Hiring 1.6 people to fill every role
THE COST
$1.6m
in payroll for every $1m of work actually delivered
Opportunity cost: Generous conditions were funded in full, but only part of that investment was turning into people at work.
THE PROBLEM
With attendance around 62%, a council works team had to hire about 1.6 people for every role it needed filled, and two or three to be sure of one critical role on the day. Work became reactive, contractors filled the gaps at a premium, and the manager was often out doing the field work himself.
ALREADY IN PLACE
A lot that’s genuinely good: a strong enterprise agreement, flexible work arrangements, generous leave, allowances and a casual pool, designed to make up for pay below the private sector.
WHAT SIGNAL FOUND
The Lever Map showed the conditions made council a great place to work, but they weren’t translating into people at work. Rigid role descriptions meant no one could step in. Incentives only some could earn created friction. Casuals took weeks to onboard and couldn’t be called in at short notice.
PRIORITY LEVERS
→ Broaden who can cover which tasks, within the existing agreement
→ A local, ready-to-call casual pool
→ Fair, visible recognition for the whole crew
No need to outbid the market on pay.
HOW IT STICKS
Attendance, shifts covered, days to fill, contractor and casual costs, and the hiring ratio itself: from 1.6 toward 1. Tracked on the Signal leaderboard, with quarterly field observations run by the works manager.
WHY IT MATTERS
Good conditions don’t guarantee people at work. Signal shows why, and fixes it with the levers council already controls.
Cost is illustrative: at about 62% attendance, roughly 1.6 paid people are needed to deliver one person’s work, so $1m of work costs about $1.6m in payroll. It excludes contractor premiums, overtime and recruitment costs, so the true figure is likely higher. Priority Levers shown are those Signal would test.