Optimizing Induction Powerpoint Presentations for Employee Onboarding Success

greatscope
Hi Ayesha,

I got a superb article on attrition from a friend. Hope it helps.

Amruth

WHY DO EMPLOYEES LEAVE ORGANISATIONS?

Every company normally faces one common problem of high employee turnover ratio. People are leaving the company for better pay, better profile, or simply for just one reason 'pak gaya'. This article might just shed some light on the matter. After reading it, I realized how true the subject line of this mail is.

Early this year, Arun, an old friend who is a senior software designer, got an offer from a prestigious international firm to work in its India operations developing specialized software. He was thrilled by the offer. He had heard a lot about the CEO of this company, a charismatic man often quoted in the business press for his visionary attitude.

The salary was great. The company had all the right systems in place, employee-friendly human resources (HR) policies, a spanking new office, and the very best technology, even a canteen that served superb food. Twice Arun was sent abroad for training. "My learning curve is the sharpest it's ever been," he said soon after he joined. "It's a real high, working with such cutting-edge technology." Last week, less than eight months after he joined, Arun walked out of the job.

He has no other offer in hand, but he said he couldn't take it anymore. Nor, apparently, could several other people in his department who have also quit recently. The CEO is distressed about the high employee turnover. He's distressed about the money he's spent on training them. He's distressed because he can't figure out what happened.

Why did this talented employee leave despite a top salary? Arun quit for the same reason that drives many good people away. The answer lies in one of the largest studies undertaken by the Gallup Organization. The study surveyed over a million employees and 80,000 managers and was published in a book called First Break All The Rules.

It came up with this surprising finding: If you're losing good people, look to their immediate supervisor. More than any other single reason, he is the reason people stay and thrive in an organization. And he's the reason why they quit, taking their knowledge, experience, and contacts with them, often straight to the competition.

"People leave managers, not companies," write the authors Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. "So much money has been thrown at the challenge of keeping good people - in the form of better pay, better perks, and better training - when, in the end, turnover is mostly a manager issue." If you have a turnover problem, look first to your managers. Are they driving people away?

Beyond a point, an employee's primary need has less to do with money, and more to do with how he's treated and how valued he feels. Much of this depends directly on the immediate manager. And yet, bad bosses seem to happen to good people everywhere. A Fortune magazine survey some years ago found that nearly 75 percent of employees have suffered at the hands of difficult superiors. You can leave one job to find - you guessed it, another wolf in a pinstripe suit in the next one.

Of all the workplace stressors, a bad boss is possibly the worst, directly impacting the emotional health and productivity of employees.

HR experts say that of all the abuses, employees find public humiliation the most intolerable. The first time, an employee may not leave, but a thought has been planted. The second time, that thought gets strengthened. The third time, he starts looking for another job. When people cannot retort openly in anger, they do so by passive aggression, by digging their heels in and slowing down, by doing only what they are told to do and no more, by omitting to give the boss crucial information.

Dev says: "If you work for a jerk, you basically want to get him into trouble. You don't have your heart and soul in the job." Different managers can stress out employees in different ways - by being too controlling, too suspicious, too pushy, too critical, but they forget that workers are not fixed assets, they are free agents. When this goes on too long, an employee will quit - often over seemingly trivial issues.

It isn't the 100th blow that knocks a good man down. It's the 99 that went before. And while it's true that people leave jobs for all kinds of reasons - for better opportunities or for circumstantial reasons, many who leave would have stayed - had it not been for one man constantly telling them, as Arun's boss did: "You are dispensable. I can find dozens like you." While it seems like there are plenty of other fish especially in today's waters, consider for a moment the cost of losing a talented employee.

There's the cost of finding a replacement, the cost of training the replacement, the cost of not having someone to do the job in the meantime, the loss of clients and contacts the person had within the industry, the loss of morale in co-workers, the loss of trade secrets this person may now share with others, plus, of course, the loss of the company's reputation. Every person who leaves a corporation then becomes its ambassador, for better or for worse.

We all know of large IT companies that people would love to join and large television companies few want to go near. In both cases, former employees have left to tell their tales. "Any company trying to compete must figure out a way to engage the mind of every employee," Jack Welch of GE once said, "Much of a company's value lies between the ears of its employees. If it's bleeding talent, it's bleeding value."

