Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
A research report commissioned by Hudson
January 2007
1
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Contents
Overview ...................................................................................................3
Methodology & sample ...........................................................................5
Annual staff turnover ..............................................................................6
A healthy turnover......................................................................................6
An unhealthy turnover................................................................................7
Releasing staff .........................................................................................9
Advantages of releasing staff…………………………………………………9
Disadvantages of releasing staff…………………………………………….11
Improving staff performance................................................................12
The right training......................................................................................12
Rigorous recruitment processes..............................................................14
Staff assessment .....................................................................................16
Performance review.................................................................................18
Recommendations for employers........................................................19
Recommendation for employees .........................................................21
Conclusions ...........................................................................................22
About Hudson ........................................................................................23
2
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Overview
Low-performance, low-potential employees make up one tenth of a company’s workforce.
Although shedding staff in a climate where companies are desperate to find talent is counterintuitive, nevertheless, retaining for the sake of retaining damages both the long-term health of a
company and the career progression of the individual.
The latest research from Hudson shows that UK business leaders do want to dismiss an annual
quota of underperforming staff, but fear doing so in the current employment market. The findings
reveal that 61% of senior UK bosses believe that a fixed target for annual staff dismissal is
healthy.
A core component of the ruthless reputation cultivated by Jack Welch in his years running US
General Electric was his policy of sacking the bottom tenth of GE managers each year,
regardless of whether they were any good at their jobs. The only test was whether others
achieved more. GE shares performed well over this period but it is unclear how much of this was
down to management by fear. Making room for new blood was probably more important than
gunning down the stragglers.
In April 2006, Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, caused a stir at the Institute of
Directors’ conference when he said he culls a more modest one in 15 of the company's
employees each year. Mr Ballmer argued that all manner of companies, big, small, old or new,
would benefit from building a routine annual cull of employees into their human resource
planning: “You can’t just look at the lower level people,” he said. “You’ve got to ask every day:
‘Do we have the right leaders? Are we promoting the right people? Are we moving the right
people out of our leadership team?’”
Was Ballmer right? In today’s competitive employment market, with an acute shortage of talent
continually highlighted by the media – not least in the wake of December’s long-awaited Leitch
Review into the UK’s skills crisis – staff retention is the mantra by which businesses are
assumed to be operating. But to what extent can this be damaging? Are British businesses
holding on to underperforming staff as a consequence? Is there indeed some sensible rationale
for deliberately dismissing a quota of employees who are not achieving the necessary results?
Could the annual staff ‘cull’ in fact be a counter-intuitive solution to the UK’s increasing
productivity gap with Europe and beyond?
British business leaders acknowledged that there were distinct advantages to deliberately
releasing average or below-average performers. Ensuring strong team members do not carry
weaker ones was cited as the main advantage (60%) of deliberately releasing average or belowaverage performers. Allowing underperforming staff to pursue a fresh challenge more suited to
their abilities (50%), bottom-line improvement (36%), ensuring that training is spent on those that
will really benefit (35%) and increasing productivity (33%) also rated highly.
3
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
But the risks inherent to this strategy were highlighted by the 75% of respondents who cited
‘introducing a culture of fear’ as a deterrent to a dismissal quota. 61% felt pursuing such a
dismissal policy would lower morale within the workplace. In general, women seem to feel more
strongly about the disadvantages than men. Women are almost 10% more likely to think that
deliberately releasing staff lowers morale (68% vs. 59%) and just over 10% more likely to think
that it decreases the motivation of the workforce (48% vs. 37%).
Despite the perceived dangers of pursuing a dismissal ‘quota’, the problems associated with
inaction are sufficiently significant to warrant a serious debate, according to Hudson. The current
employment climate, where available talent is scarce, causes almost one in four (22%) bosses
to admit they would rather retain average or even below-average performers. Clearly, this
scenario has grave implications for the UK economy at a time when competitiveness and
productivity must be at its highest to combat the increasing threat from emerging markets such
as China and India.
The views of British heads of business were polarized as to whether the right training can help
all members of staff perform effectively. Almost half (49%) agree that training is vital in tackling
poor staff performance, but a similar number (45%) take the contrary view, believing training is
simply a temporary solution. In fact, nearly three quarters (72%) of respondents believe a more
rigorous recruitment process would ensure there would be less of a need for deliberating
releasing staff each year. Clearly, there is a need for companies to ensure their recruitment
process is robust and consistent across the organisation.
