What is time-to-fill metric?

What is time-to-fill?

Time-to-fill measures the number of days required to close a recruitment process. The clock starts when an organization formally approves a vacancy or opens a requisition and stops on the day the selected candidate accepts the offer and signs the employment agreement.

How to calculate time-to-fill

Time-to-fill is expressed in days. The basic formula is simple:

Time-to-fill = hire date – requisition open date

In practice, HR teams usually calculate an average across departments or the whole organization to get a more complete view:

Average Time-to-fill = total days for all completed hires ÷ number of hires

For example, a company opens a requisition on March 1, and the candidate accepts the offer on March 23. That results in a time-to-fill of 22 calendar days.

In the same month, the company also completed three other recruitment processes lasting 10, 30, and 147 days. The average time-to-fill for all four processes is: (22 + 10 + 30 + 147) ÷ 4 = 52.25 calendar days.

Is that long? For context, the Corporate Navigators 2025 Report found that the average time-to-fill in the U.S. was:

Executive positions (CRO, CFO, etc.) – 120 days;
Senior leadership – 75 days;
Mid to senior-level roles – 60 days;
Sales specialists – 53 days;
Associate level – 40 days;
Service staff – 35 days;
Entry-level positions – 30 days;
Support staff – 28 days.

The arithmetic mean works well when all recruitment processes are similar in duration. But if one process takes 10 days and another drags on for 147, the mean is heavily skewed by the extreme value. In such cases, the median – the middle value when all results are ordered – provides a more accurate picture.

Example: For 10, 22, 30, and 147 days, the median is 26 days (the average of 22 and 30), while the mean is 52.25 days.

The median is especially useful when:

You’re recruiting for very different levels (e.g., junior and C-level in the same dataset);
Some processes were interrupted or artificially prolonged;
You want to see the “typical” recruitment time without distortion from extreme cases.

As a rule of thumb, if the gap between mean and median exceeds 20%, it’s a sign that some processes followed atypical timelines and should be reviewed separately.

Why time-to-fill matters in recruitment

Tracking time-to-fill is essential because it:

Shows how long it actually takes to find and hire talent;
Highlights bottlenecks in recruitment (e.g., weak job ads, wrong sourcing channels, lengthy approvals);
Improves workforce planning by indicating when new hires are likely to join;
Reduces the risk of overloading existing staff due to unfilled roles;
Enables benchmarking across teams, departments, or time periods;
Helps HR choose more effective tools and strategies (e.g., ATS systems, referral programs, targeted campaigns, or skills assessments).

What influences time-to-fill?

Several factors shape the length of the recruitment cycle:

Position level

The more senior or strategic the role, the more decision-makers typically get involved. Extra stages – such as assessment centers or board interviews – extend the timeline.

Industry dynamics

In shortage-driven fields like IT, engineering, or pharmaceuticals, candidates have multiple offers and take longer to decide, often negotiating terms extensively. This naturally stretches out the process.

Offer attractiveness

Compensation matters, but so do flexibility, culture, and career development. Candidates who see alignment with their expectations commit faster. Generic or uncompetitive offers require more effort to attract interest and delay hiring.

Sourcing channels

Using the wrong channels floods recruiters with unsuitable applications, slowing down screening. Employee referrals or targeted campaigns tend to deliver fewer but stronger matches, shortening the process.

Internal decision-making

Recruitment slows down when too many stakeholders – from HR to managers to executives – are involved without clear roles. Candidates are left waiting, and companies risk losing them. Streamlined approval chains and recruitment platforms help reduce delays.

Labor market conditions

A talent shortage isn’t the only challenge – sometimes an abundance of applicants is just as problematic if screening isn’t automated. For highly specialized roles, fierce competition for top candidates often leads to prolonged offer negotiations.

When high time-to-fill becomes a problem

A long time-to-fill isn’t always negative – strategic roles may require longer, more careful processes. But in many cases, delays can be damaging:

Workload piles onto existing employees, leading to burnout, disengagement, and turnover;
Vacant roles cause project delays, weaker customer service, and lost revenue;
Extended timelines increase the risk of losing top candidates to competitors;
Prolonged searches push companies toward rushed or poor-fit hires – costly mistakes in the long run;
Candidates left waiting too long often share negative feedback, harming employer brand reputation.

How to reduce time-to-fill

Delays can’t be eliminated entirely, but they can be minimized. The first step is well-crafted job descriptions. Clear requirements and responsibilities attract candidates who actually fit the role.

Centralized data is equally important. Collecting applications in one system builds a talent pool you can reuse, so HR doesn’t start from scratch every time.

Building relationships with past candidates, as well as partnerships with universities and professional organizations, ensures faster access to qualified talent.

The greatest impact, however, comes from automation. An ATS or HR platform with recruitment modules enables job posting across multiple channels, flexible funnel management, candidate notes, and ready-to-use templates. Structured communication and transparent reporting free recruiters to focus on conversations, not admin tasks.

Together, these practices shorten time-to-fill and give organizations a recruitment process that is faster, more predictable, and easier to monitor.

Time-to-fill metric