Unfortunately, many senior executives busy traveling the world, signing new deals, and developing a vision for the company, have little idea of what may be going on at home. That deep within an organization that otherwise does all the right things, one man could be driving its best people away.
abmconsult
My answer is very simple. The bosses just do not care whether their subordinates are happy or not. Why don't they care? It's because their performances are not measured by productivity. If their performance were measured by the quality of the staff they have, then they would take care of that asset.
leolingham2000
Employees leave organizations for a range of reasons:

- Selection of the wrong job.
- Lack of proper induction/orientation, creating frustration.
- Lack of future scope.
- A flat organization, hence limited scope for progress.
- Lack of promotion opportunities.
- Poor perception/relationship with the boss.
- Lack of career planning.
- Poor implementation of performance appraisal.
- Lack of a performance management system.
- Lack of pay for performance.
- High expectations of the employee.
- Better opportunities elsewhere.
- Travel hazards, prefer close to home.
- Prefer self-employment, etc.

So, there are numerous reasons for leaving. A good/effective exit interview could sometimes reveal the truth.

Regards,
Leo Lingham
manu
The answer lies in this question: Why do you stay in an organization? Because your wants are satisfied. When you feel that the present organization is not satisfying your wants, then you try to search for other sources that can satisfy your wants (these wants could be a new want). Wants vary from person to person; that's why some people remain in an organization for a long time, while others leave within 6 months of joining.

Manu Sharma
greatscope
Hello Leo Lingham,

Good points. Many organizations are conducting exit interviews, but very little practical information is gathered from these interviews. Let's look at it from the employee's perspective: When he/she has decided to leave, they are keen to receive the salary/financial dues and an experience certificate. If he/she feels that by badmouthing/complaining about their boss, they could lose the above, they are not going to risk it. So, they will give some generic explanations, some 'soft' complaints, and be done with the interview. Very few employees will be frank in an exit interview, and even if they are, the HR/management rarely act on the points highlighted. Only when there is an exodus of good talent do they try something. That's like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The better way to look at it is: instead of finding out why employees leave, let's find out why they stay (and perform). Let the focus be on what you want, not on what you don't want. To use an NLP expression, "Don't think of what you don't want." Organizations want people to stay and perform, and that is what they should focus on. They don't want people to leave, and that is what they should not focus on. Okay, they can delve into it a little, but I see that many organizations are paranoid about losing good employees that it actually happens to them, something like a "self-fulfilling prophecy." More later. Comments invited.

Amruth
aysh_sh
Hi, I have found something about reasons for employees leaving jobs. I would like to share with you all. Here it is:

Why Do They Leave? Most employees leave their work for reasons other than money - and your organization can correct these reasons. Most leaving employees seek opportunities that allow them to use and develop their skills. Leaving employees want more meaning in their work. They often indicate that they want to use their qualities and skills in challenging teamwork led by capable leaders.

- Managerial staff cite "career growth" and "leadership" as the major factors that influence attrition and retention, together with "opportunities for management," "ability of top management," "use of skills and abilities," and "work/family balance."
- Professional employees cite concerns about "supervisory coaching and counseling," "company direction," and "interesting work."
- Clerical employees voice concerns such as "type of work," "use of skills and abilities," and "opportunity to learn."
- Hourly employees notice whether they are treated with respect, their "management ability," and "interesting work."

Five Principal Reasons People Change Jobs:

1. It doesn't feel good around here. This is a corporate culture issue in most cases. Workers are also concerned with the company's reputation; the physical conditions of comfort, convenience, and safety, and the clarity of mission.
2. They wouldn't miss me if I were gone. Even though leaders do value employees, they don't tell them often enough. If people don't feel important, they're not motivated to stay. No one wants to be a commodity, easily replaced by someone off the street. If they are regarded as expendable, they'll leave for a position where they're appreciated.
3. I don't get the support I need to get my job done. Contrary to opinions heard all too often from management, people really do want to do a good job. When they're frustrated by too many rules, red tape, or incompetent supervisors or co-workers, people look for other opportunities.
4. There's no opportunity for advancement. No, we're not talking about promotions, although many deserving people would like to move up. The issue here is learning. People want to learn, to sharpen their skills and pick up new ones. They want to improve their capacity to perform a wide variety of jobs. Call it career security. The desire is for training and development. If workers can't find the growth opportunities with one company, they'll seek another employer where they can learn.
5. Compensation is the last reason people most leave. That's a brash statement, but it's true. Workers want fair compensation, but the first four aspects must be strong. If they're not, but money's high, you'll hear people say "you can't pay me enough to stay here."

