I caught some flack, but I’m still cool with my top players moving on Back in June, I contributed an essay to Fast Company that explained how I retain the top talent at the companies that I lead. My “unconventional philosophy” – which is how it was referenced in the article’s subheading – is “pay them well, educate and mentor them, then let them quit”.
While the response to the article was quite positive (based on Facebook shares, LinkedIn messages, and media interviews that the story inspired), I was struck by communications that I received from some peers that were – let’s just say, dubious about my POV. The kerfuffles included, but were not limited to, such sentiments as…
“What? Do you realize how expensive that is???”
“It’s impossible to operate a business profitably using this roadmap.”
“Lenihan, you’re nuts: the exit door should be shut tight, not wide open.”
“You’ve invested too much into your team’s training to let them go without a fight.”
It’s apparent that by sharing my ideas about employee retention (which includes compensating them well and paying for my top execs’ EMBA degrees at Cambridge University), I unintentionally challenged the policies that other CEOs follow. And while I’m not an HR pro or expert in management psychology, I’d like to offer a theory that may explain the spirited disagreement with the strategy that I presented in FastCo.
I see two general philosophies of how to keep your team (especially your top execs) under your roof: the Defensive/Retaliatory School (DRS) and the Proactive/Supportive School (PSS). DRS is rooted in fear and insecurity. Executives who embrace it are petrified that their productivity will be hampered by employee defections, that such defections are purposeful signs of disrespect, and that upper management (and/or subordinates) will lose confidence in their ability to successfully run their organizations. The DRS tools that are used to confront team members who wish to take their careers elsewhere are threats, guilting, and outrage.
As you can imagine, such tactics by management rarely change the mind of someone who is ready to move on. In fact, they make the departing employee even more confident that he/she has made the correct choice. They also tarnish the reputation of the manager in question and may have a detrimental effect on the company’s ability to attract someone to fill the open role.
PSS is driven by a simple philosophy: make it enticing, rewarding, and irresistible for team members to join – and stay with – your firm. Improve their skills. Expand their understanding and experience. Challenge them to become better individuals and professionals. And if/when they seek new opportunities, wish them well and let them go.
That last bit is what makes executives and CEOs who follow the DRS alternative to become mighty twitchy: they’re unable to see an employee’s departure as anything but a personal attack, and their reflex is to react vengefully.
While taking the DRS path may feel justified or satisfying in the moment, it delivers zero long-term business benefits. In fact, I believe that it’s detrimental to the profitability, efficiency, and marketplace perception of your organization. But don’t take my word for it: if you’re an adherent of the DRS route, look at the employee reviews of your company on Glassdoor. They’ll likely detail some embarrassing revelations about the way in which your company operates.
PSS, by comparison, delivers enduring and limitless business benefits to the organizations that support it. It’s particularly valuable when a high-ranking exec leaves for a new job at another firm. As I explained in the FastCo piece, these departing executives will be eager to…
boost the marketplace perception of your company when they share the positive experiences that they had when they worked with you
circle back with you to create mutually beneficial partnerships/collaborations
refer capable and highly vetted applicants to you
help with the onboarding process for their replacements (which would bring significant efficiency and cost savings)
While intellectually all business leaders understand the concept of PSS – and would absolutely want to be on the receiving end of it in their own careers – it easily gets forgotten when a valued team member gears up to make an exit. Empathy would help these executives to be more supportive of their teams’ endeavors. So would better training. Or maybe a mass exodus of employees who are exhausted by a dysfunctional DRS dynamic would correct the internal work culture.
By understanding the needs and goals of your team and reflecting them in a compassionate corporate culture, you’ll be making an investment in the long-term health, competitiveness, and strength of your organization. To paraphrase Sir Richard Branson, “Train, [mentor, and educate] people well enough so they can leave, treat them well enough so they don’t want to.” But if they eventually change their minds and decide to take their career journeys elsewhere, continue treating your people well and you’ll reap the rewards of your mature, forward thinking, and empathetic approach.
