eighteen months. But if you left because you wanted to travel or start your own thing and that didn't pan out, the door is open after that year. They also require that the departure was on good terms. No one who was let go for cause is coming back. Luna: So you have a policy gate. Then what? The application process — is it the same as any other candidate's? Lucas: This is where it gets smart. They don't run boomerang candidates through the standard four-round gauntlet. Instead, there's something they call the 'return interview' — it's two conversations, not four. The first is with the hiring manager, the second is with a former colleague who still works there. The whole thing is done in under two weeks. Luna: That's a huge contrast to the normal process. But isn't there a risk you're skipping too much? Like, what if the person's skills have actually changed while they were away? Lucas: That's a fair point. Their answer is that the return interview includes a work sample test — the same one they use for external candidates. So the skills are still being validated, just in a much tighter loop. And because they already know the person's track record, they can move faster. Luna: So performance-wise, how do these boomerangs actually stack up? You said they outperform on first review. Lucas: Yeah, in their first performance review, boomerangs scored on average fifteen percent higher than external hires in the same role. And it makes sense — they don't need to figure out how to get things done, they just do it. Their second-year retention was higher too, which is interesting because the common fear is that a boomerang will just leave again. Luna: But hasn't that been a problem in other companies? I've heard horror stories about people who came back and then left again within six months. Lucas: That's why the cooling-off period matters. The firm found that the people who stayed at least a year before leaving were the ones who came back and stayed. The ones who left after just a few months — those were usually people who hadn't really figured out what they wanted. So they put that twelve-month floor in place. Luna: Okay, so you have the policy, you have the interview, you have the numbers. But what about the people who never left? Doesn't this create resentment? Like, 'I've been here ten years and you're giving a returning person a fast track?' Lucas: That was a real concern. So they made the return interview available to internal candidates too. If you're already here and you want to move to a different team, you can use the same two-conversation process. That took a lot of the sting out of it. Luna: That's clever — it turns the fast track into a perk for everyone, not just former employees. Lucas: Exactly. And they also made a point of celebrating boomerang hires publicly. When someone comes back, they do a company-wide announcement, and the person's alumni story — what they did while they were away — is treated as a positive. That changed the narrative from 'you left us' to 'you went out and got more experience, and now you're bringing it back.' Luna: That's a nice shift. But is there a downside? I mean, the talent pool is finite. If you keep rehiring the same people, aren't you missing out on fresh perspectives? Lucas: The firm was actually worried about that too. So they cap boomerang hires at about fifteen percent of any given year's total hires. That way, they get the benefit of the alumni network without becoming a revolving door. Luna: Fifteen percent — that feels like a deliberate, thoughtful cap. So what about the people who left for a direct competitor? You said eighteen months. But in tech, that's a lifetime. Are they ever considered? Lucas: They are, but only on a case-by-case basis. The policy says that if the person worked on something truly proprietary, they're out for good. But if they were in a more generic role — say, marketing or sales — then after eighteen months, the competitive knowledge is less relevant, and they can come back. The key is that it's a judgment call, not an automatic no. Luna: So it's structured but not rigid. I like that. What about the reference checks — do they still do those for boomerangs? Lucas: Actually, they skip the external reference check entirely. They already have years of data on the person's performance. Instead, they do something a little more unusual: they talk to the manager who supervised them during their first stint. Not to ask if they were good, but to ask what would be different this time. Luna: Oh, that's interesting. So they're checking for growth, not just history. Lucas: Right. And that conversation often surfaces things like 'they struggled with direct reports, but they've now managed a team at their new company' or 'they never got to work on big-data projects here, but now they've done that.' That's the kind of insight you can't get from a standard reference. Luna: So what's the actual ROI? You gave us the retention and onboarding numbers, but what about the cost of recruiting? Are they saving on agency fees? Lucas: Huge. They estimate that a boomerang hire costs about forty percent less to source than an external hire. No agency fees, no job boards, no recruiter hours. The whole process is driven by internal referrals and alumni outreach. They have an alumni tracker that flags when someone hits the twelve-month mark, and the talent team sends a gentle note. Luna: A gentle note — like, 'hey, we see you've been gone a year, want to grab coffee?' That's a bit different from a standard recruitment pitch. Lucas: It is. And it works. They've seen a twenty percent response rate to those notes, and about half of those lead to a formal application. So the alumni network is essentially a low-cost talent pipeline that most companies are just leaving on the table. Luna: But not every former employee is a good fit to come back. How do they handle the ones who weren't stellar but weren't terrible? They just left to try something else. Lucas: The policy explicitly says that a rehire is not a default yes. They still have to meet the bar for the role. But they get the benefit of a faster process. For the marginal cases, the return interview includes a deeper dive into why they left and what's changed. If the reason they underperformed before is still there, they won't hire them back. Luna: So the structure is there to prevent nostalgia from clouding judgment. Lucas: Exactly. And one more thing — they track boomerang performance over time, not just at the first review. After two years, they're still outperforming external hires on most metrics. And their turnover rate is actually lower. So it's not just a short-term win. Luna: That's a pretty strong case. But I wonder, what's the cultural signal? Does having a strong boomerang policy make current employees more likely to leave, knowing they can always come back? Lucas: That was a concern, but the data doesn't support it. In fact, they found that the existence of the alumni network actually makes people more likely to stay. Because they know that if they leave, they might not come back — the process is still competitive. And it also sends a signal that the company values long-term relationships over short-term employment. Luna: So it's becoming a differentiator for their employer brand. Lucas: Definitely. They started talking about it in their job postings and at career fairs. 'We're the kind of place that welcomes you back' — that resonates with a lot of candidates, even those who've never worked there. Luna: It's a nice narrative. But let's play devil's advocate for a second. What happens when a boomerang comes back and the old team dynamics have changed? People have moved on, processes have shifted. Is there a risk they'll try to recreate the old way of doing things? Lucas: That's a real risk, and the firm addresses it in the return interview. They ask the candidate to talk about a time when they had to adapt to a new process or a new team. And they also pair every boomerang with a 're-entry buddy' — someone who's been at the company for less than two years, so they get a fresh perspective on how things work now, rather than relying on their old assumptions. Luna: A re-entry buddy — that's a nice touch. So they're treating the return like a mini-onboarding, but with a twist. Lucas: Exactly. And it seems to work. Their feedback surveys show that boomerangs feel up to speed within a month, compared to three months for external hires. That's a huge productivity gain. Luna: So, bottom line — would you say every company should have a boomerang policy? Lucas: Not every. It depends on your industry and your culture. If you're in a field where skills become obsolete quickly — say, late-stage biotech — a ten-year gap might be too long. But for most knowledge work, I'd say at least having a conversation with your alumni network is a no-brainer. You've already made the investment in training these people. Why not give them a path back? Luna: And the data suggests they're more likely to stay, perform better, and cost less. That's a hard combination to beat. Lucas: It is. And the best part is, the policy is simple to put in place — a cooling-off period, a streamlined interview, and a cap on how many you hire. The structure is what turns a good idea into a reliable channel. That's the lesson I'm taking away. Luna: Yeah, me too. Sometimes the best candidates are the ones who left and came back, bringing a little more of the world with them. Lucas: And that's the kind of thinking that keeps a company fresh without losing its roots. Thanks for listening, everyone. We'll be back next time with another angle on the messy, human side of work.