Anuradha has a good post on how to use exit interviews well. The idea of conducting an exit interview after 3 or more months after an employee has left is one which has merits.
That's because often an employee wants to be politically correct until all the financial formalities are done before he/she spills the beans on the actual reasons why she/he left.
The key measure for a HR professional attached to a business unit is knowing who would be 'potential attrition' cases and why. The only way a HR person can know this if they interact and hang out with the employees a lot. Knowing the dissatisfied employees and the reasons of their dissatisfaction can result in preventive actions being taken to retain them.
Of course, the real driver for this becomes a business leader or manager's desire to decrease attrition. That only happens if attrition becomes one of the measures for how a leader or manager is doing. Many times when this idea gets mooted by someone from HR, business managers immediately throw up their hands.
"It's the generation they come from". "They only leave for higher salary". "The issue is common to the whole industry". These become the excuses for not linking attrition to a manager's performance. However, if these generalisations are indeed true then it becomes all the more reasonable to make that linkage, to assess who can retain high performing employees better amongst them.
Yes, that's the key. Not merely retaining all employees, but managing to retain and develop the high performing employees.
How are you doing on that measure?
No comments:
Post a Comment