Staff assessment is important for almost all the businesses surveyed. 96% of companies
measure their staff’s training requirements and 91% review their staff’s performance. Nearly two
thirds (62%) of companies give all their staff an individual training and development programme,
and nearly three quarters (72%) of senior managers ensure their employees receive an annual
performance review. The research shows that the bigger the company, the more likely they are
to have individual training programmes.
Hudson’s research, the first of its kind to examine the business taboo of ‘culling’ within the
context of business performance, highlights that the majority of UK bosses see the financial
benefits of dismissing underperforming employees and admit that the advantages of such a
dismissal policy clearly outweigh the disadvantages. Retaining for the sake of retaining will not
help solve either the UK’s skills crisis or its increasing productivity gap. In addition, this retention
is not good for a company’s long-term health or the career progression of the individual.
However, legitimate concerns remain about both the implications of a dismissal target and the
extent to which simply having hands on deck – regardless of the ability of those hands – is, in
the current climate, better than having insufficient resources.
One thing is certain – this is a topic with genuine relevance to today’s British businesses.
Identifying best practice for your company is critical to ensuring you have the right workforce to
compete effectively, both nationally and internationally.
4
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Methodology and sample
Hudson commissioned YouGov to ascertain the attitudes of UK companies in regards to
releasing a fixed number of staff each year. The study aims to establish the optimum percentage
of workforce employees that should be dismissed each year, and if such a policy actually exists.
The research looks at what level staff turnover becomes unhealthy, and assesses the
advantages and disadvantages of pursuing this employee release policy. The research focuses
on investigating the taboos of discussing a company’s staff turnover policy, and how this affects
both employees and managers. What should businesses do to effectively manage the retention
of their employees, while simultaneously ensuring there is room for talented employees to
develop and fresh blood to join the company?
YouGov conducted a bespoke survey of 562 chairmen, chief executives, partners, managing
director, financial directors or senior managers during the final quarter of 2006. The sample was
drawn from a cross-section of UK companies and public sector organisations, each with an
annual turnover of at least one million pounds.
5
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Annual staff turnover
A healthy turnover
The Hudson research shows that, contrary to popular opinion and practice, 61% of senior
bosses believe that a fixed target for annual staff dismissal is, in fact, healthy. As fig.1 below
shows, almost half of respondents (43%) consider dismissing up to only 5% of staff as healthy,
while a further 13% believe that dismissing up to 10% is healthy. Dismissing 10% of the
workforce is the same figure used by Jack Welch of GE which garnered some disapproval at the
time.
Fig.1 What percentage of staff dismissal do you consider to be healthy?
BASE: 562
What percentage of staff dismissal do you consider to be healthy?
50
45
43
40
40
35
30
25
20
13
15
10
5
2
0
Up to 5%
6
6% to 10%
0
1
11% to 20% 21% to 30% 31% to 40%
2
More than
40%
Don’t know
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Significantly, 40% of respondents do not know what percentage of dismissal is healthy. It is
interesting to note that 41% of people who work in small businesses and 45% of people who
work in medium-sized businesses stated they did not know what percentage of staff dismissal is
healthy. This figure drops by almost 10% for people who work in large companies where more
than one third (36%) say they don’t know. Although there may be many reasons for this, one
possibility is that, in general, larger companies will have had more experience in releasing staff
and may therefore be better able to judge what proportion of staff dismissal is healthy.
An unhealthy turnover
It appears that only 14% of senior managers consider dismissing up to 5% of staff as unhealthy,
while one fifth (20%) believe dismissing up to 10% of staff was damaging to the company. Again,
only one fifth (21%) consider dismissal of over 11 – 20% of the workforce as unhealthy, with
men being marginally less concerned about a certain percentage of staff being dismissed.
Overall, there is little difference between the opinions of men and women; 13% of men and 15%
of women consider any dismissal of up to 5% of staff to be unhealthy.
