An astounding 1/3 of Aussie workers are planning to change jobs. What are you doing to retain your staff?

 

Depending upon which survey you read: The Hay Group or Drake International, an astounding 25 - 33% of Australian workers are planning to change jobs with 50 - 71% of workers saying they are dis-satisfied in their current role.  

With the cost of replacement being anywhere from 50 - 150% of an employee's salary it's much more cost effective to keep the ones you have!

But how do you actually do that?   There is a lot in the press these days in Australia around employee retention and there are a lot of theories on the best ways to retain staff.  In my opinion most of them are flawed. 

They are flawed because, on one hand they take the easy way out.  Yet on the other, they make the issue more complex than it needs to be.

Retaining good employees is hard work - especially in today’s environment - and yet the concepts behind it are actually very simple. 

How do they take the easy way out?  It’s common wisdom that one of the best ways to retain staff is to adjust pay and benefits. 

Now, I’m not saying that you should not increase pay or adjust benefits.  Indeed, as I wrote  in my last newsletter, The Australian Business Review just reported on the new survey by the Australian Institute of Managers which cited that "at least 90 per cent of large companies expect a review of wages for some employees during the next year, compared to 73.6 per cent in salary increases paid in 2009/10."

Speaking to both individuals and companies on a daily basis, I know there are a lot of firms out there that have not increased pay in 1 - 2 years.  Either they could not afford to do so or their overseas parent restricted them from doing so.  So in many cases a pay rise is definitely in order.

But in my experience over 15 years as a recruiter, this is a temporary fix.  Over 90% of people who are unhappy will leave within 6 - 12 months once convinced to stay for a pay rise.  So, at best companies simply buy time by increasing wages as a retention tool.

How do common retention theories over complicate matters?  It’s been my experience that frustrated employees leave for just a handful of reasons.  And that satisfied employees will endure long hours, low pay and less than ideal working conditions because they are so passionate about what they are doing that these just become minor inconveniences. 

What are those handful of reasons?  Interestingly enough, I’ve just read a classic management book for the first time which supports what I saw during my recruitment career and articulates them more succinctly that I’d been able to do in the past. 

First Break all the Rules by Marcus Buckingham resulted from the Gallup Organisation’s 20 year research project into excellence in the workplace.  They interviewed literally millions of employees and thousands of managers to determine patterns of excellence.  They came up with 12 questions that accurately measures the “strength of a workplace.” This, in turn leeds to better engagement, stronger customer service and ultimately bigger profits.

They contend, and I agree, that of the 12 questions, the first 6 are the most relevant where it comes to employee retention. 

These 6 questions are the following:

• Do I know what is expected of me at work?
• Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
• At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
• In the last 7 days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
• Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
• Is there someone at work who encourages my development?

These questions are deceptively simple.  Many, if not most employers would give these questions a cursory glance and say, “but of course my employees have all of those.”  The truth of this statement though, can only be measured in your retention rate.  If you are losing employees, or suspect they are looking I can almost guarantee that the employees would answer no to 1 or all of the above.

And whether or not you are losing staff I urge you to look deeper.

This is why retaining good staff is hard work.  Companies, more precisely individual managers, need to look at these questions, really look at these questions.  More appropriately, they need to engage their staff and find out how they feel and then be prepared to hear the answers (some of which they won’t like) and to address the issues.  This process doesn’t have to cost money, but may involve a bit of loosened control, autonomy and different management styles.  This is where things become complicated.

Over the next few weeks I will be delving into these questions in more detail.

And, forgive me for being self serving here, but I believe one of the brilliant things about The Critical Path to Career Management is that it’s a great framework to use to address these questions and a great system to use to supply some, not all but certainly some, of what employees need to answer a resounding YES to all 6 of the above. 

So, what’s the first step?  Engage with your employees.  Find out where they want to go within a 3 - 5 year time frame  (questions 1, 5, & 6) and then help them “Mind the Gap” (questions 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6).

Bottom line, you must engage with your employees for better employee engagement.



Unemployed Need Not Apply!

A recent CNN Money article that's getting a lot of play on the various social media sites is talking about a practice in the US to 'discriminate' against unemployed workers.  http://bit.ly/b6yV02

If you're in charge of hiring staff I'd love to hear your views on this subject.  Please comment below or feel free to email me directly.

