How the new 90 day trial period can make your business more money
Business owners have known for some time that the introduction of a 90 day trial period could save them money and hassle if they end up making a bad hire. However, few have cottoned on to how the new trial period could increase the value of their business. Let me explain how by looking at some statistics.
Business owners have known for some time that the introduction of a 90 day trial period could save them money and hassle if they end up making a bad hire. However, few have cottoned on to how the new trial period could increase the value of their business. Let me explain how by looking at some statistics.
The statistics
*Statistics reveal that an engaged workforce:· has a 95% greater return on assets than a disengaged workforce;
· generates 68% more sales per employee;
· has retention rates 29% higher than a disengaged workplace.
The challenge for any business owner lies in finding engaged employees. However, note this: levels of engagement have nothing to do with an individual's qualifications. In fact, the opposite can often be true - the more qualified the employee the more likely that employee will be disengaged since they may be insufficient challenges in the role to prompt an engaged attitude. As a result, employees become ambivalent or worse still, disengaged. However, business owners frequently base their hiring decisions on qualifications alone rather than a candidate's potential to be fully engaged with their role. The result: a lack of employees who are engaged with their work and a corresponding lack of revenue and asset value for the employer.
Employees need to be stretched
Contrary to belief, most employees don't want to simply turn up to work, collect their pay cheque and go home (what so called "ambivalent" employees do). They also want their jobs to be stimulating and offer a career path. The problem for employees is that it is difficult to progress along a career path unless they stay in the same job. For example assume the career path for John is Job A, Job B, Job C and then Job D. John works for Old Co but realises, for whatever reason, that he is stuck at Job B with no prospect of advancement unless he changes employer. He sees Job C advertised by New Co and applies. Before the 90 day trial period, the owner of New Co would probably not employ John because he couldn't demonstrate that he could do Job C. So instead New Co employs Malcolm who has been doing Job C for 10 years. Within 6 months, Malcolm becomes bored and ambivalent. John however given the appropriate encouragement and training, would likely have been very engaged.How the 90 day trial period helps
The reason New Co would not employ John was because it could not afford to take the risk of John not working out and being lumbered with someone who they couldn't tire without being exposed to a personal grievance. Malcolm was the safe option, but not the best option. The 90 day trial period takes away the risk. If John doesn't show his ability to succeed in the first 90 days then New Co simply ask him to leave - no justification required.Conduct your own survey
Look around your business right now and see if you can identify who you may have employed based upon their qualifications alone rather than taking into account their potential levels of engagement. Employing someone less qualified and providing a modicum of training can promote far higher levels of engagement and loyalty, rather than opting for the safe option. The moral: adopt a new approach to recruitment and build the asset value of your business without fear of a personal grievance.* JRA/Unlimited Best Places to Work Survey 2007
Michael Smyth is the author of Employed But Not Engaged: How to break up with your employees and hold on to the ring available from www.employedbutnotengaged.com. If you would like to use this article to send to your clients then you may do so providing it is reproduced in whole and credit is given.
I want to compliment you on your book,"Employed but not Engaged" which I have come across recently and have read only first few pages but really impressed with your style of writing and the simplicity of the book, so easy for a layman to understand. I personally cherish the book beacuse of its analogy because it relates so well to our everyday life. Many thanks for writing such a wonderful book and being so approchable as well.
Harpreet Kaur -
