Do your systems and on off hiring windows mean you keep non-performers in their jobs too long?
Does your hiring process take too long?
Can your people make hiring decisions quickly? Maybe Training could help?
Does that lead to a “Make do and Mend” philosophy?
This is where the manager tolerates poor performers because if they get rid of someone they may not be allowed to hire or be quick enough to hire someone new?
They begin to take a view that this will leave their department short handed and make the problem worse.
This way no one deals with performance issues but they sometimes they move the problem empolyees on.
We think that having someone on the team who is not executing their job well, costs a great deal more than you think. Just add-up the lost productivity, the poor morale and lost opportunities. Then also add-in the frustration, anxiety, stress and management time spent trying to help them perform.
Meet another one of our heroines .
Mary was a top performing salesperson in the Audio Visual industry.
She was absolutely great at bring in “NEW, NEW Business”.
The most valuable type of business to most companies.
She also had the highest incentive package to pursue this kind of business.
Mary had been with the AV company for six years and was considered a top performer in the industry.
Rick was the Administration Manager responsible for quoting and delivering the products that Mary and the rest of the sales team sold. Rick was also a top performer. Unfortunately because he was good he was headhunted by another AV company. This company had a reputation for growing and developing people, promoting from within and having a very close and connected team.
When Rick left, the station hired Chris to take his place.
Chris looked good on paper and for the first two months did very well.
He seemed to catch on quick, but as the work piled up, it became clearer that he was not organised or prepared.
He was not that experienced and seemed to miss basics that would have saved him time, helped him stay organised and feel confident in his role.
Mary had to promise new customers a short turnaround time to get them to change suppliers and products. However she had to rely on Chris and his team to get his job done to keep her promise. When Chris’s team caused delays, she looked bad with a new client. She and the company lost out on potential repeat business when the company couldn’t deliver because Chris and his team let her down.
For six years, Mary had ignored the calls she was getting from recruiters and other AV companies who knew her reputation for developing new new business. However after a few months of Chris’s delays, Mary started to take those calls. The end of the tale is obvious.
Chris was eventually let go, but it was too late. Mary was already gone.
Our view is that the cost of keeping non-performers in their role too long is much higher than their salary and benefits. You run the risk of turnover among your top performers who are the most likely to not put up with mediocrity. You lower the standard of performance of everyone who interacts with the non-performer. You risk losing customers. You damage your brand.
So, why do companies keep non-performers when there are so many reasons not to keep them?
We think there are two main reasons:
1. No systems and processes in place to make the best hiring decisions
2. No structured game plan to on-board and geta new hire up to speed and quickly . Maybe try Onboarding Coaching?
If you want to keep your top performers, raise your standards in both your hiring and onboarding practices. Don’t settle for second best . Hire the best possible person to fill every role.
Don’t minimize the importance of getting new people up and running quickly, thoroughly and effectively. If you want people to perform well, you need to provide them with a solid foundation to build on.