In two previous posts, we’ve been discussing the need for, and the merits of, implementing a hierarchical pay raise structure as opposed to a more or less flat structure whereby all employees generally receive about the same pay increase.
Category: Performance Management
In a previous post, we discussed the precarious situations many employers find themselves in when it comes to employee pay increases. We currently find ourselves in a tight labor market with relatively low unemployment, and employees consistently list financial compensation as one of the primary factors in accepting and staying at a job.
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.
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.
Hiring a new employee is as much an art as a science. There are often a clear set of skills that you can look for, but there’s also that elusive idea of “fit” and simply finding someone whose expectations are in alignment with what the organization has to offer.
A new survey finds 25 percent of workers are late for work at least once a month, and 12 percent are late at least once a week.