Hope you find it useful.
aysh_sh
Hi,

Thank you for your article; it was really helpful in knowing individual views on this topic. Also, thanks to everyone there for giving views on this topic.

Ayesha
johnnight
It is the correct reply for "Why do employees leave organizations?" Why do you stay in an organization? Because your wants are satisfied.

Johnnight
leolingham2000
People stick to organizations for all bad reasons too, like:
- loyalty (often they don't know what it means)
- loyalty (often to the boss, not the company)
- people who don't like change
- people who don't want challenges
- people who have limited competence
- people whose competence is suspect
- people who are overpaid against the market rate
etc.

So we need to consider all aspects while we audit the HR management.

Regards,
LEO LINGHAM
manu
I am saying this, keeping in view of Human Psychology. Human wants are always changing. "You want good clothes, food, and shelter," then you want "security," then "power and prestige," etc. It is only one of the reasons, not the main reason. :)
numerouno
There is some very interesting food for thought in all these messages. I would agree with all the above contributions at face value. However, I can't help feeling that the "big ticket" item is to do with the quality of immediate management.

At the moment, I am working in a lower-paid contract position in a government sector, even though I could return to a higher salary in my "home" department. Why? A culture of cut-throat management that is allowed to fester in a workforce of 26,000 people. The hierarchical structure is so deeply embedded that the grossest of injustices are not dealt with (vilification, sexual harassment - you name it!). I have not often been a victim of this kind of behavior, (and when I have been, I've openly challenged) but the culture is a morale killer.

I'm working in an OHS and injury management context in this contract job, and have been involved in research on "psychological injury" over 5 justice-related departments. What do we find? More than 70% of these claims relate to aggressive or disinterested managers. The rest are mostly to do with colleague conflict that is poorly handled. A tiny 2-3% relate to traumatic incidents (attending road accidents/crime scenes/prison violence, etc). It would be hard to find tougher, more macho workforces anywhere, but a bad boss is too much for many. To me, this says it all! The costs of this fatal weakness are staggering!
leolingham2000
I agree with the concept that the quality of immediate management matters. Here, I am referring to cases in public limited/large corporations. The middle management, who are saddled with operations and activities, are often responsible for managing teams of people [both small and large]. These managers, some with MBA degrees, are often lacking people management skills. They are functionally competent and produce excellent results. Under pressure, they crack. The first victims are the subordinates.

I have recommended and implemented in some corporations PEOPLE MANAGEMENT SKILLS PROGRAMS for sales managers, factory managers, production managers, etc.

Regards,
LEO LINGHAM
shoOOonya
Joining a company is influenced by several factors such as company brand, its status in the market, its growth, growth opportunities, salary, etc. However, once a person joins a company, all these reasons tend to fade away in terms of importance to them. They might initially stay with the company for the salary, but only for a certain period of time. How they are treated is very important. Salaries are deposited directly into bank accounts. Employees do not physically 'see' their salaries. What they do see and experience daily are the behaviors of their bosses and peers. If these aspects are unacceptable to an employee, one can expect them to leave as soon as they can or when their tolerance level surpasses the attraction and holding power of the salary, which is the real take-home for the individual, not the other factors.

I would like to hear the views of members on the practice of 'depositing the salary directly into the bank accounts of the employee' from a "psychological point of view". The issue is that the employee never physically 'sees' the salary figures. I don't object to the direct deposit of money into bank accounts but rather to the practice of eliminating salary slips. Employees no longer experience the joy of receiving a salary and in some cases, the excitement of receiving a high salary. Can members share their personal views on the impact of the above observation on employee morale and motivation?

ShoOOonya
leolingham2000
At lower grade levels, where there are no other perks or benefits, the salary in hand is a great motivator. At the middle management level, the salary slip is a "security" which means the money in the bank is guaranteed. At least the middle manager can confidently start spending or write cheques.

For the senior management, it would make very little difference.

Regards,
Leo Lingham
soms23
Hi, I quite agree that in today's world, the 'joy of earning' is less compared to the joy our parents had when they would receive their salary and spend it on us, children. The value of money is also decreasing. Earning a 5-digit amount has become so common these days. Yet the commitments have not decreased. Despite a '5-digit' salary, the amount of loans on individuals is only increasing.