Only 6% of large and medium-sized companies are willing to dismiss up to almost one third
(30%) of their employees before considering it to be detrimental to the company. However, small
businesses are almost twice as likely to dismiss up to almost one third before perceiving a
negative effect on their workforce, with 11% of people who work in small businesses happy to
dismiss up to 30% of their workforce. This in itself is an interesting response, as releasing 30%
of staff each year from companies with less than 50 people would make quite an impact.
Significantly, respondents working for smaller companies are the most likely to say they do not
know what percentage of staff dismissal is in fact regarded as unhealthy or damaging for the
company. One third (32%) of small businesses are not sure what level becomes unhealthy,
compared with more than one quarter (28%) of people working for medium-sized businesses,
and only 26% for people in large businesses. Once again, this may be because larger
companies have more experience in staff dismissal.
7
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Fig.2 What percentage of staff dismissal do you consider to be unhealthy?
BASE: 562
What percentage of staff dismissal do you consider to be
unhealthy?
3
0
28
2
5
2
0
1
5
20
21
14
10
1
0
6
5
1
0
Up to
5%
8
6% to
10%
11% to
20%
21% to
30%
31% to
40%
More
than
40%
Don’t
know
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Releasing staff
Advantages of releasing average or below-average staff
Ensuring ‘strong team members do not have to carry weaker ones’, was cited by 60% of the
respondents as the top advantage for deliberately releasing average or below-average staff.
Allowing underperforming staff or those not right for the business to pursue a fresh start (50%),
and increasing bottom line improvement (36%) also rated highly.
It is interesting to note that the size of the company affects the way the advantages are
perceived. One fifth of UK senior managers (19%) who work for large businesses think
deliberately releasing staff allows for ‘healthy competition.’ This figure decreases to 16% for
medium-sized businesses and 12% for small businesses. There is a similar trend among those
who think that deliberately releasing staff would allow training and development to be focussed
on staff that would really benefit from it. Nearly half (43%) of UK large businesses believe this to
be an advantage, compared with 31% of medium-sized businesses and one quarter (26%) of
small businesses. It is fair to say that larger firms are more likely to have more established
training and development plans for their employees.
As fig.3 overleaf shows, men and women appear to have very different opinions regarding the
advantages. One in three more women than men (22%) state there are no advantages to
deliberately releasing staff, compared with only 15% of men, who believe there are no
advantages to getting rid of a certain amount of staff on an annual basis.
9
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Fig.3 Which, if any, of the following do you think are the ADVANTAGES of deliberately releasing average
or below average performing members of staff? [Please tick all that apply]
BASE: 562
Which, if any, of the following do you think are the ADVANTAGES of deliberately
releasing average or below average performing members of staff? [Please tick all that
apply]
70
60 60 60
60
50 51
50
40
30
20
36 36
33 34
32
35 36
31
28
24 25
19
48
22
21 21
16 17
16
13
16 15
10
2 2
4
4 5
2
Total
10
Men
Women
There's no
advantages
Don’t know
Other
Allows those
not right to
pursue a
fresh start
Training
focused on
those who
will benefit
Bottom line
improvement
Strong team
members
don't carry
weaker ones
Increases
motivation
Increases
productivity
Healthy
competition
Increases
morale
0
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Disadvantages of releasing average or below-average staff
The risks associated with such a dismissal strategy are clear to see, with three quarters of senior
managers citing that the annual ‘cull’ introduces a culture of fear. 61% are of the opinion that a
‘cull’ would lower morale in the office, with nearly half (46%) of respondents believing that a
structured annual cull would ‘damage the team ethos’ and ‘the company’s reputation’.
The results illustrate that the size of the company the respondent works for has an effect on the
way the disadvantages are perceived. Almost 80 per cent (79%) of respondents who work for
large businesses think that deliberately releasing staff can introduce a culture of fear. This figure
decreases to 73% for medium-sized businesses and 69% for small businesses. There are some
interesting results when comparing the responses of those who agree that deliberately releasing
staff increases pressure from unions. Nearly a third (32%) of respondents from large companies
agree with this. This number decreases substantially for medium and small companies (20% and
13% respectively), but this is logical, as larger businesses are more likely to be exposed to
unions.
