Cast your mind back to a time not so long ago, employees wanted more money and would jump from employer to employer for a couple of bucks an hour. Unemployment was at record lows and consumer spending was high – credit was easy and Australia was flying.
So as an employer you were in the war for talent, paying staff above market rates to ensure they stayed. In the Hunter we were competing with other parts of Australia for our own people. Skilled tradespeople along with some professionals were flying in and out of WA and Queensland chasing $$ and career opportunity from the mining boom.
Then the credit crunch and the squeeze that occurred out of the GFC has changed the employment landscape. Stability and job security are the currency of choice from today’s employee. Yes but the winds of change are about to blow. A need to work on greater retention strategies has lapsed as managers are not stressed because staff are simply staying steady. This is a dangerous management philosophy and one that in the short term may work but in the long term will cause you great pain.
Lets look at the current state of the recruitment market – in my opinion the work needed to fill current vacancies has increased due to the higher number of quality candidates applying for your roles. Before GFC with low unemployment came applicants in current roles that were leveraging for career and $$ opportunity. Today the same job ad would garner a similar response rate (perhaps a higher number of applicants) but the number of recently redundant or unemployed applicants takes the majority of the pool. So your recruitment and selection methodology become more important compared to the size of your cheque book in the past.
There are other intriguing ramifications we will feel from the economic adjustment for some time to come.
As an aging population Australia has had a generation of “Baby Boomers” heading towards retirement have to change course and “hang around” for a few extra years. These employees had plans to retire but have seen there Super savings drastically reduced and are now forced to work on. How you as an employer balances this against a younger generation of career driven people wanting those management and higher paying jobs will be key moving into the new world.
Managers who have reverted to management by fear and using the threat of job security as a retention strategy are soon going to be recruiting in large numbers as the workforce returns to the job market. This will occur and the market signs show it has already begun, increase economic confidence and rising interest rates will see your staff again looking for jobs with great rewards.
So as the world and indeed the Hunter comes out of the economic winter and heads into spring – will your business be ready to reap what you have sown? Or will you be left behind constantly playing catch up as the market shifts? I have been working with smart employers who have taken advantage of this crisis. They have acquired extreme talent thrown to the gutter by their competitors and are now in a position of power within their industry.
By the way just to impact even further the need to stay ahead in the employment landscape the federal government has new Industrial Relations legislation kicking in come Jan 1, 2010.
The team at Retain HR understand the entire employment life cycle and are ready to help your business get more out of its most important asset, the staff wearing your logo.
This article is the professional opinion of Craig McGregor – Director Retain HR.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Shocking managers may hold key to why top workers leave
Employers wondering why some of their good employees are leaving should look at the behaviour of their managers, a Deakin University researcher believes.
Dr John McWilliams from Deakin’s Business School interviewed 62 technology workers who had voluntarily left their jobs with their employers.
“The problem was that these were high performing employees, an asset to the company and their employer didn’t want them to leave. Their departure was classified as regrettable, yet could have been avoided had the company taken the time to evaluate the relationship between the person and their manager and developed the interpersonal competencies of their senior staff,” Dr McWilliams explained.
Dr McWilliams said, although estimates vary depending on industry, departures generally cost business 1.5 to 2.5 times the person’s annual salary.
Unusually, his exploratory study looked at the events which precipitated the person’s decision to quit and the final shock or jarring event which challenged the way they thought about work and which finally led to their resignation. Such shocks are a very good predictor of turnover.
“The first and largest source of shocks was the behaviour of managers,” Dr McWilliams said.
“This ranged from controlling behaviour to a lack of social awareness.
“One person, for instance, had been doing two jobs clocking up 350 hours of overtime. His request for overtime payment was declined, then he was torn to shreds at a hostile performance review and offered an unacceptably low pay-rise.
“Another person decided to leave after she attempted a conversation about overwork and was told by her manager to ‘either go or stay’, so she went.
“One described being in a health emergency with her child and was later chided by her manager, for having her mobile phone switched off during this time.”
Dr McWilliams said another source of ‘shock’ were calls from head hunters.
“Many people reported regular ‘testing’ approaches from competitors and customers as a matter of course. For many the approach by the head hunter was the final resolution of an accumulation of dissatisfaction.”
Dr McWilliams said sometimes people decided to leave after they had had a break which allowed them time to think.
“One call centre manager, a single parent of a high needs child, described leaving the office late and getting stuck, at the gate, by traffic gridlock. Sitting in his car this individual decided enough was enough.
“Another found herself sitting in the car park of a hospital in a country town while her father-in-law- was dying. She was on a conference call between Singapore and the US which was going through budgets. She just stopped and asked herself what the hell is going on.”
Dr McWilliams said stories like these went unnoticed in exit surveys. “It is so difficult to collect the data. No-one tells the truth in exit surveys. Companies pay lip service to these anyway. They should not be carried out by HR, or the manager, but an independent third party who can give you the bad or good news.”
Dr John McWilliams from Deakin’s Business School interviewed 62 technology workers who had voluntarily left their jobs with their employers.
“The problem was that these were high performing employees, an asset to the company and their employer didn’t want them to leave. Their departure was classified as regrettable, yet could have been avoided had the company taken the time to evaluate the relationship between the person and their manager and developed the interpersonal competencies of their senior staff,” Dr McWilliams explained.
Dr McWilliams said, although estimates vary depending on industry, departures generally cost business 1.5 to 2.5 times the person’s annual salary.
Unusually, his exploratory study looked at the events which precipitated the person’s decision to quit and the final shock or jarring event which challenged the way they thought about work and which finally led to their resignation. Such shocks are a very good predictor of turnover.
“The first and largest source of shocks was the behaviour of managers,” Dr McWilliams said.
“This ranged from controlling behaviour to a lack of social awareness.
“One person, for instance, had been doing two jobs clocking up 350 hours of overtime. His request for overtime payment was declined, then he was torn to shreds at a hostile performance review and offered an unacceptably low pay-rise.
“Another person decided to leave after she attempted a conversation about overwork and was told by her manager to ‘either go or stay’, so she went.
“One described being in a health emergency with her child and was later chided by her manager, for having her mobile phone switched off during this time.”
Dr McWilliams said another source of ‘shock’ were calls from head hunters.
“Many people reported regular ‘testing’ approaches from competitors and customers as a matter of course. For many the approach by the head hunter was the final resolution of an accumulation of dissatisfaction.”
Dr McWilliams said sometimes people decided to leave after they had had a break which allowed them time to think.
“One call centre manager, a single parent of a high needs child, described leaving the office late and getting stuck, at the gate, by traffic gridlock. Sitting in his car this individual decided enough was enough.
“Another found herself sitting in the car park of a hospital in a country town while her father-in-law- was dying. She was on a conference call between Singapore and the US which was going through budgets. She just stopped and asked herself what the hell is going on.”
Dr McWilliams said stories like these went unnoticed in exit surveys. “It is so difficult to collect the data. No-one tells the truth in exit surveys. Companies pay lip service to these anyway. They should not be carried out by HR, or the manager, but an independent third party who can give you the bad or good news.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)