Comments on: Retention Doesn’t Work

By: Dwane Lay

Dwane Lay — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:13:00 +0000

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.

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

3 Factors That Lead To Reductions In The Worforce » HR Ringleader — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:22:04 +0000

[...] read a great article yesterday by John Sumser over at HR Examiner called Retention Doesn’t Work. John asserts that RIFs are caused by retention programs. According to John, “RIFs mean that [...]

By: Trish McFarlane

Trish McFarlane — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:55:00 +0000

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. :)

By: Idella

Idella — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:06:00 +0000

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.