Revenue Per Employee - Does it Tell the Whole Story

Ken Kaufman's Profile

Revenue Per Employee Benchmarks

 

How do you know if you are over or under-staffed? If sales are increasing, are you hiring too quickly or slowly to keep up? If your sales are dropping, are you cutting too many or not enough employees?

These are tough questions to answer, and every business owner needs to carefully consider quantitative and qualitative information to make the best decisions. Let me explain how this works and then give a couple of examples. 

The most common quantitative measures to determine if you have the right number of employees are revenue per employee benchmarks. Your industry has a benchmark that you can get from others in your industry or from one of the CFOwise partner's Business Dashboards. Request a Free Industry Report. For example, certain medical device manufacturers average about $250,000 per employee. Just take your total sales revenue and divide it by your total employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs). You should also consider your total salary, wages, payroll taxes, and benefit costs as a percentage of revenue relative to your industry averages and your historical performance. 

The qualitative measurements include walking throughout your business and trying to determine how busy  your employees appear, listening to your employees complain about how they need more help if you expect them to keep up with the growing demand for your products, and more.

For example, your employees appear busy, but your sales are dropping meaning your revenue per employee is dropping, too. These two are not consistent, so you investigate to find out that your employees are taking longer to do the same work. In this example, the quantitative analysis wins and you know you need to "right-size" your staff.

Here's another example. Your sales are flat, yet your employees are increasingly complaining about being overworked. You investigate this inconsistency to find that the manufacturing function you used to outsource but then brought in-house is taking three times longer than anyone expected. Your analysis leads you to conclude you actually need to hire more employees to handle the extra work. When you compare the cost for the extra employees and the savings you generate from in-sourcing, you find you are actually more profitable than before, even though revenue per employee dropped.

A careful consideration of both qualitative and quantitative measurements will bring to the most effective staffing conclusions. Don't be afraid to ask the tough questions, and never depend exclusively on just the numbers or just subjective opinions.

Comments

Member's Profile

I like Ken's balance of quantitative and qualitative measures. One caution I would like to add is to consider your objectives and strategies before reviewing revenue per employee benchmarks. I have witnessed several companies that pursued this measure and did lasting damage to their operations. Here are two examples:
In one case, an institutional investor changed their investment policy to purse larger deals, reducing the number of staff required to perform the necessary due diligence given there would be fewer deals (there was a limited about of capital to be invested each year). As a result, their capital was concentrated into only a few very large investments. This lowered their diversification, increased their portfolio's risk, and suffered more in the recent downturn than had they maintained a broader portfolio.
In a second case, a company that had succeeded due to lavish attention on their high-end customers scaled back their service team to align with industry norms. This directly conflicted with the strategy that generated their initial success and both sales and margins faltered.
We can't make excuses for a bloated workforce, but carefully consider what makes your company distinct from the benchmark pool before setting headcount goals. Success may depend on being either more or less aggressive than your competitors.
So take Ken's urging to balance both quantitative and qualitative observations. As one of my favorite quotes goes, "The first sign we don't know what we are doing is an obsession with numbers." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Thanks Ken!

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

David, I couldn't agree more. In a vacuum, the numbers are meaningless. In context, they mean everything! Thanks for your thoughtful comments!

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Member's Profile

Single measures, like revenue per FTE, can seriously distort decisions and are very unreliable. Direct margin per FTE may distort less but needs to be carefully calculated and be "supply chain structure" aware, as it is still a single measure. A better "dashboard" uses a handfull of measures to evaluate direct margin - one of my prefered measures for manufacturing - and indirect costs related to critical drivers. The "same industgry" is seldom the same structurally from firm to firm and individual industry measures are not likely to provide insight. Know your business model!

To comment, and for full access, login or register
Proformative Advisor
Member's Profile

Thank you Ken for the reference.
Was wondering if anyone out there in the media/publishing industry was willing to share whether you use this metric (revenue per employee.) Historically, I have not. Interested in the direct margin calc by Barrett, although I guess how you calculate direct margin will vary.

To comment, and for full access, login or register