Retain your talents...they cost a lot

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

The cost of employee turnover for businesses is high, time for leaders to step in  

Harsh decisions with reference to asking an employee to hang his/her boots have to be made; there are no second thoughts on this. No one is indispensable (whatever be the potential of the quitting employee), is a clichéd logic given to this end. Understandably, the present business dynamics believes in ‘doing more with less’ and this quest many organizations end up losing key people. In such cases it is apparent that statements like, ‘our people drive the businesses’ are more at a superficial level. Of course, in the short term, there is a reduction of expenses; yet what is not realized is the fact that the pain (monetary and otherwise) is usually felt post the cut which is neither reported to the CEO nor is factored into the organization’s bottom line. Besides what makes more sense is to know the additional ‘ramp-up’ costs that is required to bring a new hire to the same competency level as the departing employee. A reason as to why this is not factored in an organizations bottom line could perhaps be the lack of a robust process in place to estimate the turnover costs. However, the cost of employee turnover for businesses is high, regardless of the level of wages being paid to the departing or incoming employees. To put a numerical value, the Society of Human Resource Management, SHRM, estimates that it costs about $3,500 to replace one $8.00 per hour employee. Estimates by various research sources note that it costs 30 - 50 percent of the annual salary of entry-level employees, up to 150 percent of middle level employees and up to 400 percent for specialized, high level employees. Given these numbers and its implications, it makes sense to put in place workplace policies that improve employee retention can help companies reduce their turnover costs. Can leaders play a role here? If yes, then what can they do to retain and motivate employees?

It is a common phenomenon that employees are drawn to leaders who offer optimism and new possibilities, not despair. Thus leaders can improve their ability to retain top talent and at the same time support broader business objectives by understanding and adopting practices to promote long-term employee engagement. At this juncture it is important to understand that engaging and retaining high-potential leaders requires more than traditional incentives such as competitive pay, benefits and good physical working conditions – high potential can easily be lured by rivals with all the more better pay and benefits. Leaders can earn the loyalty of employees by putting in place a disciplined engagement strategy, listen to their employees on two levels – what they say and what their unsaid emotions reveal,  and encourage a consistent follow-through from senior management. They must develop sophisticated programs to address the problem of retaining their best people and finding more to further accelerate their growth.

Researches point to several practices that a leader can use to retain and engage talent and yes positively impact the bottom line too.

Create a sense of purpose: Engagement and retention improves when people understand how they connect to the ‘Big Picture’ and how they make a difference. Feeling connected to the people one works with helps create a sense of purpose.

Provide meaningful work: Allowing people to do what they do best and make a significant contribution is critical to engagement and retention. Leaders should actively listen and acknowledge the employees current roles as well as their aspirations for the future.  Knowing what types of work they find stimulating, what they would consider a dream assignment and taking measurable steps to help them progress toward those career goals would be like icing on the cake.

Solicit ideas: Leaders can solicit employees’ opinions on business challenges and workplace issues. Involving people in decision making gives them a sense of control in uncertain times, shows them that they are valued and that their opinions matter. While it is good to publicly recognize and reward the sources of ideas, it is equally important not to discount employees whose ideas are not used. It is best to meet with them one-on-one, thank them for providing thoughts, and explain how their idea could lead to another initiative later on. This also helps in improving decision acceptance rates.

These are not exhaustive; giving honest feedback, setting tough yet realistic goals, enhancing trust and communication et al would go a long way in engaging as well as retaining people – who matter. In essence, leaders need to do more with more - more interaction with employees, more communication, more partnering, and more coaching. Only then can they create the work environment necessary for increased productivity and employee loyalty. Else employee retention will continue to remain an expensive proposition.

How True Are Your Ads?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Soulful poetry, bombastic promises and beguiling slogans… you definitely can’t escape the great Indian electoral jamboree if you are an Indian. But do slogans really translate into votes?

