With the unemployment rate hovering at historic lows, companies need to work hard to attract and retain top talent. And while they’ve tried to do this with a number of different incentives—such as greater workplace flexibility, increased healthcare benefits, positive company environments, etc.—salary remains the primary draw for a big chunk of employees.
Tag: Performance Management
The best way to demonstrate the value of your performance management system is to link it to business impact. To do so, learn how to calculate the cost of employee turnover, engagement, and productivity, and use these key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the return on investment (ROI) of your new performance management system.
Performance management is like Internet access: essential to the daily operation of any business but taken for granted until it stops working. While everyone understands why you need consistent and high-quality broadband, the obvious benefits of good performance management often go unappreciated.
In a previous post, we discussed the results of the State of Continuous Performance Management Survey. The survey results showed significant reductions in some of the negative impacts of only performing annual reviews when companies instead utilized what is known as continuous performance management.
Feedback is crucial to employee development, both to reinforce positive behaviors and to address and correct negative behaviors. Additionally, regular feedback is important in helping employees advance in their careers within the organization. Unfortunately, many organizations continue to limit their formal employee feedback to an annual review.
The halo effect refers to the idea that our overall impression of someone will directly impact how we perceive almost everything they do. If that person has an overall positive impression—a halo as it were—then we’re more likely to perceive everything they do more positively.
Over several recent blog posts, we’ve discussed the importance of finding a good talent fit for open positions and a good fit for the organization as a whole. Getting it wrong can lead to costly turnover and the need to continue spending time and resources on filling the same position over and over again.
Finding the right fit for an open position can be a high-stakes game. Hiring and recruitment costs are high enough. When the costs of turnover are factored in, though, it’s increasingly clear that making the wrong hiring decisions can become extremely costly.
In a previous post, we discussed some of the challenges inherent in traditional methods of employee assessment, specifically the fact that review of résumés and in-person interviews tend to focus too much on the objective skills of the employee rather than the subjective needs of the organization.
Hiring new employees is expensive. Not only are time and resources spent during the actual search—job postings, interviews, etc.—but also onboarding staff takes time and resources. And, if the new hire doesn’t work out, the costs of turnover also become a factor.