A Recruitment vs Retention Dilemma?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon Telfer on April 4, 2008 at 10:02

FROM LIZ:

Good question! I often see organisations working very hard to recruit yet ignoring retention and the reasons for employee loss. I can't see the point of turning the tap on harder if the plug is still out,. So the dilemna bit is where should an organisation put its money and focus.

My view is that focus should be on retention but that requires an organisation to look very hard at itself and to actively address the reasons why they lose staff. This requires a commitment to developing managers to increase their people leadership capability and the willingness to have honest performance discussions. In my experience, organisations find it easier to make it a recruitment problem and to change recruitment supplier, decide in-house is the way to go or to start looking overseas. In the mean time, their employees are still leaving!

Of course recruitment will always be required but many organisations could reduce their recruitment activity by addressing retention. This in itself makes them more attractive as an employer because they manage their people well and can provide a career path rather than a job.

Cheers ... Liz

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Jacobs on April 4, 2008 at 11:39

Good discussion guys.

Yes, I too Simon would like to see the 90% contribute discussion-wise - they may actually enjoy it! I think your "mildly snide" comment is a really fair one. I guess our community is still in its infancy and starting to grow membership-wise quite quickly. I'm going to change the URL, as a lot of members forget how to re-visit the group. Though this community is a trailblazer in a NZ context, kiwis I think are a bit conservative about putting themselves out there and can be protective about sharing their own knowledge. There are some interesting events happening and some real horsepower in this community and I think those members that don't contribute (on a networking or discussion front) will actually do themselves a disservice in the future, particularly as new features and events come on board. One option to consider is that contribution to the Forum (say once a fortnight) is a condition of membership.

On recruitment vs retention - I feel that they are not separate entities per se and that a good recruiter has an overview of all retention drivers, employee engagement, internal vs external employer brand, honest representation, identification of the roadblockers within the organisation (could be a manager) etc. Maybe it's all Talent 2.0? I spoke with a big UK-based recruitment advertising agency recently and they are using technology to start the onboarding process between offer and hire - retention has improved significantly.

I recall our discussion on where should recruitment strategy sit within an organisation (eg HR, marketing). Should 'retention strategy' sit with Marketing & Comms?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Telfer on April 4, 2008 at 15:58

To formally start the onboarding process between offer and start date is a very smart idea. I've always advised colleagues to keep in touch and maybe share a few articles but starting induction is even better. It may even be a good way of helping to mitigate the "I know I was meant to start tomorrow but I've got some really bad news...." phone call.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kelvin Giles on April 7, 2008 at 9:24

Some interesting comments and many that I agree with. The onboarding process should begin as soon as the offer has been signed, but ensuring there is a respectful recognition of the person finishing up their old position and the pressures this can create in some cases (particularly at a more senior level).

Recruitment v Retention - I personally believe that it should be a fairly even balance between Recruitment and Retention, however in the current employment market and wider economy, there should be more of a leaning towards Retention.

Retention is a "business" issue and HR/OD can provide the tools to support retention strategy (and there is certainly input from marketing/comms) - put simply, the experience individuals have with their own manager and on a day to day basis in the job, can directly influence Retention more than anything else. I agree that the difficulty is that organisation's (on the whole) don't effectively address these experiences.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sue Jones on April 11, 2008 at 13:37

Sometimes turning off new employees begins when they arrive to find no one has bothered to do the fundamentals such as getting them a PC, phone and I am amazed to discover a desk! Ive spoken to two people lately who have had stories like this. The impression is lasting. Before good management we need sensible planning and housekeeping.
Why not ask recruiters to ask new hires to tell them what turns them onto an organisation in the first few weeks?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Howat on April 14, 2008 at 11:45

I'm with both Sue and Kevin on this. The day to day experiences are what contribute to a person's decision to stay or leave an organisation.

