Valentine’s Day is coming up, a “holiday” which is notoriously divisive. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, all for it and already have a dinner reservation and flowers ordered, or firmly of the opinion it’s just another money-making-marketing tool there is something to be said for feeling loved and appreciated.

The same applies in business, you turn up to the first day of your new job and along with the nerves and excitement, there is the expectation you will be given some form of onboarding – a first date so to speak. Whether this is official product training or an introduction to the company and structure, you wouldn’t expect to just be shown to your desk and left to your own devices.

Recruitment and onboarding costs on average $4000 USD per employee plus 24 days to read through resumes, interview and hold internal meetings to complete the process. So why are we so lackadaisical when the same individuals choose to resign and move onto pastures new, especially when it takes anywhere up to 6 months for a new hire to be fully productive and profitable?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average number of years both wage and salaried workers have been employed at their current employer is 4.2 years. This tenure is based on age and occupation, for example workers aged between 25-34 years old averaged 2.8 years and employees 55 to 65 years old and over averaged 10.1 years.

Typically, those employees aged 65 years and over will remain with their current employers until they retire, so there would be little chance of them resigning to join another company.

The study looks into the tenure within different occupations and notes employees in management and professional positions had the highest tenure at 5 years versus those in service roles which tend to be worked by younger employees who had the lowest tenure, averaging 2.9 years.

The majority of the workforce consists of those ranging in age from 24 to 54 years old. Break this down even further and, dependent on industry and seniority of position, a study by Pew Research Center shows Generation X (those born between 1965 and 1976) account for a third of the workforce, but this is dwindling. In 2016 Millennials (born between 1977 and 1997) surpassed those categorized in Generation X.

What does that mean for recruitment, onboarding and exit? Recruitment now is generally done online including pre-hire testing (if applicable). Refer a friend options are fruitful, especially with Millennials who have large social groups due to online network sites making it even easier to keep in touch with friends. Further to this, the narcissism in social media entices high performers, especially in sales, to showcase the fruits of their labour. Perks and rewards such as trips abroad and luxury goods flaunted across these platforms peak interest when roles do become available, but this does not detract from what Millennials want from a successful onboarding process.

The top 5 areas Millennials want when starting a new job according to CNBC is being sufficiently trained, expectations and goals being clearly set, all information needed to do the job be provided, reasonable goals and timelines and leaders to be invested in their success. In comparison those in Generation X prefer a more open management style with the freedom to work remotely. A lot more hands-off than Millennials.

With that being said recruitment must be different depending on not just the age of the employee, but the type of person they are. The same can be said about our exit process and that’s where HR really comes in to play.

The main focus of an HR function within a business is staff engagement and development which will to some extent affect attrition. So why when an employee resigns do we not use this as a consistent opportunity to enhance our business by finding out what they enjoyed and what they feel could be improved upon rather than treating their resignation as the ultimate betrayal? Surely with the employee already having made the decision to leave, their feedback is invaluable as there shouldn’t be a bias. Websites such as glassdoor.com now make reviews and opinions on the internal structure and politics of a business readily available to potential candidates. I appreciate there will be some employees who are concerned being too honest may harm their chances of a positive reference and they do not wish to appear to burn any bridges, but surely any feedback (hopefully constructive) is gold and more importantly FREE! It must be at the forefront of Management’s minds once an employee leaves and gives a negative exit interview, or review online, there is little to be done to remedy this. Surely if one employee feels this way, there is the likelihood others also do?

So that begs the question, who holds the exit interview? Should it be the line manager? The head of the department? Or someone impartial? In my experience, we need to be looking for someone impartial, and usually this falls to HR. By having HR hold the interview you would hope to see feedback that is across the board and not sunshine and rainbows, irrespective if this is a happy employee or a disgruntled one. The only drawback I have seen at times with HR holding these meetings is that they do not always have the greatest understanding of the business and therefore may not always ask sufficient or appropriate follow-up questions. So if you think this may be true in your organisation it might be time to review who holds these exit interviews moving forward.

There are two ways in which an employee leaves a business, simply put: You either have influence over their decision or you do not. Exit’s that you do not have influence over are situations like; family, personal or relocation, whereas when it comes to your influence, I am a firm believer that people leave for three top reasons:

• Money
• Motivation
• Management

I know most of you may disagree and say that the list should include career development, personal growth, promotions etc, but if you take those and many more that you can add, they still boil back down to the three mentioned above one way or another. This is where your employee engagement needs to be on point, if you are having regular 1-2-1’s and meetings with your team you should be able to get ahead of the curve and preempt departures that you have influence over (I won’t go into that now as employee engagement and 1-2-1’s is a conversation for another blog).

I’m not saying every relationship, whether work or personal, is going to last the distance, but there is always a fair and respectful way to end any relationship. You never know when you are going to bump into someone again, especially in today’s wide world of networking on platforms such as LinkedIn, Instagram, and industry events.  It’s worthwhile remembering it takes a minimum of 40 positive reviews to negate a single negative review, if we care about what is being said by our customers about our business then let’s give the same care to employees.

What is the best onboarding and exit process you have experienced? On the flip side what has been the worst?