50% of Doctors…

Several years ago I severely injured my knee playing basketball and required 2 surgeries to fix it. Several months into post-surgery rehab, the therapist advised me to never have such complex surgery performed by those who do it infrequently. His advice was clear: ski resort surgeons fix knees every day and I should have gone there rather than have local doctors perform the surgeries.

This brings to mind a sure-fire laugh line when speaking to groups, that “50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their classes”. The point is that the worst graduate is still called “doctor”, and this leads to a discussion about how easy it is to assume that all who do the same profession do it equally well.

We know this is true about supervisors based on team performance, turnover rates, grapevine talk, and other criteria. Yet few companies put extra support plans in place for supervisors who are not as talented as their peers. Clearly there are a bottom 20% or so who need structured coaching, team sharing sessions with peers, additional support when hiring, and other interventions that will help them perform better in the short term and build their skills over time…or identify them as supervisors who shouldn’t be supervising.

The primary obstacle to such a plan is that managers are reluctant to tell supervisors they need help. It’s easy to say new supervisors get different treatment because being new doesn’t imply being ineffective. But some supervisors are ineffective and they need structured help to improve.

The Red-Headed Step-child Named Retention

Employee Retention Strategy Can Save Companies Millions

In a recent post on the Risk Management for the 21st Century blog at AllBusiness.com Nancy Germond and I discuss a retention strategy that businesses can employ to minimize risk and help their bottom line by decreasing costs.

With unemployment at one of its highest rates many organizations have let their focus on employee retention slip - with the untapped pool that is consistently being flooded with talent old and new, this action puts your organization at risk and it’s costly. The majority of your current employees look for work elsewhere as economy improves - and even during the turmoil, and the attitude in many organizations is employees are easily replaced, but the costs (and hidden costs) associated with replacing talented employees lead to further problems down the road - risky thinking indeed.

Obviously this can be said with any organization, but the more experienced an employee is the less risky they are and the less risk there is for your organization which makes retention an important step in any organization.

The unique model, which I call The Rethinking Retention Model, bases the retention process on the belief that it should be managed like any other practice: sales, service, quality or safety.

These are some of my recommendations:

• Calculate the cost of turnover to determine how much it hurts your company's bottom line.

• Hold supervisors accountable for retention and teach them the importance of and how to build trust.

• "Narrow the front door to close the back door.”

• Carefully script the employee's first 90 days on the job.

• Develop a “Stay Plan”

• Build tools to connect with employees.

• Allow Candidates to Screen Themselves Out

• Hold employment vendors to retention standards.

• Hire Older Workers

• Use a referral system - current employees refer candidates for three reasons.

In today's economic climate, organizations can no longer ignore retention strategies if they want to retain their top talent, and retention is critical to any company's bottom line - and retaining talent is even harder. With the use of my strategy I was able to help one hospital cut nurse turnover by 34%, effectively them millions.

You can read the entire posting by clicking here.

For more information on my work, visit www.TheRetentionFirm.com or http://www.retentioninstitute.com/.

A New Twist on the Cost of Turnover

We featured in a previous entry a very effective model for costing employee turnover, although every model will have holes and omit important considerations. Here’s one great example.
We recently began work with a hospital to cut their turnover and the CEO there was immediately open about why he hired us. He told us he had signed a contract to bring in a noted consulting company to increase efficiencies by shaving times off of waiting periods, surgeries, and the like…and he knew that improving efficiencies included improving individuals’ job performances. So logically he said “Why would I want to spend all of that money to make my people better and then not do everything I can to keep them?”

So let’s take this logic a step further and ask: Should you be concerned about turnover if your people don’t perform well? I guess the answer is no, and also that your problems are far bigger than employee retention. But the logical counter-question is about how important is it to retain employees if you’ve heavily invested in them, as this hospital has. The CEO’s position was that the more he improved efficiencies, the more he increased the cost of new-hire training to ensure new hires fully understood and followed the shiny new processes. Therefore, the cost of turnover had just gone up.

Can the Nursing Shortage Get Worse?

In the March 22nd, 2010 issue of Time, Michael Lind penned a column called “The Boring Age” to illustrate how much of our society stays the same. The column was interesting yet irrelevant to our topics here until then end when he predicted that the largest single occupation in 2050 will be, to quote Mr. Lind: “drumroll, please – nursing!”
Much data is tossed around about the current nursing shortage, usually in the categories of the number of open nursing positions, the long-in-tooth average age of current nurses, and how healthcare jobs lead the list of those that will increase the most due to our citizens living longer. All of that is old news, just not good news to those who hire and try to retain nurses. But this is a new category – largest single occupation – and takes our current nurse-shortage problem to an entirely higher level.

We’ve worked with healthcare companies and have had great success with improving nurse turnover. Ultimately, though, the composition of the nurse job merits our scrutiny. It’s hard to do all this is asked, especially when nurses join the profession to provide the best possible care which is often times negatively reinforced by insurance companies. By 2050, those of you who are left to address what will be by then an even more extreme need might consider adding nurse positions and designing a true nurses’ aid job that evens out the work and the stress.