Job Recruitment Website - Job seeking and recruitment - Will loyal employees leave their jobs?

Will loyal employees leave their jobs?

The company you work for may face a series of serious problems. The company's income and shareholders' income are both declining, or you have become a heavy and slow ox cart compared with your competitors' high-speed driving. At the same time, the continuous job-hopping of core employees has caused a great blow to the company. The top brass keeps putting pressure on you. As a human resource,

Anger obviously doesn't help. We will first think of exit interview, exit investigation, find a good human resources strategic benchmark, and put forward the adjustment plan of the company's human resources strategy. However, before doing these things, it is necessary for us to listen to the reminder of Dr. Wang Xianliang, general manager of Mercer Consulting Co., Ltd. Beijing Company.

& lt Special Topic > What should enterprises do in the face of the employee turnover peak? br/>；

& lt Special Topic: "Pain" and "Thinking" of Enterprise Layoff

Four misunderstandings in resignation management

Myth 1: Is the exit interview credible?

During the American election in 2002, there was a huge gap between the poll data and the actual results in key competitions-more than a dozen competitions described by pollsters as close, all of which ended in the complete failure of one candidate. This shocked many critics, politicians and the public. Many political parties and new organizations that have invested heavily in winning the hearts of the people in the election campaign are puzzled by this. I wonder where their votes have gone. In fact, these politicians ignore a problem: there is often a huge difference between what voters say before the election and what they do in the election.

Coincidentally, companies that rely on exit interviews to find out what employees value and why they leave their jobs often fall into the trap of "words don't match words". The reason is simple: what employees say is not necessarily the real reason for leaving.

Reality: Former employees have different words and deeds!

For example, in the exit interview, employees may say that they quit because other companies can offer higher salaries, but is this enough to motivate them to leave? Many people only say this because it is a universally recognized reason for leaving. More importantly, this statement will not be questioned, nor will others underestimate themselves. In fact, the real reason for employees' job-hopping may be strong dissatisfaction with the company manager, or the work pressure is too great to be loaded. However, he will keep his mouth shut about the truth. Who will say "I quit my job because the job requirements here are too high"? He is afraid that it will destroy the relationship with others and cause disgust, or that the facts he admits will be interpreted maliciously by others. It is a common phenomenon among resigned employees that all kinds of complicated reasons related to negative views on work and boss are attributed to one aspect (such as salary).

Let's see how marketers deal with customer problems. Excellent marketers often understand customers' preferences from different angles. Yes, they did conduct market research, group discussion and various tests to understand consumers' attitudes and opinions on their products and services, as well as consumers' responses to changes in price, quality, product and service design. Not only that, they also track and evaluate the actual purchase behavior: how do consumers do it? The point-in-time data of retail stores is a good foundation. In short, smart marketers consider both the words and deeds of consumers. They are well aware that people often say one thing and do another, so they realize the importance of taking both into account in their analysis. They track consumption and record actual purchasing trends, infer consumers' preferences and predict their reaction to product price changes. They use this information to make decisions about what to produce and how to price their products and services.

Somehow, the way businessmen understand and predict consumer behavior is rarely adopted by human resource decision makers, and their understanding of employee preferences is almost entirely based on employees' one-sided words.

Case: Toyota motor insurance was cheated.

Not long ago, Toyota motor company almost fell into the trap of not doing what it says. This world-renowned enterprise conducts employee surveys every year and relies heavily on the survey results to make human resources plans.

Toyota believes that salary and promotion are closely related to employee performance. At the same time, in order to improve the technical level of employees, a large number of training and employment management projects are provided, aiming at giving potential employees the opportunity to broaden their technical knowledge through job transfer.

However, the survey results show that employees simply do not pay attention to these expensive training programs, which surprised Toyota. From the survey, we know that the salary and promotion of employees have little correlation with the performance level, and employees don't think they can benefit from training and salary adjustment. From this, Toyota has come to a conclusion: Toyota wastes a lot of money on these human resources projects every year. After listening to the voices of employees, the management of the company is ready to consider modifying the company's performance management and salary system and transferring funds to other schemes.

