*
Is attrition a "thing" of the new century? Why isn't anybody bothered about it?
“Attrition, it can be a blessing as well as a curse for both the employer & employee, has always been there & is not a new buzz word.
When organizations face a tough competitive landscape for cost control, attrition - albeit voluntary may provide an easy way to cut spending without having to incur additional costs related to separation. Depending on the employee that departs there may be associated repercussions, for example if a key employee that is part of a crucial project or team leaves then there may be more problems, however, if a relatively non-essential/under-performing employee departs it may be a blessing?
Attrition also keeps an organization vibrant a& dynamic by infusing new ideas & talent, the flip side is loss of employees with key talent & experience possibly to competitors exacerbating the situation further.
For organizations facing high attrition rates in any industry or geographical location it is symptomatic of problems such as -
*Highly skilled workers employed in basic entry level jobs.
*Depressed wages in a high demand industry.
*Stressful & high pressure work environment.
*Improper or lack of verification of candidate credentials.
*Poor internal company culture that contradicts the projected company vision.
*Last, but not the least poor HR practices - hiring, training, & orientation of new employees.
Of the above I would like to touch on the last 3 in more detail -
In my experience employees having a short history of tenure at earlier 'jobs' are unlikely to stay longer at any future opportunity.
2ndly, their short tenure at previous positions would seriously inhibit their ability to gain expertise for future positions.
The part about internal company culture vs. projected vision. I 'm sure almost all of us can vouch for knowing organizations embodying the above. Due a meteoric rise or an isolated blockbuster product/service companies starts to live in their own 'lala land' which has absolutely no co-relation to their work practices.
Lastly, due to internal organizational pressures the HR staff is out of the communication loop when parameters are being drawn up for the various requirements internal departments have for workforce selection.
I have come across situations where requirements are so vague that all you need is a - 'warm body with a pulse' or so exacting and stringent no matter where you look you may not find a qualified candidate. Once a consensus is reached on hiring a certain individual there hardly any proper follow up regarding training/orientation.
Per my observations almost 80% of new employees get a cursory walk through of organizational practices & objectives & then get thrown into a grind-mill. There is no communication with these employees from the HR staff who after hiring take a hands off approach. There is very little if any contact of new employees with their immediate supervisors except in work related meetings, where they are supposed to listen only. Till the time they get their formal review/appraisal at least 6 months if not a year down the road, new employees are 'MAYBE" given a benchmark of performance objectives they were supposed to have been performing against. Even so no rhyme or reason is given for a majority of the ratings that are handed out. Most companies have some kind of exit interview programs, but they are hardly utilized. In HR forums everyone agrees ‘Exit interviews’ are a powerful tool to reveal causes for attrition, however most either do not use them or even when they are used nothing is done with the results.
Going back to my point about internal communication of HR staff within the organization, they have an unenviable job if it is to be done right. Almost 90% of HR recruiters are generalists & people who are usually at the entry level position of most organizations yet we put the burden of screening and selecting potential future superstars for the organization on them. Would welcome more observations... ”
Is attrition a "thing" of the new century? Why isn't anybody bothered about it?
“Attrition, it can be a blessing as well as a curse for both the employer & employee, has always been there & is not a new buzz word.
When organizations face a tough competitive landscape for cost control, attrition - albeit voluntary may provide an easy way to cut spending without having to incur additional costs related to separation. Depending on the employee that departs there may be associated repercussions, for example if a key employee that is part of a crucial project or team leaves then there may be more problems, however, if a relatively non-essential/under-performing employee departs it may be a blessing?
Attrition also keeps an organization vibrant a& dynamic by infusing new ideas & talent, the flip side is loss of employees with key talent & experience possibly to competitors exacerbating the situation further.
For organizations facing high attrition rates in any industry or geographical location it is symptomatic of problems such as -
*Highly skilled workers employed in basic entry level jobs.
*Depressed wages in a high demand industry.
*Stressful & high pressure work environment.
*Improper or lack of verification of candidate credentials.
*Poor internal company culture that contradicts the projected company vision.
*Last, but not the least poor HR practices - hiring, training, & orientation of new employees.
Of the above I would like to touch on the last 3 in more detail -
In my experience employees having a short history of tenure at earlier 'jobs' are unlikely to stay longer at any future opportunity.
2ndly, their short tenure at previous positions would seriously inhibit their ability to gain expertise for future positions.
The part about internal company culture vs. projected vision. I 'm sure almost all of us can vouch for knowing organizations embodying the above. Due a meteoric rise or an isolated blockbuster product/service companies starts to live in their own 'lala land' which has absolutely no co-relation to their work practices.
Lastly, due to internal organizational pressures the HR staff is out of the communication loop when parameters are being drawn up for the various requirements internal departments have for workforce selection.
I have come across situations where requirements are so vague that all you need is a - 'warm body with a pulse' or so exacting and stringent no matter where you look you may not find a qualified candidate. Once a consensus is reached on hiring a certain individual there hardly any proper follow up regarding training/orientation.
Per my observations almost 80% of new employees get a cursory walk through of organizational practices & objectives & then get thrown into a grind-mill. There is no communication with these employees from the HR staff who after hiring take a hands off approach. There is very little if any contact of new employees with their immediate supervisors except in work related meetings, where they are supposed to listen only. Till the time they get their formal review/appraisal at least 6 months if not a year down the road, new employees are 'MAYBE" given a benchmark of performance objectives they were supposed to have been performing against. Even so no rhyme or reason is given for a majority of the ratings that are handed out. Most companies have some kind of exit interview programs, but they are hardly utilized. In HR forums everyone agrees ‘Exit interviews’ are a powerful tool to reveal causes for attrition, however most either do not use them or even when they are used nothing is done with the results.
Going back to my point about internal communication of HR staff within the organization, they have an unenviable job if it is to be done right. Almost 90% of HR recruiters are generalists & people who are usually at the entry level position of most organizations yet we put the burden of screening and selecting potential future superstars for the organization on them. Would welcome more observations... ”
