What should HR do when employees leave their jobs?

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.

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 prepared to consider modifying the company's performance management and salary system, and transfer the relevant 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 such measures 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.

Senior executives will analyze and review the information collected by each senior executive in the interview, and then take some concrete actions with the cooperation of relevant senior executives, such as adjusting treatment, re-dividing labor, 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.