Retention Doesn’t Work

On June 6, 2011, in HRExaminer, by John Sumser

Retention doesn't work - HRExaminer

Why do we have layoffs? One counter-intuitive answer is “because retention programs work.” Layoffs happen because the efforts to keep the workforce trimmed didn’t work. Attrition wasn’t high enough. The right people did not leave of their own accord.

Hiring and Keeping the Best People is a standard goal in most organizations. Identifying key talent and promoting them is such a core part of conventional wisdom that we take it for granted. Most leaders aspire to be surrounded by trusted colleagues who are well seasoned and deeply experienced.

When this idea spreads through an organization, it is called “Retention”. In a harsher light, it is the essence of cronyism and featherbedding.

Is it really a sound business practice?

Good, strategic workforce planning is virtually nonexistent. Instead of accurately knowing and describing the specifics of our workforces, we rely on tired generalizations. We want to manage attrition down and become the “employer of choice”. In other words, our HR Departments lead us down the primrose path and make our organizations home to people who retire in place.

It should be no surprise that we have downturns. Preparing for them, hiring wisely and continually pruning the organization is the right way to approach the problem. Too few hands always leads to greater productivity.

Time and again, our organizations act surprised when the downturn . RIFs mean that we “hired too many people”. Said another way, “We didn’t let enough people go when times were good.” Retention and retention programs, therefore, are the primary cause of RIFs.

“Why do we have layoffs?” Because the retention programs work too well. The idea that great people  should be retained in their jobs for a long time is the exact opposite of growth and innovation. Retention breeds seniority and bureaucracy. Innovation requires youth and inexperience.

 

 
  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/yamben Idella

    Is it really youth and inexperience?  It my short time in technical recruiting, neither is a valued commodity.  What seems to work is experienced individuals that bring a new perspective to the workforce.  From what I’ve seen, companies grow by bringing in experts in a complimentary skill area.  The challenge, as I see it, is recruiting those random individuals, encouraging candidates to think of their skills in new ways, and suggesting ways in which they can develop that area so employers see the candidate in new ways.

  • Trish McFarlane

    Lots of interesting points to ponder in this piece.  You ask if this is a sound business practice?  Probably not, but it’s a common result in most organizations (having a RIF) due to much more than just retention issues.  For me, when I think of retention, it’s the organization’s goal of keeping the better or best employees.  The definition of what is best can be based on revenue, on expertise, or other factors.  I don’t see that as the larger problem unless there is no way to distinguish which employees are the “best” to keep.

    I see the larger impact coming from poor management practices and compounded by the desire to not get sued.  

    Great idea and I may just have to explore this more on my blog.  :)

  • Pingback: 3 Factors That Lead To Reductions In The Worforce » HR Ringleader

  • http://LeanHRBlog.com Dwane Lay

    I think asserting that RIFs stem from good retention programs is an interesting idea, but I’d like to see some data behind it before I buy in.

    What I think we have seen, though, is a history of RIFs driven by the short term incentives built into many executive compensation packages.  While there are long term incentives in the form of stock/equity, the annual or quarterly bonus structure is far too often based on short term goals, and therefore more immediate in the minds of the business leaders.  We have seen more than a few organizations, many from the inside, who make decisions to cut overhead and RIF good people in order to support stock price, not long term performance.

    When Toyota was dealing with the recession (think August 2008, prior to their mechanical difficulties), there was much to do over the fact that they halted production, but did not lay off workers.  Instead they used the time for paid training, cleaning, and safety.  4,500 in North America.  That was a long term business decision, guided by long term thinking and company culture.  

    I understand taking an old idea like RIFs and looking for a new cause, but I find it hard to swallow. 

Page 1 of 11
More in HRExaminer (264 of 570 articles)