The thought that employees do not 'see' their salary is thought-provoking, but is it practically possible to pay salaries in cash? Probably, we [HRs] could work out a strategy of paying incentives, bonuses, and awards in cash instead of depositing them. The marketing team is paid a petrol allowance in the form of indents; we could consider changing that too.

Coming to the million-dollar question 'why do employees leave organizations?' Apart from what has been discussed so far, one of the major reasons, in my opinion, is 'Brand Name'. The majority of the workforce is young, energetic, and wants to achieve at the speed of light. They are drawn to the brand names of top companies. Many of them fail to understand that 'the grass only appears to be greener on the other side'. In mid-sized companies, there is a lot of recognition, and management listens to your problems. There is liberalism in terms of policies and procedures.

As HRs, we not only have to make the employees realize that but also have to work towards increasing the brand value of our company. The marketing department works towards this by increasing revenues, building more clientele, etc., but the HR department would be doing it for its people, employees. We could think of more innovative and cost-effective ideas towards increasing the brand value. What do you say?

Regards, Soumya Shankar
shoOOonya
That was a nice LoT .... Brand Name .... I feel that Internal Branding is a really important part of organizational survival. It is not the job of the Marketing department, nor are the objectives the same. IB is not about products or services. It's about the PEOPLE around. It is aimed at the Employees. It is about the COMPANY as a WORKPLACE.

We could look at the factors/parameters used by the Biz Magazines to determine 'The Best Workplaces of the Year' and use them to create a roadmap for IB. This would also look at all kinds of inputs from employees to make them 'stick' to the company. Some things which strike me are:
- Monday Morning Blues
- Welfare and Facilities
- Training and Development
- Infrastructure
- Communication & Commuting Facilities
- Trust and Freedom

Other members could add several more.... this is just a start...

Looking at these factors and tackling them with due inputs from employees could go a long way in creating the 'Brand'... more thoughts invited on this...

... shoOoonya ...
manu
These managers, some with MBA degrees, are often lacking people management skills. They are functionally competent and produce excellent results. Under pressure, they crack. The first victims are the subordinates.

I agree, good point.

How he is treated is very important. Salaries are deposited into bank accounts. Employees do not 'see' their salaries. What they do see and experience is the behavior of their bosses and peers every day.

I feel that internal branding is really a very important part of organizational survival.

Oh yes! Yes, this is true. How you are treated in an organization is also very important. Some people do not work for "only" bulk salary.
mylo
Hi. Apart from the reasons you stated, the individual employee's perception could also be the reason for quitting. Everyone as an individual has some pre-entry expectations regarding the job, profile, responsibilities, career growth, pay, perks, allowances, and incentives, etc. If all or some or the majority of the pre-entry expectations come true after entry, then there will not be any problem. If not, then he/she may try to leave the organization.
Atomleaf
Hi all,

It's very difficult for me to find a new reason for an employee quitting their job because almost every point has been discussed. I don't want to elaborate but aim to provide an exact picture or, as they say, hit the bullseye. However, if you ask me the primary reason, I would say it's for a "Better Career Opportunity."

Guys, be honest. Although many articles and surveys in recent times show that money is not the biggest motivator, it's a hard truth that money is the secondary reason. The third reason would be the company's poor management, and there are other reasons of less importance.

Guys, do you agree? Hope so! 😄😄😄

Regards
pzarei
In my opinion, we do not consider the unconscious human aspect, the ego interaction of people, or the anchors of people. We don't expect that employees stay in our organizations.
saipu.pavan
In the present situation, every company is facing the problem of high employee turnover due to issues such as remuneration facilities, lack of benefits like better working conditions, family problems, and when a friend leaves.
karunadasp
Dear friend,

The post you had shared with us was the abstract of the speech by Mr. Azim Premji, CEO of WIPRO Ltd, intended for young engineers/managers. Nevertheless, the content serves as an eye-opener for all young engineers.

Thank you.
V. Raghavan
Hi,

It is an excellent article by any standards. Although the immediate boss or the supervisor is directly linked to the attrition rates in a company, in India, there are a variety of reasons for quitting a job. The pay packet is not the only reason. Exit interviews may not be an eye-opener for the top boss. Open humiliation is one thing, and sensitive people do react to that. Some may not. The reason could be a good pay packet, and there is no guarantee that this will not happen in other companies.

The exit interview questionnaire could be posted to the person's residential address after a reasonable time - maybe after the settlement of his dues and necessary certificates. But no one can stop anybody from leaving if the person believes that there are better opportunities in the fast-developing world.

