Comments (0)

There’s a great article in Inc. magazine online today about employee retention.  The article gives a lot of tips–some unique and obviously thoughtful, which is nice to see.  Some of the great advice includes having regular check-ins with your employees so that you can preempt and resolve issues before they become cause for termination or resignation, never burning bridges, and always making sure that an employee is challenged so he can make mistakes, learn and constantly grow. Some of the advice, however, made me think about its practicality.  While all of it is good in theory, some just don’t translate well into the real world.

Have a trial period – This is really good in theory, but not so much in practice.  While I agree that a trial period is great not just for the company to evaluate the employee but also for the employee to evaluate the company, the question is, “what happens if it’s not a good match?”  You have spent countless hours and dollars recruiting this person, went through the trouble of hiring him, rejected other potential candidates, and have dumped some time into his training.  Now that you want to be rid of him, you’ve sunk a ton of resources already and the other candidates that you were considering probably have found other jobs already.  That means you have to start from scratch.  While there are companies that can afford to do this, many can’t.  On the flip side, what does it mean for the recent hire?  He has to start from scratch too (and he may also have turned down alternate job offers to work for you – job offers that are most likely no longer available to him).  What if he is one of those who dropped everything and/or moved a thousand or more miles to take your job?  Being let go after 3 months would be catastrophically demoralizing.  The same goes for if he’s not thrilled with you.  He’s sunk so much into the decision that it’s impractical to leave.  I know that having a trial period sounds like a good hedge to your hiring mechanism, you have to think about the possible fallout.

Hire people who live close to the office — According to the article, long commutes are detrimental to work-life balances.  I definitely believe this is true and people obviously look for work within a certain radius of where they live (if they’re not looking to relocate).  However, I have had jobs that I’ve loved that I commuted 2 hours each way for and I have had jobs I’ve hated that took me 20 minutes to get to.  I think the point Inc. is trying to make is that while people might like the job 2 hours away, they won’t be able to do it forever and will therefore leave.  Therefore, hiring people who live close increases retention, which is technically logical.  My point is that if someone is completely in love with their work, moving closer might not be out of the question.

Have untraditional vacation policies — I think this works depending on how “untraditional” they are.  The scenario described, of having a pool of days that doesn’t expire, might actually work really well.  I come from an environment that doesn’t have a vacation policy (and people can take what they need, provided their manager approves) and that works terribly for most people because of the guilt factor.  If there’s no limit all of a sudden, people keep wondering if they’re abusing the privilege.  Therefore, it’s really important to think about informal implications.  It may be a good marketing ploy during hiring, but those hires might feel duped later.

Administer personality tests during the hiring process — From personal experience with this, I think it’s a terrible idea.  I know that this is well intentioned: you want a non-traditional way to see whether your potentials have the “soft” qualities you’re looking for.  In reality, there’s no way you’re going to get this from administering these tests.  Firstly, this is true because people will rehearse for them as they do for interviews.  If you’re hiring smart people, they will do their homework.  They will come to the interview knowing what your firm is about, what qualities you’re looking for, and what tests you’re going to be giving them.  They will then answer the questions how they think you want them to be answered.  While it’s possible to tell with some candidates that they’re trying too hard, it might not be with most others.  Secondly, and thusly, publicizing your intent to give personality tests sends a very specific message about your firm — that you’re fluffy and naïve.  Most people have a negative opinion of personality tests because they are rarely reflective of your true self.  Whether you’re consciously prepping for them or are answering them from the perspective of the person you want to be, you’re never really revealing your true personality.

Setting goals with rewards — This seems more like bribery than motivation to me.  If you’re hiring good people, the rewards you should be offering them, and which should be sufficient for them, are career-related (progression, promotion, compensation, responsibility, recognition, etc.).  While I admit that it’s possible that I’m not the norm employee that is being described here, I know I wouldn’t bend over backwards for an iPod at the end of the quarter.  I absolutely believe in setting goals.  100% believe.  However, the rewards that should be attached should be professional development and progression goals, not stuff.

Are there other methods that people have tried with sucess or failure?

Comments (0)

Once upon a time, in a land not so far away, a senior manager, in response to the question “why are so many people leaving the firm recently?” answered that “oh those people left to either go to school or start their own business, so it’s not anything reflective of the firm.”

I know what you’re thinking and no, this person was not the Senior Manager of Data Mining.

As a manager, you need to realize and accept two very important facts:

1. The reasons people give you for why they’re quitting are not the actual reasons why they’re quitting.
2. Many people, unless they’ve been dying to get an MBA or a PhD in history since they were 5, would not consider going to grad school (or even starting their own business) if they absolutely love their job.

