One day Khun Y applied for an internal job at the engineering section. The company promotes internal mobility so all vacancies are circulated openly. The engineering manager was very excited, and convinced that Khun Y was the right person for this engineering job. The manufacturing manager saw this potential move as a loss for his department and tried to convince the engineering manager to change his mind. When that didn't work, the manufacturing manager offered a promotion with significant salary increase to Khun Y. Since the move to the engineering department entailed a promotion, the manufacturing manager reasoned that giving a promotion to stay would work. Khun Y decided to stay in the manufacturing department.
Situation: win (manufacturing) and win (Khun Y) versus lose (engineering).
Three months later, Khun Y resigned from the company and joined an equipment design and construction company. He received a salary even higher than his just-increased salary in the manufacturing department. His exit interview form stated as reason for leaving "found another job" (like nearly all exit interview forms).
Situation: double win (Khun Y with 2 salary increases in 3 months) versus double lose (manufacturing and engineering).
The organization will never know the real reason for Khun Y's departure ... Was it because he wanted more money (that is what they actually think) ? Or because he in fact looking for another manager after 2 years with the manufacturing manager ? Or because he was looking for a job with more variation (engineering versus production) ?
Morale of the (real) story: if you don't know your people and what they are looking for, you will - now or in the near future - end up losing them.
Here is what I see: The company offers a high-performer an opportunity for advancement and change. The employee gets excited, is sold on change and accepts the offer. But the company's silo structure overrides the company's philosophy of promoting internal mobility, and the move falls through (put more bluntly, the company screws it up). At this point the employee is sold on change, finds change elsewhere and leaves (and in the meantime happily takes the promotion and extra cash). Put this way, the moral of the story is not that the company didn't know what the employee was looking for- it's that their business strategy (running silos) is not aligned with their people strategy (promoting internal mobility). I could see this being a result of HR designing a people strategy that sounds good without actually having a seat at the table with those who run the business.
ReplyDeleteThe irony here is that company's attempt at recognizing and rewarding a high-performer actually drove him out the door. They would probably have been better off if they had not even tried. How sad is that?