Surprisingly, there is also evidence that employee feedback is completely out of touch with the company's practices. The analysis of employees with high income and promotion shows that employees with outstanding performance are actually rewarded. Employee payroll and human resources records provide this evidence. It shows that in a well-run system, salary and promotion are closely related to performance, as well as internal transfer and training. The records of the human resources department over the years clearly show that, under the premise of other conditions being the same, the wages of employees who have completed the training funded by the company and accepted the job transfer in the enterprise are much higher than those of other employees who have not received training and transfer. This is contrary to the employee survey results.

If the company completely listens to the employees, then modifying or canceling the original reasonable human resources plan is tantamount to wasting a lot of time and money. However, if the company completely ignores the survey results, it may also ignore the hidden problems, so that employees can't understand what the company really values, the company's standards for measuring performance, and how the company rewards some special achievements and work results. These understandings all depend on the investigation of "words" and "deeds". What Toyota really does is to change the way it communicates with employees, and the cost is not high. Companies need to understand the facts of employees' job performance, training and job transfer through communication, and the relationship between these factors and high salary and promotion. According to these facts, Toyota can build a bridge between the management and employees' understanding.

The way to avoid the trap of inconsistency between words and deeds is to listen to what they say, watch what they do, take the initiative to understand the situation in many ways, and carefully observe the actual situation and company practices.

Myth 2: Can we learn from the successful experience of others?

Some multinational companies will consider this strategy to prevent executives from job-hopping: encourage executives to accept job interviews from other companies. The main purpose of this measure is to let every executive know how high his "worth" is in the professional market; Compared with similar work in another company, his performance is low or high.

The top management will analyze and review the information collected by each executive in the interview, and then take some concrete actions with the relevant executives, such as adjusting the treatment, re-dividing the work, and improving the existing management system.

Reality: Except Ge, no one is Ge!

In fact, a big taboo in management is to copy other people's experience, so is the human resource strategy. The human resource strategy must conform to the enterprise model, and must "insist on systematic thinking", seriously consider the factors such as business environment, technology and personnel, and comprehensively consider many things that should be done. If other people's things are really so powerful and so common, wouldn't everyone learn to be "Ge"?

When enterprises are looking for "benchmarks", of course, they will generally lock in those "comparable" objects instead of blindly "copying". The question is, how do you know everything inside others?

Of course, this does not mean not to learn from others' strengths, but to emphasize that learning from others' experiences is more about ideas and methods, and it is "systematic" than concrete practice. The balanced scorecard has been used by many companies because it is a system that has been proved to bring benefits, not just a tool or a set of data, but it can be learned and applied. But it's up to you what indicators your company should emphasize and how to practice them through a management system.

For another example, what is the ratio of basic salary to bonus? Connected to what? How is the "forced distribution" of others combined with performance management? He spends as much money on training as you do? Don't try it out for other departments or positions like you? Like you, firing "squid" won't affect customer service? Just a few examples.

In this way, "I dig his people" is actually an "effective" way to learn from! Know a part with one person; With one of his "teams", don't I know everything? !

Case: The Cost of Imitating Intel ...

Techco (pseudonym) is a medium-sized technology company, specializing in the design and production of computer chips. Their engineers have rich experience and outstanding ability, are familiar with the company's patented design and technology, and control the research and development of new components on the basis of the original design, realizing the low error rate of design and the rapid launch of new products.

For a while, they began to imitate the human resources practices of world-renowned technology manufacturers such as Intel and Apple. However, techco ignores that the way for these two companies to make money is technological innovation.

Although techco's work is the pediatrics of top engineers, it still recruits "best and best" engineers with high salaries; Although its command and control management system is very strict, in order to ensure the high efficiency of the project and resolutely put an end to all kinds of risky behaviors, it takes encouraging employees to take risks as an important part of the salary plan.

In fact, this kind of incentive is not in line with techco's strategy and culture at all. As a result, techco found himself shooting himself in the foot-labor costs soared, quality declined, profits declined, and the most experienced engineering designers kept losing. Moreover, new employees choose to leave because techco's work can't satisfy their desire for innovation.

