80-20 Problem: A Few Top Performers Create Most of the Value

To over-rely on top performers' high productivity is 'TO MANAGE ON THE EDGE OF FAILURE'

When your top performers leave, get sick, or lose motivation you are 'in a world of hurt'
Many top performers report they are getting burnt-out from carrying excessive workloads
They feel that very little of their added value is trickling down to their paychecks
They resent managers who hire and tolerate poor performers.
Given total power, high performers said their first move would be to "Fire non-performers"
Managers have false and/or very incomplete beliefs about why high performers excel

Your ultimate productivity RISK is failing to hire, develop and retain more high performers

Top performers add 4-8 times more value than average but managers have grown so complacent they perpetuate the false belief that "Average" is good.

This is wrong because Industry-leading competitors are setting higher standards for the organization

Value Curve - Research Evidence

Schmidt & Hunter's research shows top performers (in the 84th percentile) far outproduce average workers by

19% in unskilled roles, 32% in skilled roles, and 48% in professional and managerial roles

O'Boyle & Aguinis (2012) found that 20% of employees generate 80% of the value an organization creates.

It should be abundantly clear that your future depends on hiring-developing-retaining more high performers

Value Gap in Dollars

This value gap is largest exactly where it costs the most. Here is what the talent gap means in dollars:

In $40,000 roles, poor performers contribute $32,000 less per year than a top performer.
A top performer in that same role adds $16,000 more per year than average — roughly 40% above the role's base value.
At a $65,000 average salary, 1,000 top performers would add $26M in value per year over an average-performing workforce.

Talent Engineering Had Such a High Impact that Clients Issued Us Contractors Badges

We are scientists who don't dazzle you with marketing.

Like Thomas Edison, we did not suddenly discover or invent Talent Engineering in a flash of inspiration, rather we collected-analyzed millions of data points on what distinguished thousands of top performers in diverse jobs at all levels in top companies (Alcatel, Hitachi, Johnson & Johnson, Nokia and Texas Instruments).

We did our homework by investing decades analyzing the data and devising science-based explanations for the variance in performance, then validating results.

We called it "Talent Engineering"

3-Step Talent Engineering is a toolkit to Hire, Develop, Engage and Retain Top Performers

Standards — Define high performance in a specific role-team, and environment.
Measures — Objectively measure people against those standards
Solutions — target development to close measured gaps and track performance

LICENSE TO USE THE 3 STEP PROCESS COMES WITH ANALYTIC TOOLS AND AN APPLICATIONS TOOLKIT

Candidate Guide attracts exceptional people
Hiring Guide selects in top performers
Development Guide focuses on talent gaps
Coaching Guide shows the path to excellence
Self Management Guide success model
Culture Guide edits habits and expectations

Detailed Description of the 3-Steps

1) Set High-Achievable STANDARDS

Identify what distinguishes productive people in a specific job. They serve as working models of how to excel. Most employees want to know how their successful peers excel and will copy them without being asked

High performers differ in measurable ways that are specific to the work, people and environment in which performance occurs. That is Talent Engineering

2) MEASURE performance results and talent causes

Compare candidates/employees on the high performers' job-specific standards. Give employees a "Success Profile " of what distinguishes high performers they can use to self-assess without being judged. Change the driver for improvement to be internally motivated and regulated

3) Matrix alternative SOLUTIONS to talent gaps

Build a matrix of talent standards matched to alternative learning solutions. We developed and continuously update a table of 25 learning solutions for each talent standard - so employees always have choices

Evidence that Talent Engineering Adds Measurable Value

5 Major Clients issued us Contractor Badges

Accurate Quantitative Performance Prediction

Alcatel, Hitachi, Johnson & Johnson, Nokia, Texas Instruments each issued Performance Advantage a contractor badge to work inside their global operations applying 3 decades of applied research on thousands of high performers

Accurate Quantitative Performance Prediction

87% predictive accuracy.
Talent Engineering analytics accurately predicted performance ratings for 42 HR professionals with 87% accuracy — precise enough to drive 14 real job changes.

Workforce Alignment

Accurate Quantitative Performance Prediction

Workforce Alignment

73% of scheduled layoffs avoided.
A workforce alignment analysis uncovered hidden, transferable talent and reassigned 41 of 56 engineers who were scheduled for layoff but were reassigned new roles

CASE HISTORIES OF HOW TALENT ENGINEERING ADDS VALUE

$Millions Saved by Reducing Technician turnover 16%

HIRIING QUALITY PROBLEM

At a wafer fab operation, technician turnover was costing $millions in production errors-delays, quality problems, plus excessive hiring, termination, training, and manager time spent supervising poor performers.

TALENT ENGINEERING SOLUTION

We identified a sample of technicians with high work quality, low turnover, and conscientious work habits. We studied them on 5 levels of talent measurement and built a PROFILE of what distinguished them.

Talent Engineering software produced guides to hire, develop and manage on these high standards.

RESULT: turnover dropped, productivity increased and the client ordered Profiles on all their jobs

Assessment-based Development Produced Better Leaders

We led an international team of psychologists and talent consultants to develop and execute a leadership assessment-development-coaching process

510 middle managers and executives were assessed and coached on 21 leadership standards.

One year later, leaders coached on 21 standards received significantly higher feedback ratings from their managers, peers, and subordinates.

Uncoached managers ratings did not improve

Culture-Climate Analysis led to Successful Interventions

A 90-item Work-People-Environment survey was conducted on over 600 production plant employees and their managers. Analysis of organization culture-climate issues causing dissatisfaction were reported to site-wide teams who successfully solved most issues