“Bijli gul, paani gul, sever full, is baar Dilli sarkar ka dabba gul.” The ad campaign launched by the BJP during the 2007 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Election had certainly created a political advertising furor then. But two and half years down the line, a majority of campaigners (read: BJP members who are now councillors and must have shouted the slogan on the top of their voices then) can’t even recollect the slogan which had helped them dethrone the then ruling Congress party. And it’s just not one instance. In fact, a random survey conducted by us revealed that 66% of the total respondents couldn’t even recall the India Shining and Bharat Nirman campaigns (and at best were unable to differentiate between the two). Put a rupee value to it – the public at large is unaware of the fact that Rs.1.5 billion and Rs.2 billion worth of tax payers money was involved in India Shining and Bharat Nirman campaigns respectively – and the efforts seem to have gone down the drain.

So the moot question is - If the brand recall is such then why do political parties like Congress and BJP keep aside huge sums to the tune of Rs.1.5 billion and Rs.2.5 billion respectively as their advertising budgets. Do political advertising really serve the purpose? Or is the Rs.10 billion advertising extravaganza by political biggies just another revenue source for the ad agencies.

From 1984 to 2009, the political advertisement landscape has been more or less the same, in the sense that it has remained a convenient place to fallback for answers, both in the case of victory and defeat. Be it Rediffusion, Grey Worldwide, Crayons, or Utopia, they have either been praised for ‘brilliant’ campaigns or have been held guilty for their ‘horribly negative’ work. In fact, like any other brand, political brands too have shifted agencies as and when they couldn’t continue with that winning streak. But then, what is it that differentiates a brilliant campaign from a horribly negative campaign? If your answer is in the context of creativity, then you need to reconsider; because political ads have never been so creative. And if at all they have been, they have failed miserably. So what is it that attracts voters to vote for a particular political party?

If it’s not the creative design, then certainly it has to be the message that the advertisement sends across to its target segment. Though both BJP and Congress politically insist on the fact that neither India Shining nor Bharat Nirman was a political campaign, yet the subtlety with which the ads were used as ‘proxy campaigns’ to highlight their achievements makes them classic cases for consideration. In fact, there was nothing wrong with the Rs.1.5 billion plus Grey Worlwide’s India Shining (for the BJP led NDA government) campaign. Media loved it, even the tagline became an instant catchphrase for the booming Indian economy. Yet the common perception of the masses was that it was more of an elitist advertisement, with no recognisable face on the hoardings. Result: NDA lost the next election. The campaign that had become the catchphrase was suddenly vilified and the Rs.1.5 billion plus price tag was cited as an extravaganza. The post mortem analysis indicated that the ruling BJP while recognising the achievements of ‘India’ had completely forgotten about the teeming millions in Bharat.

Compare this to Percept/H Bharat Nirman Campaign (for the UPA government), at an estimated cost of Rs.2 billion, publicising the work of the UPA government. As per political pundits, the campaign connected more with the masses. In fact, this was one of the several reasons behind Congress’s thumping victory in the 2009 Parliamentary Polls. Did you notice that subtle change – ‘Bharat’ replaced ‘India’ and ‘Shining’ was substituted by ‘Nirman’? And this struck the right chord with the voters.

On comparative ground too, the two ad campaigns by respective governments speak volumes on what experts’ term as ‘positivity, inclusiveness, youthfulness and all the more pan India appeal’ as against ‘negativity, incoherence and ads of exploitative nature.’ Well, one can’t blame political analysts and experts for their ad analysis. Reason: At this juncture it’s important to note that political advertising and brand advertising are polls apart when it comes to measure the return on investment. While in the latter’s case a plethora of parameters (awareness, likeability, et al) needs to be considered, in the case former the return on investment on advertising can be judged almost instantaneously and on a single parameter – whether the concerned political party won the elections or not. This makes political advertising altogether a different ball game.