Here was my comment on a Linkedin discussion this morning talking about the practice:

I hate to break this to everyone but this is not a new practice. I started a 15 year recruitment career in 1994 and worked in 6 cities in 3 countries prior to becoming a full-time Executive Coach and Trainer. And I can say with authority that employers have always favored employed candidates over unemployed candidates.

Do very qualified candidates get overlooked as a result of this practice? Absolutely. Does this make this practice wrong or unfair? Maybe not.

Why do I say that? Because, setting aside those candidates who are unemployed because they are not good at their jobs or did something silly to get fired (who should be at the bottom of the pile when being considered for new roles anyway), I believe that sometimes becoming unemployed is more than just bad luck or bad timing. It's a result of making bad career decisions.

Career management is a critical skill that is not taught in schools. As a result, many people simply walk through doors that are opened to them without much consideration as to where the door may lead them or how it will help them attain their professional goals. Quite frankly, only a minority of candidates that I've  worked with through the years have stopped to define their professional goals.

This can very often lead to someone being in a role they are unhappy in or not suited for...and guess who's the first to be let go?

This is why I'm so passionate about helping people manage their careers! I've seen so many people make so many bone headed decisions and completely derail themselves professionally that they end up in a downward spiral and become less attractive to employers.

For this and a few other reasons that I don't have time to go into, I don't necessarily think this practice is unfair, from an employer's standpoint.

We certainly don't need government intervention.

What we do need is education and more people taking a proactive stance on planning one of the most important things in their lives, their career. Specifically so they do not get caught out in a situation like this. 

Austrailian Institute of Management's New Survey: Aussie Employers Better Act Fast to Retain Staff

The Australian Business Review just reported on a new survey by the Australian Institute of Managers.  It cited that "at least 90 per cent of large companies expect a review of wages for some employees during the next year, compared to 73.6 per cent in salary increases paid in 2009/10.

Also, around half of large firms are predicting a boost to permanent staff numbers in 2009/10, up from 39.6 per cent the previous year, while 12.5 per cent of firms expect to cut permanent workers.

Around a third (36.9 per cent) of large companies said they had trouble in finding skilled workers despite the rate of unemployment rising to a high of 5.8 per cent in the middle of 2009."

No surprise to companies that are hiring.  I speak with employers daily and they are all saying the same thing.  Good staff is hard to find.  End of story. 

Now, anyone who has taken a basic marketing course knows the 80 / 20 rule.  80% of your sales will come from 20% of your customers.  Well the same holds true with staff.  80% of your productivity comes from 20% of your staff.  Your key people. 

Why then are employers simply willing to let key people go?  Most companies that I worked with throughout my 15 year recruitment career did not even have a system to identify key people, let alone retain them.  Sure, you know who your superstars are.  But key people don't always have to be super stars!  A great receptionist for example can make or break deal, but are rarely identified as a key person.

And in the last 16 years (including my last year as a Career / Executive Coach and Trainer) I saw many, many companies give lip service to retention and very few actually focus on it.  Most of the time the line managers think that it's HR's job and whilst HR may be focusing on retention, the real people responsible for it are the line managers.  People don't leave companies, they leave managers.  So, whilst HR can implement great programs they will be woefully inadequate unless the management team is proactive in addressing these issues.

I've recently started work with two companies who are recognising and addressing this.  I've been working with Ernst & Young's Women in Leadership group and Planwell Technology's senior management group.  The focus is very different but the results are the same. 

I'm teaching EY's group how to manage their careers effectively and reignite their professional passion.  Why does this aid in retention?  Because I firmly believe that most people change jobs because they are looking for a company or a role they can be more passionate about.  Many times that's the wrong answer.  Because what's missing is not the external stimulus to inspire passion (another job), but the internal muse to bring passion to your current job.  This is one of the main reasons people derail their careers.  They become like Don Quixote chasing windmills and sometimes they run right off the cliff in the process.  I'll be talking more about this next week when I review Seth Godin's brilliant new book, Linchpin.

My work with Planwell (a fantastic IT services company) is very different.  I'm helping them look at their existing retention programs (yes, they actually have them...despite not having an HR department) and advising them on ways to make them better.  What fun and fascinating work! 

The ABR ends their article by saying, "With the skills shortage tipped to worsen, employers need to move sooner rather than later to lock in their best and brightest in those sectors most susceptible to skills shortages,'' Mr Wakeley said.

I whole heartedly agree.  In the war for talent he with the best wins!