Yesterday's post on the Trusted Advisor blog takes on the "sacred cow" of employee retention. In it, Charles Green explores how we have come to today's predominant attitude of being "stuck with the ideological residue of still thinking that company and employees both benefit from high retention." That retention is a universal, absolute good.
I look at this issue from the somewhat different perspective of performance management, which is where the question of employee retention often gets raised for me in my work with clients. As organizations take progressive steps up the performance management ladder, as they define with increasing clarity (or perhaps for the very first time) what work results and behaviors they need from employees in order to be successful - as they define it, it often also becomes clear which employees are a good fit to their performance expecations and which are facing a real struggle. This may occur for a variety of reasons, involving factors that range from skills and capabilities to values and priorities. The question is: Given these circumstances, is it appropriate for the organization to approach employee retention as a universal, absolute good, putting all efforts into programs and benefits intended to make it difficult (and, in some cases, even humiliating) for anyone to leave? Or is there clear recognition of the fact that sometimes all parties are better served if an employee pursues opportunities elsewhere, with practices that allow the decision and subsequent departure to happen with dignity and good faith?
If the purpose of performance management is to create an environment in which successful performance is a high probability occurrence, can performance management truly be effective without creating a positive, helpful and humane path of departure for those employees who will find a better chance of success somewhere else?
Comments