Moreover, though negative ads do get the much needed eyeballs and in the future does generate recall, but they do not necessarily translate into votes (sales if can term them so). Jai Ho and Bhay Ho hit the media blitzkrieg almost simultaneously. While with Jai Ho (the Congress was inspired by the Oscar award winning movie Slumdog Millionaire and got the rights to use the same in its political campaign) Congress highlighted its achievements, with its follow up ad “Aam aadmi ke badte kadam; har kadam par Bharat buland” it only took the endavour further.

On the other hand the main opposition party (read BJP) focussed on the negatives and came up with Bhay Ho campaign. Apparently the campaign did not succeed in persuading the Indian voter. Nor did its follow up ad ‘Mazboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’ strike a positive connotation with the masses. Raison d’être: Ads in the context of political advertising must be able to persuade the electorate by political messages based on parameters like trustworthiness, honesty, et al. And critics feel that latter had missed on them. In fact, the message the voter is now sending out to all political parties is – don’t take me for granted, and don’t expect me to be swayed by hype without substance.

For instance, cut the picture to December 2008 when during the Delhi State Assembly Election the BJP came up with the campaign “Mehengi Padi Congress.” Nothing was wrong with the ad, as a matter of fact it did highlight the problems gripping the common man then, but still BJP lost the election. Well, it’s a different issue that 90% (including the chief ministerial candidate Dr V. K. Malhotra) of the party members themselves found that the ad had a negative connotation. “We did highlight the problem, but what we missed was the solution. We did not tell the electorate how we would solve the problem. Further, we focused so much on the word Congress that in the end Congress won the election,” avers Anil Sharma, a BJP Councillor. Therefore, as the party gears up for the assembly elections in three states - Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra – the focus this time will not only be the problems, but also on the solutions. As far as Haryana is concerned, price rise is its issue.

Similarly the main theme for Congress in the state of Maharashtra (where its ally is Sharad Pawar led NCP) is the developmental plank and sustaining the growth momentum. Says Ranjan Bargotra, President, Crayons Ltd. (the ad agency taking care of the Congress ads in the state assembly elections), “there is no point flooding the ads with information. We are highlighting issues which connect with the common man.” And critics agree with Bargotra. They too feel if campaigns highlight the work done by the collation governments, they can easily persuade the common man to vote for the party. Thus, as a policy measure the Congress ads are never designed to hit below the belt. “This in its own way differentiates the party and persuades voters to vote,” says a critic.

If you don’t agree, sample this, “Aisa pehli baar hua hai … No 1 Haryana” – the ad campaign of the government of Haryana which focuses on the developmental works (NREGS, NRHM, Electricity, SSA, et al) with rural masses in the background conveys a positive picture of the party and is successful in persuading the voters (Haryana government has already spend Rs.80 million on the campaign). Even their latest master stroke – 13 October ko, Sonia Gandhi ke naam pe, Congress ke kaam pe, mohar lagaye haath pe – is a crystal clear ad asking voters to vote for the party clearly on developmental planks.

In fact, a similar ad from the stable of BJP, “Jeetaga Gujarat”, which clearly cut across the clutter and asked people to vote for the development of Gujarat, struck the right chord with the voters at a time when the entire opposition was involved in mud slinging. Ditto in Karnataka wherein BJP had put across a host of questions along with the solutions. Result: The campaign which read “BJPyee Parihaare” (BJP is the solution) connected well with the masses and persuaded the Kannada voters to vote for BJP. All praise to Arun Jaitley who was hailed as the Chanakya of BJP.

Though, on retrospect it’s not always possible to pin point the reasons for failure of the ad campaign, but yet winning admen will continue to claim that they had a better understanding of Indian politics and political pundits will as usual sit and dissect the advertising threadbare. For a moment, imagine, had the BJP won, “Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar” could have been the new catchphrase. As Bagrotra points out, “Campaign plays a significant yet limited role and it’s performance that communicates it back to the people.”

PS: The article was written in October 2009 for 4P's B&M

A case for the fairer talent

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

While the representation of women on boards and executive committees are low, a survey suggests that a key agenda for India Inc., in 2013 would be to invest in women talent...