Sincerely,
V. Raghavan
dsv2500
Employees leave an organization because of various reasons:

- When they feel neglected
- When they seek a pay raise
- Due to the boss's attitude
- When they lack respect
- For better future opportunities
- For a change
samvedan
One could realize a mistake made in accepting employment. One could get disillusioned with the new reality. Unable to get acceptance from new colleagues. Getting offers of higher emoluments (if emoluments are the sole purpose of being employed!) Lack of effort in the new organization to get the new employee assimilated. Cultural misfit!

There can be many reasons why employees leave organizations, but to sum up, they leave out of dissatisfaction with the new setup or get lured with new offers. The fact is that they are competent to get alternate employment.
bala1
Hi Samvedan, I totally agree with the last portion of teh sentence here - they are competent enough to get alternate employment. That is the fact, rest all are perceptions! No, no perception is not always reality. You have also stated that the new employee may be a cultural misfit in the organisation. Now how do we judge this while interviewing an employee or how do I judge this if i am a prospective candidate for the job? I am reproducing below an article downloaded several moths back. Again since my lap top crashed recently, i have no clue as to the site id. My apologies for that. This article might provide some insight into "culturally fit candidate" Quote A wrong hire can cause an organisation three times the annual salary of the individual and might also cause irreparable damage. Knowledgeable managers realise the criticality of hiring the right candidate who can be a ‘cultural fit’ in their existing teams. While many organisations conduct ‘cultural tests’ (to find out the character, aptitude and communication styles), there are other who hold negative interviews (pressure/no-win situations) to observe how candidates hold up under stress. The aim is obvious—every organisation has its exclusive culture and does not want to jeopardise it by hiring a misfit. Organisation culture is akin to the DNA of a human organism, which is unique and specific. These are characteristics that have made the organisation what it is. Each organisation’s culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. So when an organisation recruits people, it decidedly wants those who are talented and competitive notwithstanding and ‘fit’ into their culture. The organisations do not want any outsider to come and disturb the cultural fabric of the company—its values and ethics, work style, leadership patterns, philosophy of running the business and managing its people. In fact, they are always on a lookout for people who can enhance their culture. The concept of culture is very critical at the time of introducing organisation-wide changes. This is one of the reasons why many strategic planners now place as much emphasis on identifying strategic values as they do on the mission and vision of the company—for it hits the bottom line of the organisation. Disastrous consequences Look at the example of a manufacturing organisation, where the average age of people was above 35 years and they were rigid and stagnant in their style of working. The management hired an achiever from IT industry to introduce a new style in keeping with the times. He was known to have introduced drastic changes in the IT companies he had worked with. He was very aggressive in his working style and had also worked in the manufacturing industry earlier. The organisation had not checked the ‘cultural fit’ of the individual. He took charge as the head of operations and started introducing major changes. It led to a lot of opposition, which ultimately affected production and he was asked to leave. Another example of an organisation where, after the appointment of a senior person in the commercial function to deal with internal and external customers, complaints started coming in from existing customers about the products. This was a new phenomenon as earlier there had been no complaints. It was later realised that as the functionary was not behaving properly with the customers, as per his position, and was not sympathetic to their problems, the consumers were upset and they decided to protest by lodging product complaints. The organisation tried to salvage the situation by having counselling sessions with the individual but it did not help too much and he ultimately left the organisation. Had a temperament check taken place, either through a structured process or reference check, the company could have saved quite a bit of money and time. In another IT organisation a vigilant HR team was able to prevent a crises by turning down a candidate highly recommended by their project team. A couple of reference checks and found something fishy about the candidate’s attitude. Eventually HR rejected the candidate (who had an attitude problem) despite a lot of pressure from the project team. Two months later he joined a large company and was terminated for the inability to carry on with other team members and because of his attitude. Cultural tests Many organisations have started incorporating tests at the time of hiring to check the cultural fit of the candidates. These tests include: subjective assessment of the candidate at the time of hiring; reference checks with previous employer and professional associations; and psychometric tests (that include different psychological tests for different levels). The candidates are asked certain questions and judge the reactions to certain simulated situations which gives the answers to lead towards assessing cultural fitness. Test for temperament Among the most widely used tests globally are the SHL, the OPQ (Occupational Personality Questionnaire), the DISC (Drive, Influence, Steadiness, Compliance), the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator), the PAPI (Personality and Preference Inventory) and the 16PF (16 Personality Factor) test. Temperament tests are most important for middle management levels onwards. It is critical for candidates being interviewed for managerial or leadership positions, and sometimes even project lead roles should be tested for temperament. Companies, however, need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different types of tools and also do the analysis with care. Negative interviews Negative interviews are sometimes used to test how an individual will respond to a potential negative/ stress situation. These interviews, though less common, helps in evaluating the true nature of the candidate. Negative interviews are done to find out if the candidate is short-tempered or how he/she can handle stress. Instead of just asking, the interviewer will make the interview itself as stressful as possible. The best way for the candidate to handle such a situation would be to answer all questions in a positive and professional manner and pretend not to notice the interviewer’s attitude. In HR parlance this method is called a Stress Interview. All kinds of questions are asked to understand how a candidate will react to the stress and his ability to instantly answer the most intriguing questions. These interviews may be used to weed out individuals who react defensively or are easily influenced. Stress questions and techniques are also used in various interviews. The technique tests a candidate’s ability to be articulate and graceful under pressure. An example would be of an interviewer speaking quickly and aggressively, perhaps opening with “why should we hire you?”. The best interviewer And who is best equipped to take these interviews—the HR manager obviously. The reason is not difficult to guess. It is the HR manager who best understands the organisation culture and can identify which candidate can fit in the setup. While standardised tests can be used by HR managers with inputs from psychologists, certain higher level psychological tests for assessment of personality and other attributes, should be used only under strict surveillance and with proper training. It is not easy to find a perfect match between a company and an employee. The cultural, temperament and stress tests, can result in a win-win situation for both the organisation and the employee. Unquote Thanks Bala
anilanand
Right person at the right position and at the right place, under the right environment with competent monetary benefits, is the total requirement to retain an individual. Altering any of the above factors can cause the exit to come into play.