The most fundamental reason for the failure of special management is the failure to recognize the resource value of employees-professional human resources of enterprises. Although innovative companies need the best and most outstanding cutting-edge talents, the core focus of techco's business model is the company's proprietary talents-excellent engineers who understand the company's chip resources and can quickly apply existing designs to new business purposes. With these enterprise expertise, the company can provide customers with high quality and low price chips in time. Because of the fierce competition and low profit in this industry, any design or product defect will be fatal. Therefore, no one can replace these engineers who have grown up in the company. The policies implemented by techco with reference to enterprise benchmarks are aimed at general human capital. Therefore, this is undoubtedly a blow to the core resources of techco enterprise model. Then, it is not surprising that these core resources are gradually damaged.

Finally, it should be noted that the command and control management system of Teke Company does not match with the employee participation reward mechanism it implements. Techco did not grasp the systematic characteristics of other companies' management practices in enterprise benchmarking, so it blindly imitated and contradicted itself.

Myth 3: Should the competitive advantage depend on the team?

Some enterprises, especially small ones, often pin their competitiveness on one or several excellent teams. Therefore, once the excellent team leaves, the blow to the enterprise is fatal and multifaceted. As many big names have said, "As long as I can bring my excellent team, just a dozen people, I can still create the glory of the past." We really doubt these statements, at least we will be "sad" because their current employees may also hear such words.

An excellent staff team can only be a "necessary condition" for an enterprise's competitive advantage, not a "sufficient condition". In other words, the team itself does not automatically constitute a resource advantage. Otherwise, today's most well-funded companies only need to provide the highest salary and recruit the best employees, so they can enjoy success and maintain a lasting competitive advantage. In fact, excellent and huge companies in the world can often effectively resist the departure of "teams" and ensure the company's long-term success. Mature companies usually have succession plans. After people leave, the stock market may sell stocks for a while, but the company's career is there, because the system is there, the value is there, and its core system (including human resources) is there.

Myth 4: Are employee turnover all costs?

Contrary to what most people think, employee turnover has many positive effects.

For example, people with poor performance leave, leaving vacant positions for newcomers, who may be excellent newcomers; Employee turnover can also improve the collocation relationship among employees, jobs and enterprises. If you don't leave your job, many employees will be trapped in positions that are not suitable for you, and enterprises will be dragged down by these employees who have not played their level; Employee turnover also creates opportunities for promotion, especially when the development of enterprises is slow.

Perhaps the most prominent positive impact of employee turnover is related to the nature of human resources, which enables companies to reconfigure and replenish personnel, thus avoiding stagnation. The external input of new ideas, new abilities and new experiences can help enterprises maintain their competitiveness.

Therefore, any tool to evaluate employees' turnover costs must explain similar and potential positive impacts, which traditional calculation methods can't do. Instead of simply thinking that employee turnover is a bad thing, it is better to ask more practical questions, such as: Does employee turnover really affect enterprises?

Get in touch with former employees!

Perhaps, a very good employee resigned voluntarily because of disagreement with the supervisor, but times are different. You really want this excellent employee to return to the team, but I don't know if the boss can agree, because the company has no rehiring system so far.

How to deal with the relationship with the resigned employees? We can listen to the advice of Wang Junhong, Minister of Human Resources of Zhongguancun Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd.

Argument: Those who oppose me will die? If you get the treasure?

Do you want to establish a re-employment system? Do you want to manage the resigned employees as your resources? In reality, there are heated debates on these two issues.

"Why should I let these people who betrayed me come back? Isn't this encouraging them to come in and go out to take care of my business? Will this form an' easy-to-leave culture'? Will this hit those employees who are loyal to the company? People who want to go back to the grass must come back, because their impulse and professional ability can't be proved in the market! "

The boss of a private enterprise categorically denied the "re-employment system".

"A smart enterprise won't care about its employees. The return of excellent employees will only boost the morale of on-the-job employees, because they have proved the attraction of this enterprise with facts, and the grassland that a good horse looks back must be rich and sweet. I will welcome them back with open wings! I doubt whether companies that are unwilling to hire excellent employees can grow? "

The human resources director of a multinational company has accepted several employees who left their jobs a few years ago to return to the team.

