People-Powered Performance ROI · Executive summary
Estimated annual recoverable value
Conservative annual recoverable value · primary business-case reference
€1.3M
Upper scenario for context (stronger adoption): €3.8M
For your organisation, that represents roughly 4.2–12.4% of total payroll across the selected value areas, with turnover cost reduction carrying the largest share.
Framed for a mixed leadership audience: business performance, people impact and financial credibility across employee exits and replacement cost, interview and selection time, wrong-fit hires, manager effectiveness and engagement-related productivity.
Use the conservative figure as the defensible reference point for an internal business case. The upper figure shows the additional upside if adoption is strong.
Data confidence: Low
What this is equivalent to
Equivalent to approx.
21–62
average employee annual costs
Equivalent to approx.
0.5–1.5
months of total payroll
Based on what you entered
Headcount
500
Country / currency
EU average · EUR
Payroll input method
Average cost entered
Avg cost / employee
€62,000
Annual turnover rate
15%
Expected employee exits
75
Additional growth roles
0
Total roles to fill (12 mo)
75
Selected priority areas
Turnover cost reduction, Interview time savings, Bad-hire prevention, Manager effectiveness, Engagement loss reduction
Where the value comes from
| Priority area | Calculation basis | Conservative (business case) | Upper (context) | Notes |
|---|
| Turnover cost reduction | Expected employee exits × replacement cost × addressable reduction | €465K | €1.4M | Value from reducing avoidable employee exits and the cost to replace them. |
| Interview time savings | Roles to fill × candidates interviewed × rounds reduced × internal interviewer time cost | €17,550 | €29,250 | Manager and interviewer time freed up by a more focused selection process. |
| Bad-hire prevention | Roles to fill × hiring-fit risk × estimated cost impact | €372K | €837K | Cost avoided by preventing wrong-fit hires. |
| Manager effectiveness | Payroll × manager share × team-performance opportunity × realistic capture | €86,800 | €419K | Team performance unlocked by stronger manager effectiveness. |
| Engagement loss reduction | Headcount × share disengaged × cost per disengaged employee × share recovered | €349K | €1.2M | Productivity recovered from a more engaged workforce. |
| Total | | €1.3M | €3.8M | |
A number you can defend
Lead with the conservative figure. It combines your organisation inputs with recognised benchmarks and editable assumptions, and is designed to be the defensible reference point for an internal business case. The upper figure is shown for context — it indicates the additional upside if adoption and execution are strong, not a target. Refine the assumptions with your own HR and finance data before presenting externally.
When the value lands
In the first weeks
- Interview efficiency
- Faster selection decisions
- Bad-hire prevention
- Hiring quality
Across the year
- Turnover reduction
- Engagement improvement
- Manager effectiveness
- Team performance improvement
What this means for your leadership team
For the CEO. At least €1.3M of annual value — around 4.2% of annual payroll sits in employee exits and replacement cost, interview and selection time, wrong-fit hires, manager effectiveness and engagement-related productivity. This is execution capacity, not an HR programme: it affects how fast the organisation can scale, how much leadership attention goes to recovery work, and how much delivery risk carries into next year.
For the CHRO. The value comes from sharper selection decisions, stronger manager capability, better engagement across teams, fewer avoidable exits. These are workforce outcomes the people function already owns — this estimate puts a financial figure on them so they can be prioritised alongside other investments.
For the CFO. Use €1.3M as the planning figure. It is built from the organisation's own headcount, cost and turnover inputs against named third-party benchmarks, with every assumption visible and adjustable. The upper figure is sensitivity context, not a forecast.
Evidence from practice
- Civitas Senior Living — interview rounds cut from 10 to 4 per role. Structured behavioural assessment let the hiring team shorten the interview loop from ten rounds to four per role, releasing significant manager time without lowering hiring standards. www.predictiveindex.com/company/customer-stories/?_story_type=case-study
Customer cases are examples of realised outcomes, not guaranteed results.
Assumptions used (selected priority areas)
| Assumption | Conservative | Upper |
|---|
| Replacement cost (× salary) | 0.5 | 1 |
| Turnover avoided after PI | 20% | 30% |
| Share of interview-round reduction achieved | 60% | 100% |
| Bad hires prevented / year | 6 | 9 |
| Bad hire cost (× salary) | 1 | 1.5 |
| Manager share of workforce | 8.0% | 15% |
| Team performance opportunity | 10% | 18% |
| Realistic capture rate | 35% | 50% |
| Share of employees disengaged | 50% | 60% |
| Cost of disengagement (% of salary) | 15% | 25% |
| Share of disengagement cost recovered | 15% | 25% |
Low. Mostly based on benchmark assumptions. Replace assumptions with your own HR and finance data to improve confidence.
Sources
- Eurostat — Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity. ec.europa.eu/eurostat
- OECD — Taxing Wages (employer labour cost & tax wedge). oecd.org/tax/taxing-wages
- SHRM / CIPD — Turnover and replacement cost (recruitment, onboarding, training, lost productivity, loss of knowledge). shrm.org · cipd.org
- Gallup — State of the Global Workplace (engagement & manager effectiveness). gallup.com/workplace/state-of-the-global-workplace
- Predictive Index — Science — Assessment science and validation evidence. predictiveindex.com/science
- Predictive Index — Customer evidence — Civitas Senior Living case study (interview rounds reduced from 10 to 4 per role). Case example, not a guaranteed outcome. predictiveindex.com/company/customer-stories
Methodology notes (selected priority areas)
- Turnover cost reduction. Based on expected employee exits, estimated replacement cost and the share of turnover assumed to be addressable.
- Interview time savings. Based on roles to fill, candidates interviewed per role, interview rounds reduced and internal interviewer time cost.
- Bad-hire prevention. Based on total roles to fill, hiring-fit risk and the estimated cost impact of poor hiring fit.
- Manager effectiveness. Based on manager/team impact assumptions and the share of performance improvement assumed to be addressable.
- Engagement loss reduction. Based on the engagement benchmark, the affected employee population and the share assumed to be addressable.
Currency & conversion
Monetary values shown in EUR. Where benchmarks are sourced in another currency, conversion is based on exchange rate assumptions used by the calculator and is directional only.