Regards,
Anil Anand
vinaykumar07
Hi,

In my limited experience, I believe employees leave for the following reasons:
1. Differential pay structure
2. Nepotism in the work environment
3. Inability to handle the workload
4. Lack of challenge in the job
5. Absence of clear directions and feedback from immediate superiors
6. Family and social circumstances within the office environment
7. Inadequate compensation
8. Distance from the office/traveling to branches/offshore locations
9. Inability to cope with work pressures
10. Feeling of stagnation with no further growth opportunities within the organization.

Regards,
Vinay
Linkwell Telesystems (P) Ltd
9866254387
Vinaykumar07@yahoo.com
bala1
Hi Future,

I can tell you about myself! So far, I have changed jobs five times in the last 22 years. Every time I changed, I had not given enough thought to those factors listed by Vinay Kumar. It was always one or two factors that drove me to change jobs. I never got myself to think beyond that. Sometimes, I do feel that certain decisions in my career were wrong, but what's done is done!

Thanks,
Bala
leolingham2000
WHY EMPLOYEES LEAVE.

Most people are affected by one or two factors, which are major to them at that point of time. It could be real or perceived factors, but the employee concerned treats all factors as real.

Regards,
LEO LINGHAM
ashishkumar
I've left jobs always because of bad bosses. For some strange reason, no one talks about this as a reason for leaving. Everyone is encouraged not to talk about bad bosses when they quit a job and interview for a new one. They give vague reasons like satisfaction, pay, or something. It is stupid.

People mainly leave jobs because of bad bosses, as proven by a survey by Gallup. What can be done? I am a big fan, like thousands of others, of this article: "Why your boss is programmed to be a dictator". Read it, and you will understand why bosses are generally bad. You can read the article online at www.changethis.com
hemaa
I agree with the earlier post. Bad bosses are one of the main reasons why employees leave companies. With the market on a boom, competent employees have more opportunities awaiting them, and they would walk out if the company culture and their bosses are disagreeable to them.
ashishkumar
Agree. Good people will always leave if they have bad bosses. I think it's really strange that no one talks about this issue openly. Agreed, being a good boss is very tough, but we need to look at things from a systems perspective. The system needs to change. It sounds weird, but the current system produces bad bosses, rather than bad bosses producing bad systems.