According to a new study from Booz and Co., “Empowering the Third Billion: Women and the World of Work in 2012,” nearly one billion women are poised to enter the global economy in the coming decade. However, the question remains as to whether theirs will be a story of economic empowerment or missed potential. Consultancy firm McKinsey & Company, in its report titled, “Women Matter” states that companies in Asia's leading economies have "strikingly" few women in senior jobs, missing out on a vital pool of talent to fuel the region's growth. In a similar vein Centre for Talent Innovation’s, CTI,  research on women professionals in emerging markets finds that women encounter bias in the workplace, severe enough that large numbers (55 percent in India, 48 percent in China and 40 percent in Brazil) disengage or consider dropping out altogether. While Booz & Co study suggests concrete steps that governments and employers can take to tilt the scales toward success, CTI argues that the problem can be addressed by employers by recognizing that there are high-potential women and must create procedures and programs that will enable talented women to reach their maximum potential. Given the talent deficit across industries, the proposition makes all the more sense to retain talented women workforce.

Statistically India fares poorly when compared to China or even Indonesia when it comes to representation of women talent on executive committees and boards. As per the McKinsey Report, in India women’s representation on boards and executive committees are 5% and 3% respectively (lower than that of China which has the representation at 8% and 9%). Taking a cue from these studies and the “double burden” pressure (career and household duties) that McKinsey cited as dominant reason for women in India to leave jobs; companies are offering unusual perks and incentives and creating unique programmes to contain dropouts. Media reports state that companies are putting an extra effort into increasing the number of women in their workforce, including paying higher fees to third party recruiters for finding appropriate women candidates. Apparently it seems that India Inc. is keen to keen to move beyond policies and frameworks to actually doing things to increase the share of women representation and train them for leadership roles.

Interestingly, one of the key agenda for India Inc., in 2013 would be to invest in women talent. A survey conducted Avtar Career Creators and Flexi Careers India, across 130 companies in India that operate in multiple domains, state that some 79 percent of the companies polled believe that investing in women would bring them sustainable growth and increased productivity. According to the survey respondents more than 75 percent of their diversity & inclusion (D&I) investments for 2013 would go into inducting, developing, training and retraining women talent.  In terms of budgetary allocation IT, BPO, KPO and FMCG companies have higher budgets for gender diversity compared to other industries. Besides, an increasing pressure to retain talent and greater consciousness about the need for diversity at workplaces has also added to the momentum. Further according to the Avatar study as much as 83 percent of respondents in the survey said they were keen on hiring second career women - those who took career breaks for marriage or childbearing. It is in this context that it would be interesting to know as to how are companies going the extra mile to retain talent by showering ‘would be mother’ employees with extra perks.

According to reports available in the media, there are companies that have adopted unique talent retention strategies. For instance, Accenture runs a unique programme called 'Hours That Help' where employees can donate their unused vacation time to their colleagues who are in need of additional paid leave to attend to critical medical or personal matters. Often, this option is used by new parents to attend to any critical or urgent childbirth related matters. Besides, Accenture also offers security escorts and dedicated medical cabs for expecting mothers. Google India, besides offering an insurance cover towards delivery related problems and the general insurance scheme that is extended to the family, also offers a baby bonding benefit to young mothers soon after the child is delivered. As a unique practice, in case of adoption, Google bears the entire adoption expenses against bills that include the legal charges and fee charged by the agency. SAP India, which has its, ‘Run the Mummier’ programme, believes that there is a clear evidence that maternity and childcare benefits translate into higher retention, helping firms also to develop strong women leadership benches. IBM has a programme in place to train in-home caregivers or nannies on the nitty-gritty of childcare while Yahoo runs volunteer-driven Women in Tech (WiT) group that supports women across the talent pipeline and enables them to successfully enter and remain in the IT workforce.

