Recruit, Inspire & Retain

Colleague #1:
“A private organization here uses a very simple model [for deciding what positions to retain]. Draw two axes, one being "importance to the organization" and the other being "likelihood of leaving", then ascribe key positions/people to a point on the "importance to the org" axis and plot the likelihood of leaving on the other, you can then identify the people who fall into the quadrant of high importance/high likelihood of leaving and concentrate effort on retaining them.

The level of sophistication applied to identifying these factors and what you do to retain those at risk, along with the introduction of secondary strategies to prevent key people from ending up in the high risk category can be different for different organizations, depending on how serious an issue it is and how badly Exec want it fixed.

For instance, the rigor in deciding which positions are critical (e.g. what criteria do you use to decide) is one example since some of these positions might well change to reflect changing imperatives in the business plans. Others would remain critical no matter what the priorities are. Similarly, there is lots of scope to identify tailored rewards and recognition to target those at high risk of leaving.”

Colleague #2:
“[With all respect] employee retention has to do with who you are going to keep and who you are going to give the axe to. Employee retention isn't about what positions you are going to retain or get rid of based upon changing needs (it's about keeping PEOPLE)

People who have key talents that will help your organization grow
These people will have talent no matter what position they may be in. Yes, you will want to help make sure that they fill positions that will make the most of their talents, but they are not confined to any one position. The problem is, too many organizations can't keep good talent precisely because they tend to treat people in the manner in which you prescribed.

If you'd like some case studies, I'd suggest that you get the book Hidden Values by Charles O'Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer. It looks at 8 companies, 7 who are doing VERY well financially and 1 that is similar but isn't doing so well. I think you will see some similarities between those who are good at retention and the one (and so many others who are doing far worse at employee retention) that is the comparison. Yes, they are American companies, but some of them are international in scope. AES is one that I found very interesting.

If you are really talking strategy
It's all about living the kind of organization that you want to be. It's about believing that your people are valuable to the organization and treating them as such. It's about having a culture that believes in people, but also holds everyone accountable for doing their jobs. This means that each person owns their own job and is free to do it in the best way that they can, but that they are also responsible for insuring a timely and quality end product.

Organizations that provide a work environment (culture) where people really do like their jobs and want to be there have much higher retention rates than other organizations. That is a real strategy that thinks long-term. Planning how you are going to get rid of people and trying to keep good people is tactical in nature; it's totally short-term thinking. Why? Because in the end, those people who have real talent will be looking to leave that organization that just axed part of their workforce because they aren't going to feel like they can trust their organization.”

Colleague #4:
“Buckingham & Coffman’s conclusion about how managers impact upon retention and performance is right on, in my opinion. If we realize that managers control the work environment, then we can begin to understand how they do have so much impact.

It is the work environment that allows people to do their jobs well or that hinders them from being effective.
Let's face it, how often have people been sent off for training to learn how to do something differently, and a couple of months later we still see no difference? What kept the person from applying their learning? Sure, the environment in which they are working. There was either no support for the new approach or, worse yet, there was antipathy for allowing the person to do the new approach. (yes, I'm taking for granted that they actually learned the new approach.)

We tell employees that customer service is very important, then we do things or enacts rules that really say that following rules and doing what we said is more important than customers. Then we complain about how our employees don't give our customers good service. Why? Yep, you got it, it's the environment again.

These are the kinds of environments that we and our fellow managers create. It is the one thing that management really controls, and it is the one thing that greatly impacts upon employees' performance. When managers learn how to manage the environment and stop trying to manage people, they then become successful at creating an environment where people want to work and can be efficient and effective, thus, impacting upon the retention rates in a positive manner. When we stumble around trying to manage people and their performance, we just end up aggravating the employees and they leave. Maybe not all of them leave physically, but they leave just the same, even if it is just mentally.

The book Accountability by Rob Lebow and Randy Spitzer explains this in easy to implement detail, including a case study from Nordstrom’s Department Stores.