Fig.4 Which, if any, of the following do you think are the disadvantages of deliberately releasing average or
below average performing members of staff? [Please tick all that apply]
BASE: 562
Which, if any, of the following do you think are the DISADVANTAGES of deliberately
releasing average or below average performing members of staff? [Please tick all that
apply]
90
79
75 73
69
80
65
61
5758
44
38 35
31
50
40
39 4240
35
52
46
45
42
32
40
3739 34
54
46
46
41
20
13
4433
10
5752
7 10 6 6
There are no
disadvantages
24
30
20
Don't Know
70
60
Total
11
Small business
Medium business
Other
Damages
company’s
reputation
Increases
pressure on
recruitment
Increases
pressure from
unions
Damages
team ethos
Decreases
motivation
Introduces
culture of fear
Promotes
unhealthy
competition
Lowers morale
0
Large business
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Improving staff performance
The right training
Despite recommendations in the recent Leitch Review to tackle the UK’s skills gap, the research
showed that senior managers believe training and development is not the sole solution to the
problem of underperforming staff.
The views of British heads of business were polarised whether the right training can help
members of staff perform effectively. Almost half (49%) agree that training is vital in tackling poor
staff performance, but surprisingly, a similar number (45%) take the contrary view, believing that
training is just a temporary solution to the problem.
Men reacted more positively to training, with half of male managers of the opinion that
employees could perform more effectively with the right training. Women were more sceptical
about the benefits of training for their employees, with only two fifths (42%) convinced training
could affect the performance of their employees.
The differences continue according to the size of company. Just under half (44%) of large
businesses believe staff can perform effectively over time with the right training, compared with
more than half (53%) of managers who work for medium and small-sized businesses. It is also
interesting to note that senior managers were the largest group who perceived the benefits of
training – perhaps this is because they are more aware of their individual employees’ needs.
However, only 41% of both owners and partners in private companies saw any benefit derived
from staff training. Considering the onus placed on employers in the Leitch Review, it is clear
that the employers themselves need educating about the benefits of staff training before being
able to implement such programmes for their own employees.
As the graph (fig.5) overleaf indicates, there are also noticeable regional differences. While more
than one fifth (22%) of senior managers living in the Midlands and Wales feel staff were able to
perform effectively with the right training, less than one in ten (9%) Southerners (excluding
Londoners) think the same way. Staggeringly enough, in London itself nearly half of the
businesses surveyed (48%) did not believe that training can ensure employees perform most
effectively. Further North, senior managers are more convinced that training is a great way
forward to enable employees to perform effectively, with only one in six employers (16%) in the
Midlands and Wales, and a mere 6% of Scottish managers, remaining unconvinced about the
benefits of training.
12
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Fig.5 Do you agree with the statement,’ all members of staff can perform effectively over time with the right
training and development’?
BASE: 562
'All m em bers of staff can perform effectively over tim e w ith the right training and
developm ent'
50
44
45
40
33 32 34 32
35
30
30
22
25
20
15
10
24
17
16 15
19
28
26
22
22
26
19
21
23
16
13
9
6 5 6 7
5
22
6
2
0 0 1 0 0 0
0
Agree
Slightly agree
Total
13
London
Neither agree nor Slightly disagree
disagree
Rest of South
Midlands and Wales
Disagree
North
Scotland
Don’t know
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Rigorous recruitment processes
Nearly three quarters (72%) of senior managers agree or slightly agree that there would be less
of a need to deliberately release staff if the recruitment process was more rigorous. Only one in
six (16%) are of the opinion that deliberately releasing staff may still be necessary, despite
employing a stringent recruitment process. UK bosses are clearly aware of getting the right fit for
their company in terms of skills, attitude and cultural alignment.
Interestingly, 80% of women managers are more likely than men to feel that there would be less
of a need to deliberately release staff if the recruitment process was more rigorous, although
more than two thirds of men (70%) agree that ‘culling’ could be reduced or even halted if the
recruitment process was more judicious. Women managers perhaps have a more
compassionate nature when it comes to getting rid of their staff, and are not quite so keen on the
policy of the ‘annual cull’, regardless of the employee’s performance.
The majority of small businesses are least likely to make the link between rigorous recruitment
and not getting rid of staff. More than three quarters (78%) of medium-sized businesses and
nearly three quarters (72%) of managers in large businesses place a great deal of importance
on a thorough recruitment process. One possible reason for small businesses not feeling the
need for stringent recruitment procedures could be because small businesses do not take on as
many staff as larger companies, and there is therefore no need for such recruitment practices.
