4 ms·
There should be some further study in this area. I'm skeptical of the quoted costs of replacing employees and missed productivity ie.. 213%. Not to mention re
by dpweb 10y ago
There should be some further study in this area. I'm skeptical of the quoted costs of replacing employees and missed productivity ie.. 213%. Not to mention replacing poor performers can often be a value gain not loss. About cost, we're talking managers' time - but maybe hiring is most valuable thing they can be spending time on, other than directly generating revenue.
- jackaltman 10y agoI agree with you -- I wrote this with regrettable turnover in mind. Parting ways with a low performer is definitely a valuable thing to do!
- dpweb 10y agoI see now - we're talking only regrettable employee losses. Thanks.
- Mtinie 10y ago> Not to mention replacing poor performers can often be a value gain not loss. In the article's examples, I took the author's position as describing the situations concerning positive-value employees, not negative-value ones.
- lostcolony 10y agoI think this is predicated on the idea of replacing an employee who leaves of their own accord, that you would have preferred to hold onto. Not of one you let go, or are glad to see leave. Basically, just the employees who are worth the amount you are paying them, or more; not those who are worth less.