If your relationship with your employee is such that they did not let you know in advance that they were looking for a new role, let them go. That signals a lack of trust, that your reaction would be punitive or otherwise negative. Issues with trust and, more broadly culture, are not solved in someone's paycheck.
The job of a manager isn't to convince people to remain with a team that they no longer wish to be part of. It is to create an environment of clarity and trust where people are able to do their best work, one that people want to join and remain a part of over time.
As Andrew Cassel observes, it is understood that when this happens, the talent has almost always started to think about this, maybe months before and has already begun to mentally disengage. An offer simply tips them over. It is important always be re-recruiting people and investing in engagement - not necessarily money but strengthening relationships with mentoring and talking too much about the future.
As a leader, in my opinion, you already messed up if your teammate is seriously entertaining other offers. I say seriously because I see nothing wrong with an employee testing the market to know their worth - I encourage all of my teammates to do that a couple times a year. You keep your interview skills sharp and you gain confidence in where you are.
Employees want to feel like they are learning and growing. They want to feel valued. They want to feel purpose in their work. If they're seriously considering elsewhere, it means you've already messed up in not providing those things.
A friend once said to me that everyone has 2 conversations that matter: the one with themselves in the shower before work, and the one at the dinner table that night.
He said that if you (the employer/company or the manager) are “losing” that conversation, you’re probably on the path to losing that employee.
Thanks for this. It’s something I have no knowledge of and something I’ve never had to consider. I worked in the public sector for 23 years and now the charitable sector for 2. Offering incentives for people to stay such as pay hikes and promotions are not within our gift. When people say they’re going we generally wish them well and ask what we can do to help 🤷♀️
Terrorist has a very well-defined meaning that has nothing to do with employment, compensation, etc. I get the parallel, but the word choice seems “not Admired Leadership-like”.
Is it possible that there is a better word choice?
If your relationship with your employee is such that they did not let you know in advance that they were looking for a new role, let them go. That signals a lack of trust, that your reaction would be punitive or otherwise negative. Issues with trust and, more broadly culture, are not solved in someone's paycheck.
The job of a manager isn't to convince people to remain with a team that they no longer wish to be part of. It is to create an environment of clarity and trust where people are able to do their best work, one that people want to join and remain a part of over time.
Good morning,
"Paying your people well is not altruism. It's just good business." - Jim Sinegal.
All those companies that offer the least possible pay, AND expect a lot from their people. Sigh, well they get what they've earned...
Thank you for your time
As Andrew Cassel observes, it is understood that when this happens, the talent has almost always started to think about this, maybe months before and has already begun to mentally disengage. An offer simply tips them over. It is important always be re-recruiting people and investing in engagement - not necessarily money but strengthening relationships with mentoring and talking too much about the future.
As a leader, in my opinion, you already messed up if your teammate is seriously entertaining other offers. I say seriously because I see nothing wrong with an employee testing the market to know their worth - I encourage all of my teammates to do that a couple times a year. You keep your interview skills sharp and you gain confidence in where you are.
Employees want to feel like they are learning and growing. They want to feel valued. They want to feel purpose in their work. If they're seriously considering elsewhere, it means you've already messed up in not providing those things.
A friend once said to me that everyone has 2 conversations that matter: the one with themselves in the shower before work, and the one at the dinner table that night.
He said that if you (the employer/company or the manager) are “losing” that conversation, you’re probably on the path to losing that employee.
Thanks for this. It’s something I have no knowledge of and something I’ve never had to consider. I worked in the public sector for 23 years and now the charitable sector for 2. Offering incentives for people to stay such as pay hikes and promotions are not within our gift. When people say they’re going we generally wish them well and ask what we can do to help 🤷♀️
Terrorist has a very well-defined meaning that has nothing to do with employment, compensation, etc. I get the parallel, but the word choice seems “not Admired Leadership-like”.
Is it possible that there is a better word choice?
Mark
HBR used the term in their landmark article on the service profit chain. https://hbr.org/2008/07/putting-the-service-profit-chain-to-work
Two wrongs, imo.
Not sure I understand