Staff want to feel welcome, respected, encouraged and valued. Organisations who continue to get these basics wrong will continue to lose staff and slick, expensive retention/marketing strategies will do little to change that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Warren Young on April 25, 2008 at 17:27

I don't quite follow the "versus" aspect of this post. There are two distinct challenges here: unplanned turnover (the antithesis to retention) and talent acquisition. One is addressed by efficent processes, the other by effective managerial leadership an other organisational artifacts.
They are part of the same problem and not in conflict.
Good recruiting practices including onboarding or induction are important for the efficient supply of talent. Retention however is less well defined - hence I have inverted it. Employees expectations of the employment proposition are not being met, resulting in unplanned turnover.
Once you recognise you have a turnover problem - yes you will need good recruiting processes in the short run, but it doesn't address the underlying issue of why the unplanned turnover is occuring.
Retention is a much more complex challenge and requires longer to address as an outcome of the environment, the expecations of the role, manager behaviours and leadership (many many drivers according to research). As said elsewhere (by Kelvin I think) it s a business issue. Recruiters are unable to address any more than a part (albeit an important part) of the wider challenge.

What recruiters can do is ensure the new hire understands the role, organisation, culture and so on. This provides a runway that assist the employee come up to speed faster. But ultimately the culture and readiness of the organisation (HR, Managers and colleagues) will determine whether the new hire will stay.

How well are recruiters equipped to really know and represent this information to candidates?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graeme Harre on March 16, 2009 at 16:39

This fairly recent work (Oct 08) May be of use to the thoughts within this discussion nearly one year on ...

The study found that while strategies such as increasing wages and family friendly policies may increase an employee's job satisfaction, the key driver in employee retention is if they feel they are learning and progressing in their careers.

http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/2045.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Telfer on March 17, 2009 at 14:40

@ Graeme: Thanks for posting this piece of research. It's good to have some further quantitative backing to anecdotal observations. What I find with a lot of SMEs though is that it often takes a lot of time, effort and resources to define career progression and put in place meaningful leaning and development programmes. It's actually perceived as far "easier" to pay a little more or create an enhanced benefit package around flexible time or lifestyle allowances etc. You also have the difficulty in a smaller environment that opportunities and progression is all relative.

@ Trent: Good to see your comments. Funnily enough I did broach the idea with Paul in the formative months of Recruitment 2.0 about having an active but smaller membership rather than a larger pool of latency. Things have progressed significantly since that time. Re your comments; marketing has a role to play externally in attracting talent to an organisation but once hired it's day to day line management that have the responsibility (and the most to lose) to ensure new hires are as settled and effective as quickly as possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trent on March 17, 2009 at 9:02

I thought I better make comment before I'm kicked out of the community, hmm compulsory fortnightly comments or your out, I wonder how this will effect community membership "retention"? :)
I think Marketing and Comms should be involved with the onboarding process as this initial process is where the new employee is going through their cognitive dissonance, have I made the right decision, is this organisation meeting my expectations. Too often its left to only HR is can often cover all the paperwork side of things well but miss some of the nicities. The marketing and comms depts should be involved and treat the new employee with the same amount of effort that a new customer is treated to outside the organisation. I think all of us have been to organisations who have missed a great opportunity of welcoming us onboard and instead take all the winds out of our sails and have you questioning the decision to work there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simone Baird on April 22, 2009 at 12:59

I too agree that once an employee is onboard businesses need to take better care of them and understand that the recruitment process is only just beginning. Too often do new employees start a job to find that they have not been prepared for ie desk, business cards, work area, expectations etc. How do you think this makes them feel? No wonder these types of employees can often leave after a short period of time.

I also feel very strongly that the process starts right back at the stage of the new employee being a warm candidate. Too often do we come across companies who are wanting us to engage in their employment branding and to essentially be telling lies about their workplace. If you want to advertise yourself as a "fun place to work" (which everyone seems to do these days), think about how this is true and whether your successful candidate is actually going to see this once they begin working there.

There is nothing worse than selling your company - or the role for that matter - as something it isn't as you will not be getting the best candidate for the role which will affect your clients bottom line ultimately. In this climate the last thing that companies want is to have an ineffective, unhappy candidate when they had the chance to have the best because at this stage, even if the new employee isn't happy - they probably will not leave as it is too hard to find another job and you will be stuck with them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sue Jones on April 22, 2009 at 13:28

I agree. Here's an interesting thought. The initial informal chats that clients often have with prospective new employees are critical. Im in the middle of one at the moment and am fascinated by the opportunity an employer has, should they decide on one or two 'informal' meetings prior to kicking off a vacancy, of getting first hand evidence of how people manage themselves, the relationships, the communication and in return, how employers manage their messages about 'what a great job this is'. less risk to both parties. So to exand on this, social networking sites such as TribeHQ can also provide such informal and risk-reducing platforms for both parties.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page