Free template · People / Finance / Legal
Performance review template for a recruiter / talent acquisition
A ready-to-use, section-by-section template with the competencies that matter for a recruiter / talent acquisition, role-specific example phrases, and a guard against the stock filler that makes most reviews read as generic. Copy the structure, fill in your evidence, or skip the writing entirely with Crestento.
The template
Four sections, in this order. Length should match the evidence you have — a thin section is honest; an invented paragraph is not.
Summary
One or two paragraphs setting the context: what was expected of recruiter / talent acquisition this period, and your overall verdict. Lead with the headline.
Example phrasing
“Closed 28 hires against a target of 24 with median time-to-fill of 38 days (team average 52), candidate NPS of 64, 92% offer-accept rate, and ran the engineering pipeline rebuild that lifted senior-engineer interview-to-offer from 8% to 19%.”
Strengths
The behaviours and outcomes that made the work happen. Anchor in evidence: hires closed against target, median and P75 time-to-fill, candidate NPS / experience score.
- Evidence for: time-to-fill on assigned requisitions.
- Evidence for: candidate-pipeline quality and diversity.
- Evidence for: sourcing depth (passive, active, referral).
- Evidence for: candidate experience (NPS, dropout rate).
Areas for Growth
Forward-looking development edges. Frame as opportunities, not deficiencies. Specific behaviours to develop, not generic recruiter / talent acquisition criticism.
- One pattern observed across the period.
- One specific behaviour to develop.
- One concrete next step.
Goals for the Next Period
Two or three concrete goals. Each should name a specific behaviour change, a measurable target, and a deadline. Avoid vague aspirations.
Competencies to evaluate
The 7 competencies a strong recruiter / talent acquisition review structures around, in priority order. Use these as the spine of the Strengths and Areas for Growth sections.
- time-to-fill on assigned requisitions
- candidate-pipeline quality and diversity
- sourcing depth (passive, active, referral)
- candidate experience (NPS, dropout rate)
- hiring-manager partnership and intake quality
- offer-accept rate and post-90-day retention
- ATS hygiene and reporting
Before you write
Recruiting craft is in pipeline quality (not just time-to-fill), hiring-manager partnership (running intake that actually shapes the search), and post-hire signal (do these hires stick at 90 days, do they perform at year one). Strong recruiters change the offer-accept rate by building real candidate relationships. Weak recruiters spray-and-pray and let hiring managers do the actual qualification work.
Evidence to gather
Strong reviews for a recruiter / talent acquisition cite evidence of these shapes. Only use a specific value (a percentage, a count, a dollar amount) if you actually have it — don’t invent a number to sound concrete.
- hires closed against target
- median and P75 time-to-fill
- candidate NPS / experience score
- offer-accept rate
- 90-day and 1-year retention on placed hires
- candidate-pipeline diversity metrics
- sourcing-channel mix and effectiveness
Where to find the evidence
Work products a recruiter / talent acquisition produces. Reference these by name in the review when they’re relevant — it signals you know the work.
- ATS workflow and pipeline reports
- intake briefs with hiring managers
- sourcing strategy documents per role
- interview-loop calibration notes
- offer-package comparables / market research
- candidate-experience survey reports
Phrasing that lands vs phrasing that doesn’t
Strong — specific, evidenced, role-appropriate
“Closed 28 hires against a target of 24 with median time-to-fill of 38 days (team average 52), candidate NPS of 64, 92% offer-accept rate, and ran the engineering pipeline rebuild that lifted senior-engineer interview-to-offer from 8% to 19%.”
Weak — vague, unevidenced, generic
“Great recruiter, fills roles fast.”
Phrases to never use
Stock filler that AI-written recruiter / talent acquisition reviews slip into. Managers spot it instantly. Rewrite to name a specific behaviour instead.
- “great recruiter”
- “fills roles fast”
- “consistent pipeline”
- “great at building relationships”
- “passionate about talent”
- “trusted by hiring managers”
- “go-to for hard roles”
- “wears many hats”
Don’t invent these specifics
The details an AI tends to fabricate for recruiter / talent acquisitionreviews. If you don’t have the specific number, name, or date in your notes, leave it out — generic-but-honest beats specific-but- invented every time.
- specific hire counts or close-against-target numbers not in input
- named requisitions or roles when only general work was mentioned
- specific time-to-fill / NPS values not provided
- particular ATS implementations not in input
- specific candidate-experience or diversity outcomes not referenced
Skip the template, generate the review
Drop your bullet points into Crestento and it produces the polished draft using this exact template structure, tuned for a recruiter / talent acquisition. Two reviews free, no card.
Try Crestento free