Bad Mistakes That Make Good Employees Leave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In the seat
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Mistakes That Make Good Employees Leave
Bad Mistakes That Make Good Employees Leave - Dr. Travis Bradberry
It’s tough to hold on to good employees, but it shouldn’t be. Most of the mistakes that companies make are easily avoided. When you do make mistakes, your best employees are the first to go, because they have the most options.
If you can’t keep your best employees engaged, you can’t keep your best employees. While this should be common sense, it isn’t common enough. A survey by the Corporate Executive Board found that one-third of star employees feel disengaged from their employer and are already looking for a new job.
When you lose good employees, they don’t disengage all at once. Instead, their interest in their jobs slowly dissipates. Michael Kibler, who has spent much of his career studying this phenomenon, refers to it as brownout. Like dying stars, star employees slowly lose their fire for their jobs.
“Brownout is different from burnout because workers afflicted by it are not in obvious crisis,”Kibler said. “They seem to be performing fine: putting in massive hours, grinding out work while contributing to teams, and saying all the right things in meetings. However, they are operating in a silent state of continual overwhelm, and the predictable consequence is disengagement.”
In order to prevent brownout and to retain top talent, companies and managers must understand what they’re doing that contributes to this slow fade. The following practices are the worst offenders, and they must be abolished if you’re going to hang on to good employees.
They make a lot of stupid rules. Companies need to have rules—that’s a given—but they don’t have to be shortsighted and lazy attempts at creating order. Whether it’s an overzealous attendance policy or taking employees’ frequent flier miles, even a couple of unnecessary rules can drive people crazy. When good employees feel like big brother is watching, they’ll find someplace else to work.
They treat everyone equally. While this tactic works with school children, the workplace ought to function differently. Treating everyone equally shows your top performers that no matter how high they perform (and, typically, top performers are work horses), they will be treated the same as the bozo who does nothing more than punch the clock.
They tolerate poor performance. It’s said that in jazz bands, the band is only as good as the worst player; no matter how great some members may be, everyone hears the worst player. The same goes for a company. When you permit weak links to exist without consequence, they drag everyone else down, especially your top performers.
They don’t recognize accomplishments. It’s easy to underestimate the power of a pat on the back, especially with top performers who are intrinsically motivated. Everyone likes kudos, none more so than those who work hard and give their all. Rewarding individual accomplishments shows that you’re paying attention. Managers need to communicate with their people to find out what makes them feel good (for some, it’s a raise; for others, it’s public recognition) and then to reward them for a job well done. With top performers, this will happen often if you’re doing it right.
They don’t care about people. More than half the people who leave their jobs do so because of their relationship with their boss. Smart companies make certain that their managers know how to balance being professional with being human. These are the bosses who celebrate their employees’ successes, empathize with those going through hard times, and challenge them, even when it hurts. Bosses who fail to really care will always have high turnover rates. It’s impossible to work for someone for eight-plus hours a day when they aren’t personally involved and don’t care about anything other than your output.
They don’t show people the big picture. It may seem efficient to simply send employees assignments and move on, but leaving out the big picture is a deal breaker for star performers. Star performers shoulder heavier loads because they genuinely care about their work, so their work must have a purpose. When they don’t know what that is, they feel alienated and aimless. When they aren’t given a purpose, they find one elsewhere.
They don’t let people pursue their passions. Google mandates that employees spend at least 20% of their time doing “what they believe will benefit Google most.” While these passion projects make major contributions to marquis Google products, such as Gmail and AdSense, their biggest impact is in creating highly engaged Googlers. Talented employees are passionate. Providing opportunities for them to pursue their passions improves their productivity and job satisfaction, but many managers want people to work within a little box. These managers fear that productivity will decline if they let people expand their focus and pursue their passions. This fear is unfounded. Studies have shown that people who are able to pursue their passions at work experience flow, a euphoric state of mind that is five times more productive than the norm.
They don’t make things fun. If people aren’t having fun at work, then you’re doing it wrong. People don’t give their all if they aren’t having fun, and fun is a major protector against burnout. The best companies to work for know the importance of letting employees loosen up a little. Google, for example, does just about everything it can to make work fun—free meals, bowling allies, and fitness classes, to name a few. The idea is simple: if work is fun, you’ll not only perform better, but you’ll stick around for longer hours and an even longer career.
