It's been an interesting discussion so far, judging by the number of quality responses this has generated. While it would be appropriate to acknowledge everyone who has shared their thoughts on this query, I would like to take this to another level, suggesting that "prevention is better than cure."
Several research studies have revealed to managements that most employees are believed to be pulled away by better pay. Yet, there is enough data from research studies that reveal voluntary turnovers are caused by factors other than money. This astounding disconnect between belief and reality allows managers to deny responsibility for correcting and preventing the root causes of employee disengagement. The question that remains unasked in so many exit interviews is not "why are you leaving?" but "why did you first start thinking about leaving?" Asking that question would show that the lessons learned about turnover are just as applicable to disengaged workers. Therefore, it becomes important for us to find out the basic hidden reasons why employees leave.
Reasons can be many, but I venture to list out a few.
- People do not like taskmasters: It is said people leave their immediate managers first and then the company.
- Disappointment: The job or workplace was not as expected.
- Mismatch between job and person.
- Lack of Training: Very little or no training or coaching.
- Lack of proper feedback.
- Stagnation: There aren't many advancement or growth opportunities.
- Feeling insulted: Employees feel disrespected.
- Not cared for: Devalued and unrecognized.
- Stress: Employees get stressed due to overwork and work-life imbalance.
- No trust in leadership: Lack or loss of trust and confidence in senior leaders.
- Image factor: People working for lesser-known companies may want to work for branded companies.
These are just a few reasons; there can be more that one can add. In exit interviews, these may be revealed, but in most cases, they are discounted by defensive managements.
While some companies may not even bother about this aspect, many still rely on tangible, easy-to-implement solutions revolving around pay, benefits, and trendy perks. However, we know the most powerful solutions revolve around the more challenging intangibles, such as good management and healthy work cultures.
To serve this need, several large companies usually conduct surveys of employees when faced with a crisis, or some well-known branded companies do it periodically to understand the pulse of their organizations. Typically, such surveys help management understand where they stand vis-a-vis the levels of employee engagement. It may also be practiced as an Employee Satisfaction Survey to establish the key factors influencing employees' opinions of the workplace. Such surveys, in most cases, are run once every three years, indicating a significant interval between feedback exercises.
Political, social, economic, emotional, and technological factors also influence how employees think about their jobs and employers. In such a dynamic scenario, the big question often asked is, "Is it enough to generate workforce insights on a periodical basis?"
When I talk to people, especially on campuses and among juniors, I gather most dream of getting into or wanting to do anything to join very large multinationals. When I see job portals, I also see many wanting to leave such well-known and established multinationals, and I often wonder what else they are seeking. I've got no answer to this, nor have I received a convincing answer from anyone so far. This cycle goes on, and companies keep hiring new people. However, when the dynamics of business around us change rapidly due to competition, our workforce changing their thinking and feeling frequently is no surprise. The resultant effect of all this is that companies losing existing employees is becoming more common than before. This is a fact and a difficult truth to digest, for which HR has to face the brunt.
It's time that companies seriously engage themselves in understanding the psyche of newly joined employees and gather valid opinions. This can help management and HR professionals devise effective retention strategies. It can bring clarity to the real reasons why employees leave and provide insights for key employee segments such as critical-skill employees, high-performers, and high-potentials. It can provide valuable insights about the experiences of employees from the selection stage itself. This is an important initial phase in the employee life cycle, where the employee begins to form initial impressions of dealing with the company. It helps management understand the prime reasons why the employee chose their company over others. This can also help in informing the company's unique Employee Value Proposition and seriously committing to meeting every word of it through thoughts, deeds, and actions. It can help develop a deep understanding of disengagement and which aspects of the Employee Value Proposition are not being delivered effectively.
Finally, another important factor is that every person seeking employment with the company should be treated like a first-class customer. Getting selected or not is another question, but the fact that they are treated royally creates an impression beyond estimation. This includes even those young people seeking first-time employment. Doing things like this will help management understand the prime reasons why the employee chose their company over others. This can also help in informing the company's unique Employee Value Proposition and seriously committing to meeting every word of it through thoughts, deeds, and actions. It can help develop a deep understanding of disengagement and which aspects of the Employee Value Proposition are not being delivered effectively.
Should these be practiced by companies with well-qualified, trained, and experienced HR professionals, I really do not see any reason why HR should not be placed on a higher pedestal by professionally managed companies.