Senior managers are at least 10% more likely to agree that a meticulous recruitment procedure
would mean less of a need to deliberately release staff. Senior managers in general are more
likely to be responsible for the recruitment process and this may explain why they are most likely
to think that a more rigorous process would be of benefit.
14
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Fig.6 Do you agree with the statement, ‘There would be less of a need to deliberately release staff if the
recruitment process was more rigorous’?
BASE: 562
'There would be less of a need to deliberately release staff if the recruitment
process was more rigorous'
90
80
70
78
72
72
66
60
50
40
30
20
11
10
14
8
16
11
19
14 16
1
1
1
0
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Total
15
Small business
Disagree
Medium business
Don’t know
Large business
1
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Staff Assessment
While 45% of senior managers were unconvinced as to the merits of training and its effect on
employees’ performance, 96% of all companies surveyed did in fact measure their staff’s training
requirements.
Nearly two thirds of UK businesses surveyed (62%) give all their staff an individual training and
development programme. The larger the company, the more likely they are to have individual
training programmes. While under half (42%) of respondents who work for small firms provide
programmes, nearly two thirds (60%) of medium-sized firms and almost three quarters (74%) of
large firms provide training and development programmes for their employees. This is perhaps
predictable as the larger the business, the more likely they are to have the resources to be able
to provide tailored programmes.
However, apart from a relatively small minority, the responsibility for training seems to lie with
employers. Less than one third (29%) felt that any requests for training were up to the individual.
This trend was most prevalent amongst small businesses, where more than one third (36%)
placed the responsibility for training on the employee. Although a decrease, still more than one
quarter of medium-sized businesses (28%) and large businesses (26%) leave training up to the
employees themselves. Furthermore, while the employer is perceived to be responsible for
training needs, 60% of all UK business managers questioned believe the individual employee’s
line manager should be responsible for deciding on an employee’s training requirements. Only
2% of all UK businesses surveyed do not measure their staff’s training requirements at all.
There are also a few regional differences; with staff in the North being the most likely to receive
individual training programmes (67%). Londoners are the worst off, as they are the least likely to
receive individual training, with only slightly more than half (57%) of workers in London receiving
training specific to their job role.
16
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Fig.7 How (or how often), if at all, does your company monitor your staff’s training requirements? [Please
tick all that apply]
BASE: 562
How often, if at all, does your company monitor your staff's training requirements?
[Please tick all that apply]
80
70
60
6667
62 63
57
63
50
40
30
20
10
35
29
44
40
3736 36
38
33
33
26
16
9
432
1
3
34
3
12
6
9
1112
6
5
3
3
5
2223
0
Training
All staff have Any requests
individual
for training up monitored by
external
programme
to
source
employee/will
be considered
Total
17
Staff don't
It's
Employees
responsibility require formal
have same
of manager to training - they
training
train on the
decide on
regardless of
job
relevant
role
training
London
South
Mid/Wales
North
Other
Scotland
11
32
10
DK
43
1
5
76
Don't monitor
staff training
requirements
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Performance review
An individual employee’s performance is critical to the success, and ultimately to the bottom line,
of a company. The vast majority of employers review their staff’s performance, with only 9% of
companies failing to review their staff’s performance.
Although employers are keen to review the performance of their employees, only 11% of staff
have monthly reviews and less than one fifth (17%) have quarterly reviews. The most common
review period is annually, with three quarters (72%) of staff within UK businesses receiving an
annual performance review. Similarly to training requirements, the larger the company the more
likely the employees are to receive performance reviews. Only 3% of large businesses don’t
review their staff’s performance compared to 8% of medium-sized companies and a fifth (20%)
of small companies.
Fig.8 Who takes the main responsibility for monitoring your employees’ performance?
BASE: 562
Who takes the MAIN responsibility for monitoring your employees' performance?
Who takes the main responsibility for monitoring your employees’ performance?