Bringing It All Together
Managers tend to blame their turnover problems on everything under the sun while ignoring the crux of the matter: people don’t leave jobs; they leave managers.
It’s tough to hold on to good employees, but it shouldn’t be. Most of the mistakes that companies make are easily avoided. When you do make mistakes, your best employees are the first to go, because they have the most options.
If you can’t keep your best employees engaged, you can’t keep your best employees. While this should be common sense, it isn’t common enough. A survey by the Corporate Executive Board found that one-third of star employees feel disengaged from their employer and are already looking for a new job.
When you lose good employees, they don’t disengage all at once. Instead, their interest in their jobs slowly dissipates. Michael Kibler, who has spent much of his career studying this phenomenon, refers to it as brownout. Like dying stars, star employees slowly lose their fire for their jobs.
“Brownout is different from burnout because workers afflicted by it are not in obvious crisis,”Kibler said. “They seem to be performing fine: putting in massive hours, grinding out work while contributing to teams, and saying all the right things in meetings. However, they are operating in a silent state of continual overwhelm, and the predictable consequence is disengagement.”
In order to prevent brownout and to retain top talent, companies and managers must understand what they’re doing that contributes to this slow fade. The following practices are the worst offenders, and they must be abolished if you’re going to hang on to good employees.
They make a lot of stupid rules. Companies need to have rules—that’s a given—but they don’t have to be shortsighted and lazy attempts at creating order. Whether it’s an overzealous attendance policy or taking employees’ frequent flier miles, even a couple of unnecessary rules can drive people crazy. When good employees feel like big brother is watching, they’ll find someplace else to work.
They treat everyone equally. While this tactic works with school children, the workplace ought to function differently. Treating everyone equally shows your top performers that no matter how high they perform (and, typically, top performers are work horses), they will be treated the same as the bozo who does nothing more than punch the clock.
They tolerate poor performance. It’s said that in jazz bands, the band is only as good as the worst player; no matter how great some members may be, everyone hears the worst player. The same goes for a company. When you permit weak links to exist without consequence, they drag everyone else down, especially your top performers.
They don’t recognize accomplishments. It’s easy to underestimate the power of a pat on the back, especially with top performers who are intrinsically motivated. Everyone likes kudos, none more so than those who work hard and give their all. Rewarding individual accomplishments shows that you’re paying attention. Managers need to communicate with their people to find out what makes them feel good (for some, it’s a raise; for others, it’s public recognition) and then to reward them for a job well done. With top performers, this will happen often if you’re doing it right.
They don’t care about people. More than half the people who leave their jobs do so because of their relationship with their boss. Smart companies make certain that their managers know how to balance being professional with being human. These are the bosses who celebrate their employees’ successes, empathize with those going through hard times, and challenge them, even when it hurts. Bosses who fail to really care will always have high turnover rates. It’s impossible to work for someone for eight-plus hours a day when they aren’t personally involved and don’t care about anything other than your output.
They don’t show people the big picture. It may seem efficient to simply send employees assignments and move on, but leaving out the big picture is a deal breaker for star performers. Star performers shoulder heavier loads because they genuinely care about their work, so their work must have a purpose. When they don’t know what that is, they feel alienated and aimless. When they aren’t given a purpose, they find one elsewhere.
They don’t let people pursue their passions. Google mandates that employees spend at least 20% of their time doing “what they believe will benefit Google most.” While these passion projects make major contributions to marquis Google products, such as Gmail and AdSense, their biggest impact is in creating highly engaged Googlers. Talented employees are passionate. Providing opportunities for them to pursue their passions improves their productivity and job satisfaction, but many managers want people to work within a little box. These managers fear that productivity will decline if they let people expand their focus and pursue their passions. This fear is unfounded. Studies have shown that people who are able to pursue their passions at work experience flow, a euphoric state of mind that is five times more productive than the norm.
They don’t make things fun. If people aren’t having fun at work, then you’re doing it wrong. People don’t give their all if they aren’t having fun, and fun is a major protector against burnout. The best companies to work for know the importance of letting employees loosen up a little. Google, for example, does just about everything it can to make work fun—free meals, bowling allies, and fitness classes, to name a few. The idea is simple: if work is fun, you’ll not only perform better, but you’ll stick around for longer hours and an even longer career.