Let me elaborate.

Unless the person is going postal and/or knows for a fact that he or she is never ever going to work in the same industry or ever meet any of the same people again, he or she is not going to want to burn a bridge.  Therefore, that person is not going to tell you that he’s leaving because he thinks you’re a horrible manager and you’ve been making his life a living hell for the past 3 years, even though that may be the impetus of his decision to move on (or start his own business).  He will probably give you a reason along the lines of, “I have always wanted to move to Boulder,” or, “The other firm just made me a financial offer that no one could refuse” or something else over which you have no control.

Also, no one grows up wanting an MBA.  I’m sorry, but a 5 year old doesn’t think “since I can’t be a ballerina, I guess I’ll just go to Harvard Business School.”  People who are already working do not go on to graduate degrees unless it’s actually been their dream or unless they have to, meaning their job sucks and they can’t easily get a new one.  The latter is especially true of MBA candidates.  True, there are some fields that require an MBA for career advancement (like investment banking), but that number is pretty small.

So what can you as a manager do to decode this mysterious attrition?

1. If the person leaving is giving you a generic reason for leaving, there’s absolutely a much deeper issue.  However, do not probe. All that’s going to do is force the individual to tell the truth, make you upset, and leave on a bad note.  No, it’s up to you to reflect.  Whenever someone leaves, think back to what this person’s job functions were, how he was treated (by you and others), and how much he accomplished during that time.  Most likely, the answer and the truth lies in at least one of those questions.
2. If the person leaving is going back to school, then you can ask why they’re going.  Most people getting an MBA will not be able to give a good reason why other than “to advance my career,” which is your dead give-away that you, as their boss, were not doing enough of that.  If the answer is “I came to a realization that researching prehistoric agriculture is my real passion,” then you’re probably off the hook.

Comments (0)

There are some firms who think that employees are going to stay put right now because they’d have a hard time finding other employment.  While that may be generally true and people are reluctant, these are the reasons why I would willingly quit my job, even in a bad economy:

• My compensation does not match what I think I contribute — if I automated all your previously-manual processes, work 14 hour days to fill the role of another employee you let go, and fundamentally changed the way you do business and you only pay me the “market average” with nothing but a subsistence level raise every year, peace out.
• I hate my job but it consumes all my time, leaving me none to do the things I love — I’m fine working ridiculous hours if what I wake up every morning (after a small amount of sleep, obviously) and can’t wait to go to work.  If, however, I have a soul-less, meaningless job and am forced (by sheer volume of work) to work the majority of the day, that means I spend most of the day doing something I hate, with no time to do something I love.  If I don’t get to do the things that make me happy because I have to do the things that make me miserable, I’m not staying for much longer.
• It’s obviously a dead end job — most people take a job for the opportunity moreso than for the money.  If it’s been a number of years and there’s no opportunity to be found and there’s none that you can create for yourself no matter how hard you try, it’s time to move on (hopefully to a place with actual opportunity).  Not many people are going to be satisfied doing the same exact job for decades.  Definitely not me.
• I cannot envision myself working there for the next several years given a good economy and I’m therefore only working for a paycheck — I don’t know about the rest of you, but if I’m only working for the money (as opposed to money and personal fulfillment), I feel like I’m selling my soul.  Though I might need the money, there’s got to be something out there that is not going to make me feel like devil spawn.
• Everyone keeps telling me I’m really valuable but I keep not getting promoted – basically, if my employers are all talk and no action, I’m going to feel like they’re playing me for a fool.  If I’m so valuable, show me the money … or title.  If not, I’m going to find someone who will actually appreciate me.
• How far you get in the firm is positively correlated to how frequently you go drinking with the bosses — I’m a huge believer in networking and it’s power to get you places. But there’s a difference between great networking and taking shots with your boss in a dark club at 4 am after the company party.  Or rather, being promoted because you’re the first person your boss thinks of (because you held her hair back after that bad tequila experience).  I’m not a big drinker, so to me, that kind of seems like discrimination.
• If I’m never in the know about opportunities and goings-on in the firm – If I find out about projects after they’re done, if the sexy projects are always given to the same set of 3 people, I’m going to feel like an outsider.  I want to be an insider.
• Would never invite anyone I work with to my house — if I don’t respect or like the people I work with, I’m not going to be happy working here.  Considering how much time of your day you spend at work, your co-workers are like your second family, so they should be family you like spending Christmas with.
• I feel like decisions about my job prospects are made FOR me, not BY me – enough said.