Given the practices / procedures, intent and investment in place the logical question in a world obsessed with measurability would be - do such measures help curtail dropout? Though a sweeping statement would be much of a generalization, but yes there are companies that state they have had positive results. SAP India’s experience with their programme over the years is a testimony to that fact.

Listen Boss – I quit because of you!

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Contrary to popular imagination that employees leave jobs for money; the truth is ‘people don’t leave jobs – they leave managers!’

Employee turnover is not a new phenomenon; they join an organization, quit and then move on to the next. Managers readily accept turnover as ‘a cost of doing business’.  Perhaps, they may not be entirely wrong; however it does make sense to figure out as to whether employees quit because they are disgusted with the entire company or is there more to it than meets the eye? According to Saratoga Institute Survey, 89 percent of managers say they believe that employees leave for more money. While this may be the managers’ perception, Saratoga’s research supports the many other surveys that categorically state that money is not the driving force causing employees to quit their present employment. The manager’s perception is primarily due to the results of ‘exit interviews’ wherein the outgoing employees generally offer - better pay package and opportunities, as reasons for their quitting the job. This is because the employees do not want to burn bridges with their existing managers (for perhaps they need their reference or recommendation). What is all the more interesting is that very rarely do managers’/leaders look in the mirror and face the real reason why their best and brightest employees choose to leave. The author duo, Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman in their book, ‘First Break All the Rules: What the Worlds’ Greatest Managers Do Differently’, write that that people don’t leave jobs, they leave managers. If employees don’t get along with their managers, don’t like them or don’t respect them, they will leave a company despite a high salary or great benefits. Leigh Branham, in his book, ‘The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave’ states that one of the top reasons employees cite when leaving a job is either disagreement with or disapproval of their immediate supervisor. Back home, a survey by industry body ASSOCHAM, ‘Employee-Boss Relationship’ October 2012, has some startling numbers. Around 62 percent of the respondents said that they have an abusive boss, such as humiliating and insulting employees or isolating them from co-workers. This perhaps explains as to why nearly 69 percent of employees who quit their jobs complained about indifferent attitude of their bosses or immediate supervisors.

True, that employee discontent, disengagement and final exit does not occur overnight – perhaps it takes weeks / months and in a few cases may be even years; therefore it does make sense for leaders /bosses / immediate supervisors to look beyond the obvious and get rid of what psychologists refer to as ‘motivated blindness’. They need to accept that one of the critical reasons as to why employees quit may be linked to their own behavior. DDI’s, ‘Lessons for Leaders from the People Who Matter’ a trend research on how employees around the world view their leaders, offers valuable insight and learnings for bosses/ leaders / immediate supervisors. The research report states that one in three respondents (34 percent) don’t consider their managers to be effective at their job; 37 percent said that their leaders are able to motivate them only sometimes or never; 35 percent respondents stated that their leaders would sometimes or never, listen to their work related concerns. Only 56 percent of employees reported that their current leaders help them be more productive. Add to this, as per the report 39 percent surveyed said that they left a job primarily because of their leader while 55 percent said they have considered leaving job because of their leader. These  stand contrary to what leaders feel about themselves; a 2010 front-line study, “Findings the First Rung” by DDI, reveals that a vast majority 87 percent leaders rated their own leadership skills as good or excellent. The leadership effectiveness is ultimately determined by those who are led; the discontent between what the leaders and the those who are led feel, is reflective of wherein the problem lies and what corrective measures can be initiated.

There is no doubt that bosses / immediate supervisors who don’t create the right opportunities for their employees, don’t communicate with them, and don’t appreciate them often find themselves dealing with a high turnover rate. So what are the qualities of a good manager which may help them retain their employees? The ASSOCHAM survey offers a few - approachable (83 percent), a good communicator (82 percent), supportive (81 percent), a good leader (80 percent) and someone who respects their staff as individuals (76 percent).