He said: "Now our business environment has changed, and there are no obstacles for those core talents to stay, so our boss personally invited them back to the team. The idea that employees only work for one company all their lives is gone forever. These employees are more loyal to their careers than to their enterprises. He is willing to be loyal when they feel that the future prospects and realistic environment of this enterprise can improve their workplace ability. Therefore, when they left the team, the boss never gave up their relationship management and still regarded them as wealth and resources. "

Compared with multinational companies, domestic enterprises are still limited to the traditional human resource management process and do not attach importance to the management of resigned employees. A professional survey shows that about 60% of enterprises have established relatively stable recruitment and selection procedures; Less than 20% of enterprises have established or are establishing evaluation procedures for scientific research recruitment; Comparing the above two data, less than 3% of the companies surveyed have begun to establish a re-employment system.

Then let's take a look at the management practices of multinational companies for departing employees.

Case: Motorola encourages "returning employees"

Motorola has a very scientific and complete "re-employment" system. First of all, the purpose of "re-employment" is to provide job opportunities for former employees who have the work knowledge and skills required by the company, and its application scope is all former formal employees who voluntarily resign.

When hiring former employees, Motorola must strictly abide by all relevant regulations and procedures. Re-employed employees must meet the following conditions: meet the requirements of the current post; Good work performance; The reason for resigning is reasonable. The Human Resources Department is responsible for proving the employee's previous work performance and reasons for resignation, and the job invitation should be based on the vacant position that the rehired employee should fill.

In order to encourage the return of "core talents", Motorola has formulated the corresponding calculation method of service years. If the former employee is re-employed within 6 months, his previous service years will be accumulated; If it is more than 6 months, the reward will only be paid according to his/her previous service years. If the employee is re-employed within 6 months and has been a regular employee before resigning, the probation period can be exempted; If the employee is re-employed for more than 6 months, the probation period shall be implemented as a new employee.

The reason for calculating the length of service in this way is that the length of service of employees is closely linked to personal welfare, and Motorola has also formulated corresponding compensation and welfare measures. If the employee is re-employed within 6 months, the salary and benefits shall be calculated according to the actual working days; Employees who have been employed for more than 6 months are re-employed, and the salary and benefits are calculated according to the standards of new employees; Re-recruit employees whose positions or ranks are higher than the original employees, and the salary and benefits will be implemented according to the standards of new employees (whether for 6 months or not).

Motorola's "re-employment" system encourages employees who voluntarily resign to "return to work", especially former employees of "core talents" to return to the company. Because former employees are already familiar with corporate culture and corporate affairs, compared with new employees, they have reduced a lot of recruitment and training costs, and many employees who return to Motorola are often reused by the company. One of the reasons is that Motorola thinks that changing companies and jobs during their resignation will bring more new experiences and practices. Motorola's diversified corporate culture welcomes different experiences to share and contribute.

Suggestion: Don't let the leavers "drain"

After excellent employees leave their jobs, they should establish the files of those who leave their jobs. The files should include the whereabouts, reasons, contact information, etc., and keep daily communication and contact with employees, and convey the company's public information, development trends and corporate culture to employees at any time. You can also consider setting up an informal organization to keep in touch with the leavers through the internet and telephone. Or invite them to attend important activities of the company and so on. This will not only help to move the resigned employees and encourage them to make valuable suggestions for the company's development, but also promote the company's people-oriented human resource management concept through them. More importantly, they can be mobilized to return to the company when necessary.

Case: McKinsey's alumni record

In this regard, the practices of some world-renowned companies are worth learning. McKinsey regards employee turnover as "leaving school after graduation" and has compiled a unified roster of employees who have left school, which is called "McKinsey Alumni Record". Many of them become CEOs, senior managers, professors and politicians. Mckinsey alumni from all walks of life have made great contributions to the development of McKinsey. Many alumni who graduated from McKinsey chose McKinsey as their company's consultant after becoming ceo.

Bain International, another well-known consulting company, has also established a database of employees who have left their jobs, which contains information of more than 2,000 employees who have left their jobs. They also set up an "old employee relations supervisor" in the human resources department, who is responsible for tracking the career changes of the resigned employees and constantly updating their database of resigned employees. Bain Company regularly sends internal newsletters to employees who have worked in the company, and regularly invites them back to the company to participate in some party activities. Tom Sunny, the executive director of the company, once said, "Brain drain is not a bad thing. We attract the best and brightest talents, and these people are often the hardest to keep. Our job is to create valuable business and let them stay for another day, month or year. But if you think you can keep talents forever, it's foolish. You should keep in touch with them after they leave and turn them into advocates, customers or business partners. "