Back when I supported HR at a hospital I built these ultra detailed employee turnover reports, which included average cost of turnover (metrics for what it costs to cover shifts until the position is filled, cost of recruiting/posting positions, cost associated with hiring, separation cost of the employee leaving, etc etc). And of course they would focus primarily on nursing roles. They spent about 5 years doing just about anything they could; hiring bonuses, incentives, referral bonuses, various outreach programs and tuition assistance for nurses. After those 5 years they found no noticeable reduction in nursing turnover. What they did eventually notice, however, is a steady increase in turnover for all other non-nursing positions.
After another year or 2 of bullshit excuses and throwing whatever paltry perks they attempted to throw at us the only thing they found actually lowering their turnover figures…reinstate annual 3% raises. Because they found out paying their employees was actually cheaper than the annual cost of turnover.
That’s pretty much business 101 though. It’s almost always cheaper long term to retain employees (especially high performing employees) rather than getting rid of and re-hiring. But when you are at the edge of bankruptcy or can’t afford to keep people (sometimes simply for ‘profit’) then short term it’s a better idea.
Companies are not ethereal, so there are always going to be short term decisions made that hurt long term.
i see what youre saying, but i think youre missing some stuff here. companies being “on the edge of bankruptcy” is usually also the fault of csuite douchebags. where do you think all the money companies make goes? it goes to the obscene csuite salaries. those fuckers make these ridiculous short term decisions that only benefit them while taking credit for every success and claiming every failure was due to “market forces” completely outside their control. yeah companies are responding to the situation of the moment, but how the fuck do you think they got there in the first place?
the last place i worked had this problem constantly. management makes a dumbass decision that hurts the business for no benefit, then we get in a tight spot because of it, and management makes another decision that only really hurts the actual workers with the justification that they have to because the company is in a tough spot. rinse and repeat. no accountability, no repercussions, and nothing meaningfully changes except for things get worse for all the people doing the actual work.
dont just swallow their propaganda without thinking.
dont just swallow their propaganda without thinking.
You may want to take the same advice. ‘Usually full of C-Suite douchebags’ shows how out of touch you are with reality. The majority of companies in the US don’t even have a C-Suite and are mom and pop shops. Even those that do have a proper corporate structure, you can remove every ounce of salary and benefits from the C-Suite and still wouldn’t lower prices significantly.
Management makes bad decisions? So do workers. Everyone does, that’s humans, no one is perfect. Do workers more often get kicked to the curb over management? Sure, that’s reality. If you move yourself into management, and workers make errors that cost the company, who do you get rid of?
Perhaps it’s a giant combination of factors and not just some sucker with ‘C’ in their title.
Leadership makes the decisions and gets to keep the profits, so they should be held to a higher standard of accountability. Small businesses that don’t literally have “CEOs” still have leaders. These people took responsibility, and should be treated like it.
If you’re a ship captain, and your sailors make errors that cause the ship to sink, you’re still ultimately responsible because it’s your ship, and who hired those sailors?
Ahh, so realistically you want one person to take blame, but not have the reward. Makes sense.
Close a company because you have to keep everyone regardless, or get rid of people to ensure those who are left stay employed. The realistic decision made every day. When a government decision raises your costs overnight by 50% and customers don’t pay for it, tell us, who is at fault? Guess it’s the manager because they didn’t anticipate that right?
Back when I supported HR at a hospital I built these ultra detailed employee turnover reports, which included average cost of turnover (metrics for what it costs to cover shifts until the position is filled, cost of recruiting/posting positions, cost associated with hiring, separation cost of the employee leaving, etc etc). And of course they would focus primarily on nursing roles. They spent about 5 years doing just about anything they could; hiring bonuses, incentives, referral bonuses, various outreach programs and tuition assistance for nurses. After those 5 years they found no noticeable reduction in nursing turnover. What they did eventually notice, however, is a steady increase in turnover for all other non-nursing positions.
After another year or 2 of bullshit excuses and throwing whatever paltry perks they attempted to throw at us the only thing they found actually lowering their turnover figures…reinstate annual 3% raises. Because they found out paying their employees was actually cheaper than the annual cost of turnover.
“Does anyone have any ideas on how to boost morale that don’t include pay raises?”
Not an uncommon question in meetings, if you’d believe people on the internet.
It’s like trying to figure out how to grow a plant without water. Pointless from the beginning.
Its like when tech-bros re-invent trains or taxes or something
That’s pretty much business 101 though. It’s almost always cheaper long term to retain employees (especially high performing employees) rather than getting rid of and re-hiring. But when you are at the edge of bankruptcy or can’t afford to keep people (sometimes simply for ‘profit’) then short term it’s a better idea.
Companies are not ethereal, so there are always going to be short term decisions made that hurt long term.
i see what youre saying, but i think youre missing some stuff here. companies being “on the edge of bankruptcy” is usually also the fault of csuite douchebags. where do you think all the money companies make goes? it goes to the obscene csuite salaries. those fuckers make these ridiculous short term decisions that only benefit them while taking credit for every success and claiming every failure was due to “market forces” completely outside their control. yeah companies are responding to the situation of the moment, but how the fuck do you think they got there in the first place?
the last place i worked had this problem constantly. management makes a dumbass decision that hurts the business for no benefit, then we get in a tight spot because of it, and management makes another decision that only really hurts the actual workers with the justification that they have to because the company is in a tough spot. rinse and repeat. no accountability, no repercussions, and nothing meaningfully changes except for things get worse for all the people doing the actual work.
dont just swallow their propaganda without thinking.
You may want to take the same advice. ‘Usually full of C-Suite douchebags’ shows how out of touch you are with reality. The majority of companies in the US don’t even have a C-Suite and are mom and pop shops. Even those that do have a proper corporate structure, you can remove every ounce of salary and benefits from the C-Suite and still wouldn’t lower prices significantly.
Management makes bad decisions? So do workers. Everyone does, that’s humans, no one is perfect. Do workers more often get kicked to the curb over management? Sure, that’s reality. If you move yourself into management, and workers make errors that cost the company, who do you get rid of?
Perhaps it’s a giant combination of factors and not just some sucker with ‘C’ in their title.
at least get their cock out of your mouth while youre talking to me jeez
Leadership makes the decisions and gets to keep the profits, so they should be held to a higher standard of accountability. Small businesses that don’t literally have “CEOs” still have leaders. These people took responsibility, and should be treated like it.
If you’re a ship captain, and your sailors make errors that cause the ship to sink, you’re still ultimately responsible because it’s your ship, and who hired those sailors?
Ahh, so realistically you want one person to take blame, but not have the reward. Makes sense.
Close a company because you have to keep everyone regardless, or get rid of people to ensure those who are left stay employed. The realistic decision made every day. When a government decision raises your costs overnight by 50% and customers don’t pay for it, tell us, who is at fault? Guess it’s the manager because they didn’t anticipate that right?