70
60
60
50
40
26
30
20
1
D
on
't
kn
ow
O
th
er
lm
an
ag
er
Li
ne
/p
er
so
na
de
pa
rtm
en
t
H
R
C
hi
Se
ef
Ex
ni
or
ec
m
ut
an
iv
e
ag
em
en
t/t
he
Bo
ar
d
1
0
0
pp
ly
6
no
ta
6
D
oe
s
10
Interestingly enough, 60% of UK businesses believe that the entire responsibility for monitoring
an employee’s performance, not just the training they may need, does in fact lie with line and/or
personnel managers. One quarter, however, stated that responsibility lay with senior
management or the Board.
18
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Recommendations for employers
So, what should employers do to ensure they have an efficient and productive workforce and are
maximising the performance of all employees?
Is there an optimum percentage of the workforce that employers should deliberately release
each year? In a talent-short market, showing any employee the door is counter-intuitive. After all,
isn’t it ‘better the devil you know’? But companies that strive for high performance and results
must ensure their recruitment and retention standards are rigorous. Up to 5% per annum is a
healthy dismissal figure; beyond that, turnover levels start to become unhealthy, with staff living
under the constant fear of losing their jobs. This can result in a shift in team dynamics, as
stronger members of the team join forces to highlight the misdemeanours of their weaker
colleagues. Even worse would be a diminution in team culture as employees fight to
demonstrate their merits in comparison to peers. Of course, some competition between
employees makes for a challenging and energising working environment although employers
must be careful that they do not implicitly encourage it to become too fierce.
An annual performance review is the norm in many organisations; however, using the results of
the review to dismiss those individuals judged to have been performing poorly during the
previous year is not always a natural output from the process. Rather than inculcating a culture
of fear and victimisation, an annual review of staff performance, along with benchmarking
against the skills requirements and values of the organisation, can be a very valuable way of
ensuring that the company’s staff profile is in line with business objectives. Ultimately, it’s about
ensuring that the skills make-up of a company matches the needs of the business, enabling
performance to exceed targets year on year. It sends out the right message to all employees that consistently high standards are expected and rewarded accordingly. For talented
employees who may have carried their less proficient colleagues, it demonstrates a commitment
to a fair and equitable system.
ƒ
Identify the skills needed and the values of your organisation.
ƒ
During the recruitment process, compare candidates’ capabilities against the long-term
needs and objectives of the organisation. Ensure all those involved in the recruitment
process, from HR to line managers to the Board, are aware of these terms.
ƒ
Evaluate the culture of your organisation, identify the behavioural competencies required
for success and ensure that the recruitment process effectively measures candidates
against these competencies.
ƒ
Assess all your current staff regularly, and compare their skills and aptitude against the
organisation’s requirements.
ƒ
Offer coaching to address specific needs. Nearly one third of organisations do not have
individual training and development programmes for their staff.
19
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
ƒ
Engage employees to help facilitate good, if not excellent, performance. Provide strong
development plans, good compensation schemes, ample holidays and a fun environment
in which to work.
ƒ
Be honest – there is no point pretending that everyone is right in terms of skills, attitude
and cultural fit. Provide targets and timeframes in which underperformers must improve,
and stick to them.
ƒ
Don’t cover up. Should you dismiss any employees, be open and honest with the rest of
your staff and make it clear that you are pleased with their performance and excited about
the future direction of the business.
ƒ
Establish your dismissal figure for the year. With strong recruitment and talent
management practices, work hard to reduce this in the following year.
ƒ
Identify the lifeblood of the organisation for the future. Conduct a talent inventory of
current high performers, ensuring you know which employees can be developed and how
long the career progression path will typically be.
ƒ
Finally, continually assess whether you have the right people and invest in their
development.
20
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Recommendations for employees
As an employee, what can you do to ensure your performance exceeds expectations and you do
not form part of any annual dismissal procedure?
ƒ
Ask for feedback. But don’t just wait until the end of the year; speak to your line manager,
direct reports and colleagues for a regular update on your progress.
ƒ
Receive your 360° feedback to ensure that both positive and negative criticisms are fairly
represented. For example, a personality clash with one colleague and consequent
negative feedback will be less significant in the context of feedback from other colleagues.
ƒ
Should negative feedback persist, ask for recommendations on how to address it, and
demonstrate a willingness to learn and improve. Request another formal review in 3
months to ensure you are on track.
