Hiring Success and Hiring Failure Part 2 – The additional shocking economic difference between getting it right and wrong

« Back to Remtec News


Some of you may have seen my first article on this subject; it seems to have resonated with a number of people.

The essential part of the article was contrasting the financial difference between “High Performance Talent” and people of average or below average performance. For maximum simplicity I used the example of sales people to demonstrate that a top performer on 150% of target versus an underperformer at 60%. The resulting performance gap could be measured in hundreds of thousands of Euros, Pounds, Yen, or whatever your chosen currency is.

Additionally the subject of short tenure was discussed and the impact that this can have on a business, and this too is a hiring failure.

Subsequent discussion with clients and the online community has further amplified the economic costs of hiring failure. More than one business contact commented that underperformers not only cost the business in the way in which I described but that they also absorb huge amounts of management time that the incompetent and indolent probably don’t deserve!

Now before I get a load of online abuse, let me make it very clear that I am not advocating an unsupportive aggressive hire-and-fire culture. Quite the opposite. I have always believed in value based organisations that nurture and support their people. There are individuals who are going through serious challenges in their lives, or maybe can point to issues that are genuinely outside their control, and these people are absolutely deserving of support and training. People who have genuine problems, but who are otherwise committed and hard-working who have seen an uncharacteristic drop in their performance are not necessarily underperformers. Through the correct support they can be brought back to productivity.

However, there are different groups that will cause you problems and no amount of nurturing will correct; the lazy, the incompetent, the untrainable, the unmanageable and the downright toxic. These people will, if allowed, absorb huge quantities of management time; management time that would be better used on enhancing the performance of others. The latter type is probably the most damaging. They will infect your core performers and drag them down. They will convince everyone they can whisper their poison to that anything their line manager says is to be disregarded – they are the antithesis of the team player.

No one can guarantee you will not hire one of these nightmares, but a robust process with a focus on High Performance Talent Indicators will mitigate it massively.  Almost everyone I speak to have a story about someone that they later regretted hiring, and subsequently had to manage out of the business. The interesting thing is that when you discuss it further there is normally always the admittance that a thorough process had not taken place when hiring that individual, and that the person had “blagged” their way through the process, and alarm bells had been ignored.

As I eluded to in the last article, while the economic costs of hiring are often measured in terms of compensation and benefits and recruitment process costs, the impact of poor hiring decisions versus good ones is rarely considered. I hope these articles have helped to contribute positively to that debate.

To discuss how a High Performance Talent Attraction program can massively increase the profitability of your business, please feel free to arrange a meeting with me following this link.

« Back to Remtec News