So you haven’t been scrupulously comparing job seeker qualifications and job requisitions. And some of those job reqs have been sketchy to begin with, requiring superficial attributes like an Ivy League degree or a 3.75 GPA, rather than practical ones like a CPA or Series 7 designation. And you suspect that some of your hires are therefore failing because they lack the right skills or background. Business as usual, right?

Let’s turn to simple math for a rough estimate of what you might save if you evaluated all candidates thoroughly first and compared them to well-thought-out job descriptions. And let’s suppose this reduces the candidate failure rate by half. What would the impact be?

In the Aberdeen Group's June 2007 benchmark report, Enhancing Operational Results with Employee Performance Management, the primary pressure driving employee performance management was the need to improve overall company performance (57%), followed by employee productivity (46%).

However, the pressures driving organizations to pursue employee performance management in 2008 have shifted, a direct reflection of the global shortage of labor and talent. Though workforce productivity still remains a Top Two driving force cited by 27% of more than 900 organizations surveyed in this year's study, the primary pressures revolve around insufficient talent pipelines (43%), the loss of top talent to competitors (41%), and a diverse workforce with varying needs and expectations (34%).