ƒ
Make a conscious effort to improve those areas cited for development. If you feel you
need training, investigate what is available and ask to be included as soon as possible.
ƒ
Assess whether the role and the organisation are really right for you. Sometimes, an
outwards move is right for both you and your employer. Taking control of the situation and
identifying that for yourself is empowering and invigorating.
ƒ
Should you be shown the door, identify your core skills and assess what role and what
type of organisation would be really right for you. Should it not be offered, ask your
employer for careers coaching – you are entitled to this in a dismissal situation.
ƒ
Finally, if you are targeted for dismissal, do not say anything in haste that you’ll regret at
leisure. You may need a reference or a favour from an old colleague in the future.
21
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
Conclusions
Despite the general taboo around the so-called ‘annual cull’, Hudson’s research has produced
some interesting findings. Almost half of UK businesses (43%) consider an annual cull of 5% of
staff would in fact be healthy for a company. A mere 14% consider dismissing up to 5% of staff
as entirely detrimental for a firm.
Putting an exact figure on the optimum percentage of staff to release is extremely difficult, and
opinions do vary. Senior managers working for larger UK businesses have a stronger opinion
about the percentage necessary to make the company successful. It is the managers working for
small and medium-sized companies who are most likely to say they are unsure about what
percentage of staff dismissal could be considered healthy for either individual employees or the
firm as a whole. Bigger companies, in general, will have had more experience in releasing staff
and may therefore be better able to judge what proportion of staff dismissal is healthy. For
similar reasons, respondents working for smaller companies are the most likely to say they don’t
know what percentage of staff dismissal would be considered to be unhealthy.
It is important, however, to emphasise the organisation’s commitment to its part of the bargain:
those employees who strive to maintain those standards will be rewarded with fair pay and
benefits, excellent training and development provision, good career progression, a sensible
work/life balance, and a challenging and enjoyable environment in which to work. It is also
essential that a fair system is put in place, which provides underperforming employees with the
time and opportunity to improve their performance. A ‘one strike and you’re out’ system would
only serve to demoralise all staff and, ultimately, harm morale and productivity.
Far from being cruel, freeing underperforming staff to pursue a fresh start can be as good for
employees as it is for the business. While shedding staff in the current talent-short climate
appears counter-intuitive, retaining for the sake of retaining is damaging for the health of the
company and the individual. Effective career management and mentoring can help develop
future stars and simultaneously manage the disappointment of frustrated employees.
Businesses need to know how to asses the cultural fit, as well as the technical capabilities of a
recruit, and have an understanding as to what training is required. The outcome or right direction
for individuals at all levels in an organisation is not always onwards and upwards. Sometimes,
the best career direction for an employee is out of the company. Companies must take care, of
course, that they do not incubate a culture of fear, instead providing underperforming staff with
time and opportunity to improve their performance.
22
Cull or cure:
The secret of an efficient company
About Hudson
Hudson delivers specialised professional recruitment, outsourcing, and human capital solutions
worldwide. From single placements to total solutions, the firm helps clients achieve greater
organisational performance by assessing, recruiting, developing and retaining the best and
brightest people for their businesses. Hudson is one of the world’s leading professional
recruitment, retained executive search and human capital solution providers. The company
employs more than 3,800 professionals serving clients and candidates in more than 20
countries. More information is available at www.hudson.com.
For further information on this research, please contact:
Joanna Chapman / Kate Parker, Hudson 020 7187 6183
joanna.chapman@hudson.com / kate.parker@hudson.com
Joanna Trezise / Stuart Lambert, Fishburn Hedges
020 7839 4321
joanna.trezise@fishburn-hedges.co.uk / stuart.lambert@fishburn-hedges.co.uk
About YouGov
Founded in May 2000, YouGov is a professional market research agency pioneering the use of
the Internet and information technology to collect higher-quality in-depth data for market
research and public consultation.
YouGov has recruited respondents from all ages, socio economic groups and regions of Britain.
The sample for each survey is carefully selected and controlled so that it is representative of the
adult population as a whole - or the specific audience that the survey is designed to measure.
More information is available at www.YouGov.com
For further information, please contact:
Jo Tenzer / Andy Morris 020 7618 3010
jo.tenzer@yougov.com / andy.morris@yougov.com
23