Turnover is not your biggest problem...

...But why not?

To give this blog some context, this blog comes at a time when I've just focused on exit interview data and before I dig deep into the results of a recent pulse survey.

However, let me be upfront, this blog is not about providing answers but about seeking them!

I will though, answer it in part.

The thing I feel makes turnover a comparatively small problem is because it falls into the 'you can't do anything about it' box. Once someone has gone, they're well, gone. The question 'why?' at this point is usually too little, too late.

Yes, it's important to understand why and to try and stem the loss of too many good staff (however you define them in your organisation), but I see so much energy focussed on wondering why people leave an organisations that is wasted because it could be spent focussing on the people who remain...
...In fact, had that have been done, we often wouldn't be in the position of losing (usually/often the good!) people in the first place.

I don't know about your experience, but in mine, exit interviews are often full of examples of people who mentally and emotionally checked out long before they resigned because when we did have them they didn't feel heard, valued, sufficiently rewarded and so on.

It's as much a problem, when people are asked to/need to leave (re redundancies for example), as it is when people chose to. We focus on the leaver with outplacement, meetings, consultation and more and not the impact on the 'remainers' (Yes, I know that links to another issue but let's not go there!)

Either way, I don't believe organisations do enough to focus on staff who stay and especially those who stay (for now) and are disgruntled, disengaged, cruising, just doing enough, adding little value, bring no fresh thinking, quiet, staid and so on.

Turnover is, in many ways, a good thing. It can mean you've done a lot right (eg trained someone so they're attractive to someone else), it can mean that you've handled what's not right (enabling someone who doesn't fit to move on), it can lead to fresh thinking, give you a chance to restructure a team, or promote others for example.

Even if turnover is a problem for you, it's a great trigger for reflection, understanding and action (if you use it as such).

But there isn't much of an upside, if any, to those stayers who feel and/act as previously mentioned  - the disgruntled, disengaged, cruising-kind etc.

Whilst I appreciate this may not be a large group in your organisation, I can bet you they're the ones that keep you up at night. And let me be clear, they're not always a/the problem either...
...Imagine if we could harness their frustrations and the ideas they have to make things better?
If you've ever seen "Undercover boss" you'll know the type of thing I mean.

So, here's the question - if I've got a point (and feel free to challenge me if this isn't your experience), why do organisations get dragged into understanding turnover more than paying genuine, regular, hard, consistent, high value focus on those employees we have?

Note: I am not saying no attention is paid to an existing workforce, rather than we just let employee life tick along more often than not. Nor is this a reflection on my workplace as opposed to some general curiosity!

Discussion trigger - Thoughts welcome,
Denise

The trouble with 'Training'

Training vs Learning and introducing Performance

Image from cmsgroup.com

 

I’m a huge fan of training/learning/development/performance interventions – it’s been my ‘bread and butter’ for many years and I believe that organisations who do it well will have happy, engaged, productive, capable staff who in turn provide excellent services and results. But whilst learning is something we should aim for as a constant, training should not be done constantly and just for the sake of it.

In my experience if you mention ‘training’ many people will still think of a classroom based intervention. Hence I do prefer the term ‘learning’. When we talk about training, we are lead down the road of asking ‘what training do you want/need to do’ whereas talking learning gives us the better option of ‘what do you want to learn?’– A subtle difference but an important one as one focusses on the intervention and the other the expected outcome.

When I started in this area the role, my role was ‘Training Officer’. Then came ‘training and development’ titles followed by ‘learning and development’ jobs. Recent discussions in the Learning and Development field have suggested that T&D and L&D should in fact be more concentrated on ‘Performance and Development’. It is a view I appreciate because in a work context training should be about improving performance (individual and organisational). It also means, more importantly imho, that training is not seen as outside of wider organisational objectives and agendas.

When we focus on the expected outcome – improved performance being one - we are more likely to choose the right intervention, may save time (away) and it’s often less costly too. I know that suggesting someone reads articles, looks on YouTube, spends time with a colleague or takes on a project is less obvious and may be seen as less prestigious, but it might be what’s really needed.

When offering training and/ development, as well as understanding what it is we’re trying to achieve we should also be mindful of how the ‘offer’ of development will be received.

In some cases, such as with those courses that offer time away from the day-job or those of high value, training is seen as a reward or compensation (eg “I can’t give you a payrise, but I can compensate that by putting you on this expensive course”!). In other cases, it is seen as a punishment - your sent on something whether you want or need to, at a time that's not right for you. In the worst cases, it is seen actually a benefit to the manager rather than their ‘subordinate’ - for example where a manager sends someone on a time management course rather than look at workload, a confidence course instead of offering praise and coaching or where a manager doesn’t tackle poor customer service but sends an employee on a customer service course. That's when training, especially on it’s own, is not enough...

...And that last attitude/approach is one that really grates on me!

Whatever the intervention and whatever the reason for it, one thing is for sure – the value must be measured by more than a ‘happy sheet’ or training/learning/development/performance-passionate people like me aren’t happy!

But more than that, it's not about us. What matters is the learner, the organisation and those it serves. And it's best served by people who are developed not just trained.

There, I’ve said it!

What do you think?
- Does your organisation focus on learning or training?
- Do you look for the right intervention to meet an actual outcome?
- Is 'training' used/seen to be about reward, punishment or a lack of management?

Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing your views,
Denise

For more:

• Contact me using the 'Contact form' above right
• Follow me at: @DamsonHR (Twitter)
• Call direct on: 07887 643807
• LinkedIn: Denise Sanderson-Estcourt, FCIPD