I strongly recommend you read the above article at changethis.com, if you haven't already. You will see why training people to become better bosses will never work, and why training people to be better team players (under the current system) will never work either.
yvrmr
Yes, I agree 100% because of bosses, only people are leaving the organization (at least 90%). I have come across many bosses - they always try to satisfy their ego at the cost of the organization. If somebody thinks I am working for the organization - org. is paying my salary - and - he doesn't know "yes boss," he will be humiliated like anything. Many people don't like creativeness. I have seen bosses - they don't update their knowledge. If subordinates try to correct it, they will keep it in mind at the time of PMS - they try to take revenge - very immature. Nowadays, many people least bother about the organization's interest. They always try to satisfy their ego. If somebody takes initiative, they will be discouraged. There are no values, no professional ethics. I have seen organizations - who promise at the time of the interview - they promise several things - but they don't fulfill - they don't bother about people's careers. I have seen in the manufacturing sector who treat people like slaves - low payment, ill-treatment, no motivation, etc. I have seen all these even in reputed companies - EXTREMELY SORRY TO SAY PLEASE BE CAREFUL - CAREFUL - CAREFUL WHILE SELECTING AND JOINING A COMPANY - BE CAREFUL. BOSSES - WE CAN'T AVOID THEM - WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEM. Regards, Madhusudhan
Zarine
From what I've read so far, we all agree that bad bosses do lead to high employee turnover. But what can HR do to address this issue? Can we have a grievance process wherein the employee can bring such issues to the management's notice? Can we implement policies and practices that encourage employees to take such steps without fearing discrimination or retaliation later?

Also, the person in question - the boss himself - what kind of counseling can we provide to help him find the reasons for his conduct? We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with human egos here, which can be quite fragile at times. Every employee, whether superior or subordinate, is important to an organization. HR has to act as a confidante for the employee and as a counselor to the boss. If possible, get them to meet face-to-face and resolve the matter amicably.
borhan
We want a professional boss, but another hidden desire is that he should be human (in regards to his behavior) as well. In some places, I found a few talented boys working for a comparatively lower salary, even though they could earn more elsewhere. They were doing so because their boss used to be smiling, kind, and socially minded. In those offices, the boys were ready to face any new challenge sportingly only for their boss's behavior.

Why should I stay? Can the above reason be one?
Pudar
Simply because they wanted to join another organization! 😊 Work where your mind and heart belong. Pudar Hate & Rage Dept.
LOLA
Employees can leave for these reasons:

1. Incompatibility with tasks and duties
2. Unmet expectations for taking up the job
3. Unfriendly work environment
4. Getting a better offer elsewhere
manasreddy
It is a really good article, leaving much to be debated. The solution to the problem is implementation. We can see many organizations with big slogans about their HR policies and how they treat their employees, but nothing is being done on the ground. Are the org's lying? No, they are not. It's just that in the growing competition for skills, companies try to attract talent by framing policies which cannot be fully achieved due to a lack of time or commitment by the managers. It might also be that the managers have not been tuned to the policies and given training to implement those policies.
koibitoriiko
Yes, a lot of what the article said is true. We are even experiencing a sucking TL who doesn't listen to anyone but herself. Urrrgghhh :x How I despise that person! Heheheheheh anyway, thanks for the great article.
lavanyakothandan
Hi,

In my opinion, why do employees leave the organization? It may be for better growth opportunities, lack of proper job induction, or feeling that the management does not treat them kindly. The main issue could be salary.

On the other hand, why do employees choose to stay in the organization? They might be satisfied with their job and the facilities provided by the company.

Lavanya
borhan
why do employees leave organizations? do they realy leave the organization or the job? or they leave the bosses? It has been said more than once, and for good reason, that employees leave their bosses – not their jobs. A Florida State University study scheduled for full release in the Fall 2007 issue of Leadership Quarterly confirms this. The study shows that 40% of employees work for bad bosses based on survey results. The reasons that employers score poorly are varied and many: • 39% of workers said their supervisor failed to keep promises • 37% indicated their supervisor failed to give credit when due • 31% said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" during the past year • 27% report their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers • 24% indicated their boss invaded their privacy • 23% said their supervisor blamed other to cover up personal mistakes or minimize embarrassment So what does this all boil down to? The effects of having bad bosses in your organization can be devastating. High turnover, poor employee morale, employee theft, diminished customer service, substandard employee performance, lower production, and an organizational culture of fear and mistrust can all be blamed in part on poor bosses and managers. thanks. borhan
If you are knowledgeable about any fact, resource or experience related to this topic - please add your views. For articles and copyrighted material please only cite the original source link. Each contribution will make this page a resource useful for everyone. Join To Contribute