Are Your Employees as Loyal as You Think They Are?

One very important thing to remember is that while these employees dug in and worked very hard often times sacrificing time with family for the TEAM to get the job done, it might make sense to be sure that you THANK your employees and RECOGNIZE them for a job well done.

The best way to do this is with an extra boost to their compensation during annual review and possibly a little extra in their annual bonus when the times get better. Let them know that they are VALUED

It might also make sense that during annual reviews, that these employees get the SUPPORT of their manager when other internal opportunities arise so that they get first shot at a promotion. Better to do that than to lose them to another company. Let them know they have a FUTURE with the company.

Employees are your knowledge based ASSETS and are the key to your business' SUCCESS. No sense in loosing a good employee if you knew that all you had to do was show them a little RESPECT in the way of an extra annual increase and a kind and THOUGHTFUL THANK YOU.

I am not sure where these type of questions come from. Anyone who really believes underpaid , undermotivated , underappreciated employees will or should stay with a company are not dealing in reality. I run a company of abpit 1000 employees working in 42 countries including some very difficult areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan and there is not one minute of one day that effective managers should not be thinking about keeping their staff focused , directed and with the team. Of course some will come and go and full retention is not an ideal situation but it is managements responsibility to keep its good people. I have always told my staff don't trust in words , trust in your managements actions and I anyone who feels this is not the right job for them should really leave and leave quickly.

This is a true statement for the current times. Lou Adler has been running a study regarding job satisfaction as it relates to looking for a new position. In the surveys he has shown that the number of people who are satisfied in their positions have dropped and the number of people who would consider new opportunities if called has gone up. A study put out by Adecco said that 71% of employees under 30 and 54% of all employees will actively look for new employment as more opportunities come available. Another article on www.ere.com by Dr. John Sullivan mentions that some studies are showing that as many as two-thirds of employees are ready to move on.
Even if only half of that is true, and 30% of employed workers looking for somewhere else to work when the economy improves, it can have a serious impact on a business. So to the question what strategies should a company deploy?
There are two basic sides to the strategy, retention and recruiting, and it all starts with a solid strategic workforce plan.
1. Retention - Know who your key employees are and do what it takes to keep them focused and engaged. Make sure that their pay is fair, that they feel respected, and that they have rewarding and meaningful work. Take off the rose colored glasses and know who is a high risk to leave and put together a proactive recruiting plan and build a talent pipeline of people who can fill those key positions should they open up.
2. Recruiting – With the expected losses and the normal growth that comes from building a business that is moving forward in a recovering economy, you need a solid recruiting plan. There are several ways to handle this from using a RPO provider, or recruiting and staffing agencies, to setting up an internal recruiting staff. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but understanding the business needs will dictate which way to go. This is not something to wait on as the time is now to develop the recruiting strategy and get it ramped up. Who wants to be the last one to figure this out and lose their employees with nobody to replace them? Companies that are ready first will dominate their competition by getting the best people first.
I could write pages and pages of retention and recruiting strategies, but the most important piece is to accurately assess the current situation, and plan accordingly.

I don't believe any employees are particularly loyal to their companies anymore. That part of our historical working culture dies out (with a few exceptions) 10 - 12 years ago. Now employees are expected to have four or more *careers* during their working lives, not just jobs.

Each employment experience between an employer (ER) and employee (EE) is based on a mutual gain relationship. The ER expects a level of contribution / performance of the EE, while in return provides a monetary reward. It is also expected that the ER will provide good working conditions and reasonable opportunities for career growth.

On the other hand the EE agrees to provide that level of contribution / performance in return not only for financial reward, but for recognition, interesting and satisfying work, opportunities to develop a career and other assorted emotional rewards.

These days either party can exit the relationship on a whim (especially in a right-to-work state). The ER perhaps needs to trim staff, change technologies, relocate out of the area, close a facility, merge or sell themselves, etc. - all resulting in the EE being placed out of work. Of course, there is also the performance level issue, but that's another complexity .

The EE may get tired of the routine, disappointed in the career opportunities, unhappy with the boss, want access to newer technology - the list goes on and on. Of course, they will say in their exit interview that they resigned for more money - but who quits for a pay cut?

So either party can exit the relationship on a whim, or because the other party didn't live up to the original (perceived) relationship arrangement. So either party can be called disloyal. So what.

Btw, why is the word "disloyal" used only in terms of the EE? If the ER is disloyal to the EE, the result (separation) is the same.

Loyalty is closely tied to the leadership at the local level. Although leadership from top management can help to build loyalty, the greatest influence come from the EE's manager. It is the local manager who has the potential power to build and maintain a sub-culture that is aligned with the espoused culture. However, if a manager can only manage and not lead, a sub-culture will naturally evolve that will quietly (or not so quietly) influence the quality of the loyalty and commitment. Unless the "leader by proxy" (has no official standing, but has the power to influence others) is loyal and committed, I would expect that retention would be a big issue.

Based on my experience of being an entreprenuer and an employee in another organization, i can say that employees (majority of them) have "conditional" loyalty to the employer. This i think is quite acceptable given that employers too have a conditional retention policy for employees i.e. they retain only those meeting their set conditions interms of performance, compatibility etc. and rightly so, cos this what business demands. During my headhunting days about 95% - 98% of the professionals whom i spoke to were open to exploring options with another organization.

In the softening economic scenario that we are presently in, employees may tend (or rather pretend!) to have unconditional loyalty to employers, and as HR Practitioners we know how long lasting such loyalty would be.

Loyalty among employees can be built ONLY if they are being treated in a fair manner irrespective of the economic scenario the organization is operating in. The organization might have to lay-off people during a down-turn, but doing it without hurting the respect of the individual and assisting him/her to find alternate employment makes the difference.

I would like to cite an example here. I was headhunting for a COO role with one of our clients and one of the candidates whom i spoke to was one of the very few "loyal" employees i had interacted with. He told that the organization met his expectations when the business was doing good and now when they are not doing good, he wants to stay back and show his gratitude by helping the organization turn-around and get back to a positive bottom-line in its P&L.

The loyalty that the professional had was built over a period of time, not jus by the regular Rewards & Recognition practices in the organisation (or a large payhike), but by being fair to each employee, making each employee feel that it is his/her organization and that he/she is responsible for the business. This is the role of HR Practitioners like us.

Interesting... "full retention is not an ideal situation". Why not? If your business is growing there will always be new blood, so this statement only speaks to flaws in either your hiring or development processes. If you get the right people, and they are fully motivated and delivering the results you need, surely you'd want to hold on to them.

Strongly disagree with Leigh's idea that people are inspired by senior leadership to stay beyond the impact of their direct management. I believe that senior management can play a pivotal role in shaping middle management, but I am yet to come across a junior employee who gives a damn about whether the CEO is fit for purpose. They are too far removed from them to care.

As for retention polices, I've just finished working for an organisation that had no clue as to why this should matter at all. In an environment where it is very difficult to attract talent in the first place, they were quite prepared to see lengthy delays in achieving business objectives in order to further a "them and us" culture between the senior team and the rest of the business. That's why I quit. Job security really isn't the be all and end all.

The conventional wisdom is that people join companies and leave managers. What my co-author and I have found and will publish in our upcoming book--Re-Engage! (McGraw-Hill, February, 2010), is that senior leaders are even more important than direct managers these days in inspiring loyalty and extra effort. Much of this has to do with the disappointing behavior of many CEOs in recent years which has served to disengage the middle managers and all employees. It's mostly about the culture that senior leaders create and the behavioral cues they send to managers and all employees that make them either want to give back--or not.