Time to revise our employee retention strategies
A few years ago the HR executives made an effort to improve the company’s employee retention, and the result was the Ability to Impact framework. It provided priorities and guidelines on how the company can serve our staff better. The goal was to reduce the turnover rate and promote employee engagement.
The framework assessed 11 leaving reasons (or factors) with a predictive model and assigned a score to each of them. The higher the score, the more influence the factor had on the departure of an employee. Below is the factors and their scores. As a result, our team has focused on the top TWO factors since the rollout of the retention plan – providing staff with necessary training and conflict communication and management.
|Conflict with others||10|
|Lack of recognition||9|
|Type of work||5|
As we reviewed recent exit surveys and interviews provided by our business partners, they showed that the efforts have paid off. However, they also indicated that it is time to review and revise our strategies, so that we can continue to keep our top talent.
In contrast to the leaving reasons generated by the analysis model – training, conflict with others, and lack of recognition, the exit surveys tell another story. Career advancement and type of work, the middle tier factors, are now the leading causes why our staff leave their jobs, and they account for 56% of total exit surveys. (See the slide below).
After the initial evaluation, we found out that although we have taken the right actions to equip our employees with the essential on job training; however, as their skillsets progress, because they still perform the same type of work, they may find their jobs are not challenging enough and lose motivation over time. In addition, our current position structure in the organization is not able to support staff career advancement. When they cannot find senior positions in the company to utilize their newly acquired skills, they start to look elsewhere for jobs that will reward their work experience and knowledge. However, further analysis is required to validate our findings.
The exit interviews also informed us of the similar conclusion. Besides improving our retention model and revising the action plan accordingly, we recommend to investigate further both the survey and interview questions and responses due to the discrepancy found in “relocation” count.
To continue our effort in keeping and valuing our staff, here is the recap of the action items of our initial assessment on the exit surveys and interviews:
- Investigate the inconsistency in “relocation” counts in both survey and interview.
- Investigate solutions for lack of career advancement including changing organizational structure and the impact of the changes.