Lessons for bosses / immediate supervisors, if they want to retain their people: you should neither be intimidating, nor aloof, nor be unable to hold confidences nor you should you break the ‘psychological contract’. A good manager, it is said – no matter the salary, inspires loyalty. So my dear manager/boss/leader/immediate supervisor (as you may like to be called): I didn't quit my job for money … I quit because of YOU!

Are you losing out on your introvert employees?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

When it comes to reward, recognition or ‘race to the top’ the introverts are a discounted lot; it’s time they get their rightful dues…

Call it a trend or a fallacy; organizations apparently seem to lay their bait more on the big personality. In such a scenario where does the proverbial ‘shy, sober and simple’ employee fit in the organizational schema? In their search for a charismatic, effusive and outgoing leaders as well as employees, organizations seem to lose sight of the calm, eremitic and the observant lot. More often than not, the hidden gems do not get the recognition they deserve and eventually they either quit or feel depressed. Neither is a win-win situation for either the employee or the organization. At best for the employee - the so called introverts as opposed to their outgoing extrovert colleagues, quitting (or job hopping in the hope of being a part of an organization where they are recognized and can excel to their potential) is but a temporary solution. As for the organization, the loss is greater. Living and believing in ‘culture of personality’ where it is the charisma, outward confidence, and ability to sell others a vision, that is prized and rewarded; organizations are perhaps missing out on one third to one half of the population that considers themselves to be introverts. Author Susan Cain, in her book, “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking” suggests that by succumbing to the noisy charms of the extrovert, society and business are missing out on the insight and creativity of the more thoughtful part of the population. She is of the opinion that there’s a bias against the introverts and they are discounted for a trait that goes to the core of who they are; further arguing that it's time more thoughtful and reserved types got their due. It makes business sense for managers to understand the differing needs of their introverted (and extroverted employees) and reap the benefits in terms of productivity and motivation.

What is it that is different in the way the introverts communicate or work that finds itself at odds with modern business culture? It is in this context that it makes all the more sense for managers / leaders to build on the talents of their more inward-focused workforce by exploring the workings of the introverted mind. Here again the question is, how do you define an introvert? Shy, unsociable, unhappy, unfriendly, insular are but a few adjectives that are wrongly attributed to an introvert. Contrary to these popular imagination introverts are neither shy nor unsociable nor aloof; but nonetheless introversion, as a trait, continues to carry a stigma in the workplace. Misconceptions aside, introverts tend to be calm and reserved, speak softly and slowly, don't seek the limelight, and act only after thinking their thoughts through. These characteristics often tend to mask their strengths: creativity, intellectual depth, and the ability to see the big picture, maintain an organization's internal compass, and balance out the go-getters in the organization. In their book, “Type talk at work”- Otto Kroeger and Janet Thuesen put forth their view that, “With Introverts, you see only a portion of their personality. The richest and the most trusted parts of an introvert's personality are not necessarily shared with the outside world. It takes up time, trust and special circumstances for them to begin to open up."

Going by the author duo, the takeaways for managers / leaders are clear: recognize & harmonize their key strengths and encourage their introverted employees to be their best selves. There is no dearth of example of introverts who have been successful leaders. Be it Bill Gates, or Jim Goodnight, or Warren Buffet or for that matter Richard Branson (who claims to be an introvert but knows how to hide it well) – all quintessentially introvert professionals have been successful at leading global corporations. However organizations probably need a right balance of extroverts and introverts. For instance Steve Jobs had Steve Wozniak, Steve Ballmer complemented Bill Gates. While mangers / leaders can play a role in encouraging their introvert friends, introverts, too can make more effort to get their thoughts across, to smile, to make eye contact, and yes speak up.

Extroverts can take a leaf out their introvert colleagues’ philosophy and organizations can do their bit to tap into the untapped potential of the introverts; introverts besides ‘leading a quiet revolution’ (as Susan Cain puts it) must learn from their extrovert colleagues to be ‘able to talk the needed talk’ and place themselves on the ‘organizational positioning’ cluster. If the two fail in their efforts, the business world may never get to see another Buffet, Wozniak, or Gates.