BOSS-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
A KEY TO TALENT RETENTION
As the availability of qualified
employment candidates continues to shrink, a widespread cottage industry
has developed regarding the retention of current employees. Employers
are bombarded on a continuing basis by pamphlets describing the almost
magical value of plaques, rings, posters and gadgets as relates to
keeping employees from exiting. Consultants conduct study after study
regarding the value of monetary incentives - as opposed to non-monetary
incentives. Cash bonuses, vacation trips, all manner of goodies are
developed to improve employee morale.
Offices are reconfigured every few years from private offices to cubicles
to open space. Ergonomic consultants rearrange the height of computer
workstations: lighting is studied, and office temperatures vary depending
on the time of the day.
All of these and more! Without question, each and every one of the
above activities has value. Each contributes to creating positive
change (at least in the short term) in the eyes of employees.
The perceived benefit in the eye of the employee is where the intended
long-term relationship building and mutual commitment are diluted.
Notwithstanding the irresistible appeal of instant wealth created
by successful IPO's , or some unusual perk whose continuing value
is several standard deviations above the market, or arid advances
in technology for Internet types, employees remain ( and conversely
leave) their place of employee primarily due to the quality of the
relationship with their boss.
While conducting three management seminars in January and February,
we surveyed 75 participants seeking to ascertain the reason(s) they
quit their last place of employment. Options presented included: pay:
job security: relationship with boss: technology, advancement opportunities,
perks, work environment, and a catch all - other. The attendees were
from various companies and cities: were in the managerial, professional
and paraprofessional categories, and were being prepared for positions
of increased responsibility. The survey was a paper/pencil survey
with anonymity ensured. In order to further protect participants from
being impacted by any prejudice of materials to be discussed by our
presenters, the survey was presented prior to any discussion on the
subject which we describe as THE INCONTINENT BOSS (a manager whose
personal needs and ambition take precedence over those of the organization
and employees). In addition, the agenda was not made public so as
to avoid participatory bias. I have to admit the results were startling:
Reasons for voluntary resignation % of participants
Pay 12%
Job Security 5%
Relationship with Boss 64%
Technology 6%
Perks 3%
Work Environment 2%
Other 5%
With an extremely tight
labor market, unemployment is less than 2.0%, employers are innovatively
constructing wage, perk, educational and other programs to retain
the best and brightest. That is whom we were surveying; the best and
brightest slated for upward mobility and more responsibility. So what
is the common dissatisfier, which motivates them to pursue another
career opportunity?
Not surprisingly, a common thread is that of exasperation with their
former bosses interpersonal communications skills. In addition to
the usual recognized deficiencies of truth bending, political intrigue,
and the little white lie phenomenon, we found that many superiors
both neglect and avoid communicating sustentative information to groups
of employees. While bosses pass along good news or discuss a company's
mission with selected individuals, there is a prevalent absence of
interaction of senior management with the general employee population.
Executives tell us they don't have enough in common to know what to
say to the average employee: employees don't have a need to know what
is happening: employee meetings are a waste of time: and employees
are motivated only by their pay so why bother. These excuses can be
traced to the well-disguised lack of self-confidence of leaders. In
front of clients, behind their software analytical tools, etc. they
are superb. In front of a group of employees, whether a company wide
meeting or leading a discussion with 5 or 6 mangers they melt and
shrink. The consequences to the company? Other bosses and team leaders
model this behavior. They communicate only on a need to know basis.
As meaningful communications slows to a trickle, employee dissatisfaction
increases. The best and brightest grow exasperated at fighting the
system and quietly, without fanfare, head to the exits. Their real
reason for leaving rarely shows up in exit interview statistics. Reasons
such as found a better opportunity, or more pay cloud over the true
rationale and provides cover so the individual avoids burning bridges
on their way out the door.
Secondly, in this time of political correctness, and the desire on
the part of managers to be targeted for making errors, we find a pervasive
avoidance of the twin towers of confrontation and responsibility.
Confrontation has come to be viewed in a negative light. Yet, most
employees recognize that positive discussions lead to personal growth,
help to see situations and problems in a broader light, and clears
tension from the air. Lack of involvement leads to unease, distrust,
and eventually the employee feels they have been victimized. Facing
employees on a timely basis, and conducting a discussion directed
at solving a problem leads to trust and mutual respect. Avoidance
of confrontation mires both parties in a quicksand type environment
where both want to resolve the difficulty at hand but are unable to
bridge the canyon of uncertainty.
Summarizing, in addition, those who supervise others need to step
out from their offices or cubicles and regularly dialogue with the
mass of employees. State of the company meetings, announcements of
new client accounts, visions of the future are invaluable communications
actions, which can contribute towards retaining and motivating the
superior performers. Secondly, when there is a problem, deal with
it on a timely basis using specific data. Both personal attacks and
avoiding the discussion lead to an employee's silent compliance and
a silent exit to another opportunity.