Benchmarking Top Performers Works

Thanks to new technology, a travel agency has seen significant shifts in how they do business and who their customer is. These changes have created a need to understand which characteristics matter most in the new travel agent.

Study 1: Performance Issues
The travel agency's first study covered a period of nine months. Its intent was to identify trends based on performance data and the relationship of the trends to the overall job match percentage as part of their program with the ProfileXT® assessment tool. The study included 153 sales agents who had finished a trial employment period.

Using a job match pattern developed with the ProfileXT®, the travel agency decided that 76 percent represented a good overall job match score. To arrive at the score, the agency chose top performers based on their weekly sales average. Ten of these top-ranked employees averaged 76 percent on overall job match, or competencies that travel agency managers wanted to see. Ten bottom performers averaged 69 percent. Sales for top performers averaged five times greater than for bottom performers.

Highlights:
•The top 10 sales agents' weekly sales average was $2,648• The bottom 10 sales agents' weekly average was $482• The difference between the two averages is $2,166 weekly. • For every dollar a bottom performer earned, a top performer earned $5.50.• Using the overall match on the assessment, replacing a poor sales performer with a top sales performer would result in a sales increase of $2,166 per week, or 349 percent.

Study 2: Turnover Issues
The travel agency's turnover study covered a period of 12 months and included 181 sales agents. Managers gathered turnover rates throughout the study period. Before the study began, turnover was 28 percent.

Managers developed a job match pattern using the ProfileXT® and found 60 top performers with a job match percentage of 75 or greater. They matched the results of the entire group of 181 workers against the pattern, and then used the same pattern in the employee selection process. At the end of the study period, turnover had dropped from 28 percent to 16 percent.

Highlights;
•Reduction in turnover: 43 percent• Average cost of hiring: $15,000• Cost of 28 percent turnover (51 people times $15,000): $765,000• Cost of 16 percent turnover (29 people times $15,000): $435,000• Savings: $330,000 in reduced hiring costs.

During the study period, the agency hired 181 new employees. Twenty-nine left, reducing the turnover rate from 28 percent to 16 percent and giving the agency the $330,000 in savings.
Summary In both areas of study, the job match pattern proved to be a valid and reliable means of selection and retention.