Economic Uncertainty Causes Workers to Quit-&-Leave and Quit-&-Stay

This is a true story about two great workers - Ben and Jason. Much about them is typical of today's Generation "Y" twenty-something workers. They were both hired by The Company during a campus recruitment program. They both are extremely talented and high-performing professionals - considered "high potentials" by their department head. And they both resigned within one year after being hired. They are prime examples of the direct and indirect casualties in today's "war for talent." Even during the worst economic conditions, there will always be a "war for talent" in order for organizations to successfully meet the ever-increasing challenges of uncertain times.Who the casualties are in this scenario may be surprising. An obvious casualty is the organization itself. When The Company lost Ben and Jason, they lost valuable resources in whom much time and money had been invested. Then, additional time and money needed to be invested to bring other valuable resources on board to replace these "lost" employees.In today's uncertain world of work, there are two types of talent loss:Those Who Quit-&-Leave and Those Who Quit-&-Stay(TM)This is a new definition of talent loss caused by today's more complex world of work. While turnover (quit & leave) is costly and disruptive, Quit-&-Stay(TM) (disengaged workers) is often more problematic because of the devastating impact on productivity and morale within teams. Ben and Jason were Quit-&-Stayers(TM) for several months before finally leaving.Other less visible casualties include the "manager" and co-workers. When a valuable resource leaves an organization, co-workers are left feeling the loss not just from the leftover work load, but from more human perspectives. Researchers at Cornell University in their study "Ecology of Careers Panel Study" discovered that employees are developing stronger ties to co-workers and increasingly rely on them for important personal connections. Interestingly, men are much more likely to have most of their strong ties to co-workers (14% for men, compared to 6% for women). Anytime an employee loses one of these key connections, as in the case of the friendship between Ben and Jason, the organization's losses increase exponentially.Ben and Jason were valuable resources that made strong contributions. They were seen as motivated and effective. When they left, they left behind a sense of betrayal for their co-workers. "If Ben and Jason could just leave like that, I guess the organization isn't that great, after all - maybe I should be looking around, particularly with all the uncertainty in the economy." "Why should I work so hard?" "Maybe, there is something better for me outside this organization, too, even if times are tough." Suddenly, the option that there is may be a good opportunity outside the organization becomes a clear reality for employees and a wedge develops between the organization and the rest of the employees.The manager is often seen as the loser in the war because he or she was not able to win the employee's commitment and zest for the job. The manager failed to motivate the employee to want to stay and contribute to this organization, and employee confidence in the manager can erode. Much research has been done on what motivates employees and there is strong consensus that people managers have the biggest impact on motivation and retention of employees.Interestingly, motivating employees to stay in organizations longer does not necessarily have to be a big pinch to the organization's wallet. Money is one of the lesser motivators for employees especially if the "softer" motivators are present.Over a decade ago, in First Break All the Rules, The Gallup Organization's Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman converted 25 years' worth of interviews with more than 1 million workers into a metric which they call the "Q12" that defined the bottom-line impact for employee workplace satisfaction. Further, they found that they can make strong predictions about how these employees will perform in their workplaces by asking them the 12 questions. Not one of those 12 questions deal with compensation.Explains Buckingham. "We set out to prove that if your Q12 scores go up, you'll lose fewer people, face fewer worker-compensation cases, suffer less shrinkage, and earn higher profits." Sure enough, they got precisely those results. Employees who answered "Strongly Agree" to the 12 questions were 50% more likely to work in business units with lower employee turnover, 38% more likely to work in more productive business units, and 56% more likely to work in business units with high customer loyalty."In Gallup's newly released follow-up book, 12: The Elements of Great Managing, they continue to link profitability to employee engagement:** Business units with many actively disengaged workers experience 31% to 51% more turnover than those with many engaged employees.** Disengagement-driven turnover costs businesses millions of dollars every year. Replacing an entry-level or frontline employee costs 25% to 80% of that person's annual wage. Replacing an engineer, a nurse, a salesperson, or other specialist costs between 75% to 400% of his or her annual salary.Clearly, effective managers who create and foster trusting work environments win the war on voluntary attrition. In these work environments, employees believe that they are treated fairly and they experience sincere recognition for work well done. In return, employees do a good job, because they want to succeed for themselves and for their managers. Research continues to show that employees work well for "people," not for "organizations."Ben and Jason could have been retained. With the right tools, the right processes, and the right organizational commitment, high-performing talent can not only be retained, but motivated to even greater heights of productivity and personal job satisfaction. And, in the case of Ben and Jason, the cost of losing that kind of high potential talent was even worsened by the fact that they both ended up with a major competitor. The only real and lasting solution is for organizations to begin implementing practices that value and leverage the talent that they already have.Solutions for both Quit-&-Leave and Quit-&-Stay(TM) must include two fundamental principles:1. One Size Fits One. Organizations have come to realize that there are no average customers. There are no longer any average employees, either. A further complication: for the first time in organizational history, there are four generations working side-by-side in the workplace. The younger Generation Y brings challenges to the workplace that require speedy resolution or they will quickly move on - during times when your organization needs top talent more than ever.2. Employee Ownership for Workplace Satisfaction. Too long, managers have been held solely accountable for employee dissatisfaction and talent loss in their teams. Just as in any relationship, there must be authentic communication between the two parties about priorities and unmet needs. Until employees can articulate their workplace satisfaction priorities, organizations can only continue to guess at each employee's priorities and values.Research indicates that an engaged worker is three times more effective and productive ... an objective that could mean the difference between winning and losing in today's marketplace.