So anisha here u agreed that every human being has its own needs, likes and dislikes, and its a ridiculous question that why HR cant change job.
But when you pose the attrition as a problem, it is a problem for you because you dont want to do recruitment, you want the person to stay with you, here dont you care as a human for their needs, the same definition of attrition for you is the very important need of the other person who has resigned. So if HR themselves can change jobs, then they should not create a word such as attrition and force / motivate others not to leave jobs. It is very simple, let me put it, you have a like for a particular thing, and you take that thing, but when you comes to employees why you are against them, when they change jobs. Why you need to work on attrition, because your definition of attrition is the other persons important need, like and dislike etc which you yourself mentioned in this post. So practically speaking what attrition are you eligible to do, when you yourself dont think of staying in the job for long time.
The same way the HR changing their jobs for their needs can be termed as attrition by me.
WHAT U HAVE GOT TO SAY IN THIS CASE...... Hope I made my point clear.
Look let me tell you again,, for HR you tell it as security, success , good salary etc, but when others do why the HR only terms it as attrition.
so according to me what you think as attrition is nothing but your thinking, and it is the other persons important need. So how can you just term any other human beings need and ignore it and not recoganise it and term it as attrition. What right you have to access the other persons need and term that the JOB that he changed was JOB hopping and not because of his need was not satisfied.
The same applies to other employees also, but you term the other employees not sticking to the company as attrition, and are setting out to work and discuss here the issues like attrition, retention and other things. So if anyone is here who has worked with a company and is stable then I am sorry to them for this post, but for others who themselves are looking for change, dont try and do retention policies, and work on attrition, you are just not fit for that, first make yourself stable, then work on making others stable.
SO TO MAKE IT TOO SIMPLE ,,, LET ME TELL YOU ONE THING..
Attrition is a reduction in the number of employees through retirement, resignation or death
RETIREMENT ; this u cant control
DEATH ; neither can you control this
RESIGNATION ; this you try to control hard, but for the other person it is because his particular need is not fulfilled so he resigns.
Here probably fulfilling each and every persons need is impossible for HR, as then u will THINK BIG ABOUT COST REDUCTION and other factors, HR considers only employees , it never takes a single employees problem seriously ,,,, because there are n number of reasons for that.
Then ultimately HR puts the blame of attrition on employees who are innocent, and Management beleives that HR is not responsible for attrition.
But if you see, in real HR does not even try to solve each and every employees problem, it just conducts exit interviews and files them in their desk ... So my question is how far is HR justifiable as to control attrition, and regarding their own stability to TOP management.