Bringing It All Together
Managers tend to blame their turnover problems on everything under the sun while ignoring the crux of the matter: people don’t leave jobs; they leave managers.
In order to admit to a problem you must first have the self awareness and hubris to admit you are at fault. Culturally both organisationally and individually its something that won't come to pass in any meaningful sense with the present bunch.
except that "hubris" oviously means the opposite of what we all thought it meant.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dubai, U.A.E.
Age: 59
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First 2 posts on this thread are just too true; well written.
In short, our immediate managers are woefully under-qualified to hold these positions; it seems that they are under the impression that punishment will keep the troops in line.
An infantile take on managing a large group of mostly very able and professional staff.
In short, our immediate managers are woefully under-qualified to hold these positions; it seems that they are under the impression that punishment will keep the troops in line.
An infantile take on managing a large group of mostly very able and professional staff.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kuwait
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this case, Putt's Law is very relevant. Putt's Law states that "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand".
Putt's Corollary notes that "Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion, with incompetence being flushed out of the lower levels of a technical hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while those without technical competence move into management".
Sounds familiar? From my years in the Middle East, very familiar.
Putt's Corollary notes that "Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion, with incompetence being flushed out of the lower levels of a technical hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while those without technical competence move into management".
Sounds familiar? From my years in the Middle East, very familiar.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would add something....money can compensate the lack of experience up to a certain point where no matter how rich you are you need someone who has the knowledge and the EXPERIENCE to manage and lead...these people does not deserve any extra effort.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: All over
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: U.K.
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n this case, Putt's Law is very relevant. Putt's Law states that "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand".
Putt's Corollary notes that "Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion, with incompetence being flushed out of the lower levels of a technical hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while those without technical competence move into management".
Sounds familiar? From my years in the Middle East, very familiar.
The exception to the Law is, when its based in a medieval society thrust into a civilisation generation ahead of its time.
Dubai and the rest of the ME society have not gone thru the process of civilisation evolution you see in the democratic world. In a autocratic monarchy these laws don't apply.
Dubai is not its expats, its the watanis or locals, they can't drive anything other than camels.
Putt's Corollary notes that "Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion, with incompetence being flushed out of the lower levels of a technical hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while those without technical competence move into management".
Sounds familiar? From my years in the Middle East, very familiar.
The exception to the Law is, when its based in a medieval society thrust into a civilisation generation ahead of its time.
Dubai and the rest of the ME society have not gone thru the process of civilisation evolution you see in the democratic world. In a autocratic monarchy these laws don't apply.
Dubai is not its expats, its the watanis or locals, they can't drive anything other than camels.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
Not just airlines that suffer from stupidity when it comes to retaining good employees.
One of my offspring left his job two years ago (for a much better paid one) after seeing the light regarding very poor management in a number of respects.
Since he left, two more employees (qualified engineers) have tried his old job and also departed, both for similar reasons.
The company has just tried to "head hunt" my son back. Having agreed to meet them for an interview, they have since come back to him and offered him a far lower salary than he is now on.... muppets.
One of my offspring left his job two years ago (for a much better paid one) after seeing the light regarding very poor management in a number of respects.
Since he left, two more employees (qualified engineers) have tried his old job and also departed, both for similar reasons.
The company has just tried to "head hunt" my son back. Having agreed to meet them for an interview, they have since come back to him and offered him a far lower salary than he is now on.... muppets.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No... it's not understandable! It has become a normal practice from management to recover leave by assigning upgrades, transfers, and whatever they can not to give you leave. Bad practices makes good people leave. Wake up! it's not going to improve. It was planned that way! It's been like that for years. I'm far from surprised. A good friend of mine keeps saying ... "Thank you for continuously reconfirm what I think about this place and this company"
What more do you need to convince you yourself of what it's all about. Wear the pink glasses, grab your pay check and be happy. When you're not happy anymore Halas you can leave !
In the mean time!
Keep recovering 👍🏻
What more do you need to convince you yourself of what it's all about. Wear the pink glasses, grab your pay check and be happy. When you're not happy anymore Halas you can leave !
In the mean time!
Keep recovering 👍🏻
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope- the ones I spoke with are 340 and have been told they will transfer early next year. Oddly, their leave was taken and reallocated for early next year!
They just simply had their allocated leave removed.
They just simply had their allocated leave removed.
