Paul Levett commercial director for SHL Group sent a letter to People Management commenting that he is very concerned that major UK employers have cut their graduate recruitment schemes. Paul states that graduate trainees are the future managers and leaders, brought in fresh and eager to learn. I am a graduate only graduating from university a few years ago, I agree with the statement but don’t think that it fits with all graduates. I know a lot of graduates who believe the time they spent at university warrants the graduate scheme and the schemes are commonly seen as a set fast track route to the top without much effort.

Paul also states that with business commentators starting to talk of “green shoots”, it is crucial that employers continue to invest in talent.  I agree again with the statement but I don’t agree that graduates are the only people to be able to offer this, there are a lot of talented people who never go to university. I believe that graduate schemes should not exist and that there should be one common “fast/acceleration” route giving the employer the option to add employees that have been identified during employment or direct from school/collage. Having one talent identification scheme can also be linked easier to an affective retention strategy.

People Management featured an article within their Law At Work section on 27 August 2009 about rehiring redundant employees. The article was very interesting calling the employees “boomerang employees” and stating that many US companies are already rehiring employees previously made redundant. The article is quite positive about the benefits of doing such practices and that it works in the businesses favour during recessions through various quotes such as “Rehiring ex-staff can be a quick and sensible fix. They know the business, have the right skills and usually require only a basic refresher course to get back up to speed.” It all sounds promising but I think it is a horrible mistake to think this, as any future retention scheme will be very difficult to sell to the employees.

The employees will have a bad view of the company affecting the culture, they know that the company will hire and fire as needed for short term gains. The cost of making someone redundant and then hire them again will mean that the business has spent quite a bit of money when it might of been able to better plan its HR resources ; save time, money and giving employees a positive image of the employer.

Planning a retention strategy is not just about the short term, when devising schemes and planning other aspects of HR practices retention should always be in the back of the employers minds to make sure it does not get neglected and lead to a negative impacted on the business.

The new pay code for city bankers is featured regularly at the moment; even I have mentioned it before in my blogs. The argument against the code is generally that it will drive away talent, but will it really? Other business sectors have high flying executives that get bonuses, they attract the elite or are very talented.

Retention is not just about money, it takes a lot more to develop a truly complete package than just a monitory reward.  Big rewards do work over a year but developed over a long term i.e. 5 years there are plenty of other things that can be included. Job satisfaction is another away of retaining staff, the banking industry is well known for being stressful taking some stress out of the bankers role might appeal to some.

It’s all about building the complete retention package that works for both the employee and employer.

There are lots of articles surrounding this issue at the moment but are businesses really planning long term? Many businesses are pulling recruitment and looking to reduce employees hours but are there other ways of doing drastic money saving exercises? Yes there are, even the most affective industry is ignoring the blanket cost cutting exercises… the banking industry have published statements saying they will keep paying bonuses otherwise they will lose talent.

A recent article in the People Management magazine regarding The War on Talent report found that while a quarter of the 705 respondents have had to downsize, 97 per cent have consciously preserved their top talent. A further 18 per cent of firms are actually placing more emphasis on identifying, developing and retaining talent.

It is time that HR professionals show they can deliver what they preach, but helping an employee retain their job through this difficult period also means that they keep them when the recession is over and other businesses don’t tempt them way once the economy has recovered.

As previously mentioned the banking industry is openly stating they will keep paying bonuses despite making a loss and being bailed out by government. However, what if the publicly known retention strategy turns customers away for life? A true HR professional these days has to be aware that things they do affect the business directly, having no customers as a result of a public HR strategy has to be a bad move.

I personally feel that within the banking industry the HR professionals have not thought about the greater impact on the business, yes they will keep the top talent but they might not have any customers!

Could they not have altered their long term thinking and offered an “on hold” policy on the incentive scheme, which would then reward employees more in the future as a way of thanking them? Therefore, their retention strategy would be more affective because when the economy has recovered, their employees could possibly end up being greater rewarded and the business would regain customer support.

When we think of retention we need to remember we need a business to employ the employee.

We constantly hear on the news about redundancies at the moment, does this mean that businesses don’t have to worry about retention techniques because there will be more people to recruit from? Well I believe the opposite is true. Being able to keep your best employees and helping your employees to feel secure in their job will help your business to come out of the “recession” a much better business.

Some businesses might make some redundancies as a quick win solution for cutting costs but this will negatively affect the company in the long run. Good examples are what Vauxhall and other car companies have had to do. They are being open and honest with their employees and hopefully the employees will recognise this and in the long run it will benefit the company. Too many companies will terminate employees contract, but will find it more expensive to replace them in the long run and lose confidence in staff they keep and future potential employees.

Business is not about the quick win solutions!

Whats the difference in a well organised office?

Will answer the question soon!

Knowledge Banks are an ideal way of coping with the major issue of capturing the vital knowledge of your experienced staff. We are experiencing the start of a problem of an aging workforce and a skills shortage issue with younger potential employees.

I believe that utilising Knowledge Banks and working directly with the education system to guarantee education is relevant, using your experienced employees to bridge the gap solves many problems in a cost affective and efficient way.

FULL ARTICLE COMING SOON!

A hot topic currently in the news is the public sector pay schemes.

In the public sector pay increases are around 3-4 % on average across the sector, which is above the rate of inflation 2.1% and inline with the “experts, true” rate of inflation, 3.9% but is it enough?

Private sector businesses seem to recognise that retention amongst their best employees and pay increases occur and reflect the efforts. You make the company money and they will pay you accordingly! The average pay increase in this sector is around 5-10%.

Public sector businesses have seen pay increases of around 2.9%, however some believe the true value to be lower. Public sector businesses have more restrictions and don’t have the advantages of operating to make a profit. I believe this to be the main reason why pay increases are limited. It is difficult to obtain authorisation for pay increases in private companies, never mind a new pay scheme that has to be passed by government.

In my opinion private sector businesses run to make profit, thus it is sensible to invest in the assets that make you your profits. The main and most common retention technique involves pay increases, but where private sector businesses excel the most is with putting together a bigger overall salary package through extra benefits, bonuses and training and development to increase retention.

Private sector businesses tend to have higher and bigger pay bands, yet the Public sector businesses are the soul of the nation, teachers, nurses and police, shouldn’t steps be taken to increase their pay? They might not make some shareholders money, but support the infrastructure and economy private sector workers can be productive at work.

Due to the skills and necessary drive to increase the retention within the Public sector, the basics of a good salary structure that reflects the true benefits and demands of the employee in that job should be in place. Businesses should implement retention techniques to keep the skills, knowledge and best practices within the organisation. If pay is an issue why can’t experienced experts within the field be offered “ Advisor/Consultancy/Coaches/Mentors” roles to train and pass on knowledge before you cannot retain them any longer?

Welcome to HRRetention.com, the best blog on the web for retention techniques!!!

So close, yet so much to do…

We aim to have our website and blogs fully running by 2008!