Who Else Wants To Retain And Motivate Their Top Employees?

It seems very simple, right? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule seems so undisputed that it might be a solution for all human relations. Simply treat everyone the same way you would appreciate being handled and all will flow wonderfully, correct?

Just a minute... Something appears to be wrong...

Does your business' twenty-two year old big shot sales guy want the same goals out of their work that your forty-something office clerk does? Is your technical staff hoping for similar opportunities and reimbursement as your receptionist?

Obviously, their wants are quite distinct, however quite a few business owners apply a universal method when rewarding their most important employees. Once a large project is completed, all staff receives an identical award, whether you buy them a meal or a gift certificate. Giving an identical reward to everyone is what's fair, right? But do you think it's really fair for your best people?

Keep the Key Performers

Surprisingly few small business owners know that the Pareto Principle applied to their staff means that a few of their staff are producing 80% of your entire team's bottom-line. Further, just about every management book cites studies which compare the productivity of the best employees to the least skilled (yet still useful) employees. The distinction between the best and worst have been found to be as much as one hundred to 1. The nearest these ratios ever seem to approach is about 4:1. So now how much more does this extraordinary difference in value wind up costing?

Let's say that your yearly cost for the company's least skilled staff member is $30k, how much does it cost for your best staff? Since a lot of the costs for staff stay the same, they don't increase in relation to base pay. For the intent of this example, let's use some worst-case numbers, $60k. Assuming that your $30k employee delivers $30k of value (otherwise you'd let them go, right?). If your best employee is a mere four times more productive than the worst, they deliver far more value for how much more they cost.

If you pays for more classes for the least valuable members, costs instantly increase, but without any guarantee that productivity will likewise increase. Also consider how much of your time is factored into the "cost" of this moderately competent employee? Probably none. Management costs are usually invisible, factored away as overhead. It certainly feels like you're being productive - trying your hardest to bring along the strugglers, hoping that they eventually rise above their shortcomings. Consider how much of your time is spent with either of these employees:

• The self-managing dynamo who, with speed of a bullet train, handles customer complaints, delivers defect-free results, and even cleans up after himself in the break room


• The newbie who has some interpersonal problems, occasional quality issues, problems following instructions, and shows up late on Mondays due to his occasional hangover

• Do they want money?


• Do they want more challenging job assignments?


• Do they want some time off to appreciate their children?


• Would they like more mentoring?


• Do they merely want to be acknowledged at a company function?


• What rewards have they received previously that really made them feel good?

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated