Using a lack of talented applicants as an example:
Finance, CFOs or x-CFO-CEOs have HR look at the problem as the cost of not filling critical positions and the increased never ending training of hires and NEOs. Finance asks to lower the recruiting and training costs in order to keep the HR department costs aligned with the lower hire rate and “in line” (ROI) with desired projections. They cut HR staff, programs, wages and benefits to align costs and then report there is not enough talent to fill critical positions (a talent gap).
Operations, CEO, CPO or well led HR sees the same problem and asks, why and how is this happening? Through surveys, data and questionnaires they gather and analyze the data to determine the reasons for the observed outcome (i.e. time spent from starting to completing the application, matches to the job applied for, bulk analysis of the number of system-wide occurrences, possibly by position, all applications actions started vs. completed, those screened out by the ATS matching process, etc.). Educated changes are then made to improve the problem processes and results – receiving more talented applications and hires. (Usually the answer is: simplifying the process itself, enabling applicants to complete the process quickly and more easily; using accurate but more generalized job descriptions in the ATS matching process; plus, insuring informed and motivated hiring management significantly shortens the hiring process itself.)