Ann Bares asked a great question on her blog a couple of days ago: should companies have universal employee retention programs, or should they be more selective when they think about retaining employees? She says:
"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?"
I love this posting! In my work as an HR consultant, I often find myself gently reminding managers that universal retention may not be universally good for people. Companies owe it to their employees to help them be ready to be in work that matches their skills, interests and talents. Retaining chronic underperformers (or employees who are no longer a match) does not serve anyone well.
Often I get looked at as if I am a "hatchet lady" bent on ruining lives when I suggest that an appropriate layoff, handled professionally can actually benefit people. Yet the realty is that by handling layoffs proactively and professionally, companies can avoid being overstaffed and then doing a major workforce reduction every time the stock market hiccups. These reductions typically arise from short-sighted thinking and are poorly executed. It's far better to have a performance-oriented culture all along. Ann says it best:
"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?"
As an employee, this type of thinking may bother you because it sets aside former notions of seniority and "lifetime employment" puts pressure on your to be continually evaluating your career and how you can grow and contribute. But the fact is that the workforce of this millennium is a bit of a roller coaster ride. If we ignore this fact because we desire stability and think that companies owe us something, then we keep our blinders on and remain at the mercy of poor unemployment planning by companies. On the other hand, if we accept that the workforce is much more flexible these days, then we can insist that companies own up to this reality and do their part to better plan for it and support workers (think portable health insurance, or guaranteed re-training and job search support). This way employees are not shocked and economically short-changed when a job shift occurs.
When looked at through this lens, you can see how a layoff can actually help your career by helping you stay current and flexible to changing market needs. It's a shift in thinking that may take some time to get used to. What do you think?