Published on Wednesday, May 14, 2008
It’s a known fact that the lure of greener pastures beckons even the most-satisfied employees every now and then.
To keep from losing good workers to this exciting temptation, employers are proffering the proverbial ‘new wine in old bottle’ through internal transfers in the same old company. They give an exclusive first shot at openings to existing em ployees to provide the sorely-needed change. It can be by way of a new opportunity, a challenging assignment, a new boss, exposure to latest technology or just increase in salary.
Such in-house options either move employees up or about, ranging from reassignments and lateral transfers in a similar role or cross-functional moves to even promotions to a higher level.
Apart from the obvious potential as an effective retention tool, employers favour inside hiring as they are familiar with employees’ skills and ‘known’ performance who in turn are no stranger to the company culture, terminology and way of working. As such, internal transferees can fit into the new role without missing a beat, doing away with the customary orientation or break-in period for new hires. Moreover, as an HR expert points out, “Employee transfers are an essential mechanism for knowledge transition and the sharing of best practices.” With redeployment, vacancies are filled faster as employees are less likely to reject the offer, not to mention that hiring, advertising and skill assessment costs become negligible.
Again, an internal placement generally creates a ripple of promotions as many people are moved up to fill each vacancy, opening up more opportunities for everyone. This explicit motivation coupled with the perceptible interest in employees’ development and career enhancement goes a long way in bolstering company image as a foundation of long-term employment security.
To keep from losing good workers to this exciting temptation, employers are proffering the proverbial ‘new wine in old bottle’ through internal transfers in the same old company. They give an exclusive first shot at openings to existing em ployees to provide the sorely-needed change. It can be by way of a new opportunity, a challenging assignment, a new boss, exposure to latest technology or just increase in salary.
Such in-house options either move employees up or about, ranging from reassignments and lateral transfers in a similar role or cross-functional moves to even promotions to a higher level.
Apart from the obvious potential as an effective retention tool, employers favour inside hiring as they are familiar with employees’ skills and ‘known’ performance who in turn are no stranger to the company culture, terminology and way of working. As such, internal transferees can fit into the new role without missing a beat, doing away with the customary orientation or break-in period for new hires. Moreover, as an HR expert points out, “Employee transfers are an essential mechanism for knowledge transition and the sharing of best practices.” With redeployment, vacancies are filled faster as employees are less likely to reject the offer, not to mention that hiring, advertising and skill assessment costs become negligible.
Again, an internal placement generally creates a ripple of promotions as many people are moved up to fill each vacancy, opening up more opportunities for everyone. This explicit motivation coupled with the perceptible interest in employees’ development and career enhancement goes a long way in bolstering company image as a foundation of long-term employment security.
What’s in store?
Internal recruitment does emerge as an attractive means of rewarding loyalty and performance even while meeting resource needs, but filling a vacancy with an existing employee is actually easier said than done. Scores of complexities need to be addressed like:
Self-service – When advertising internally, companies do nothing more than post openings on the intranet or on bulletin boards near the cafeteria. It is up to the employees to identify their needs and reach out for matching opportunities on their own. This self-nomination approach limits the effectiveness of internal recruitment as employers have no control over who applies, or more importantly, who doesn’t. The best employees may either be unaware of the vacancy or reluctant to pursue the same. They may even find it easier to seek out similar opportunities outside the company than within.
A more proactive approach is called for where HR managers can effectively seek out key employees or even look for the right employee in the internal talent pool.
Managerial possessiveness – It has often been noticed that managers feel a sense of ownership over the resources in their department, refusing to allow their best and brightest staff to be shifted to another division. They feel threatened by apparent employee disloyalty and may hold back internal mobility by vetoing the move or even punish workers for contemplating the move. Further discontent also stems from the prospect of having to recruit a replacement again.
Top management should anticipate objections from concerned managers and facilitate discussions that enlighten them on the bigger picture of broader success. Once managers understand the overall benefits (especially as employees may leave due to lack of new opportunities) they will embrace the change, at times even to the extent of initiating career planning dialogue with employees.
The ins and outs – Companies impose internal transfer restrictions based on tenure, performance rating or even managerial approval which can frustrate talented and ambitious employees to the point of jumping ship.
Sometimes, releasing a trained employee from an existing department or ongoing project is not that easy.
Infighting and jockeying for positions comes into play; employees even angle for transfers just to escape a boss. Managers are also known to indulge in favouritism, isolating the rest.
Internal candidates may bring familiarity, but still need time and space to pick up the finer aspects of the role. At times, they may need training and guidance to become acquainted with the new line of business.
Therefore, internal recruitment needs to be a systematic process that avails maximum benefits instead of further complicating the system. For instance, managers should conjoin employee career aspirations with internal job requirements and not use transfers just to aid retention. Then and only then, it can create an effective internal resource rotation that aids successful succession planning.
Internal recruitment does emerge as an attractive means of rewarding loyalty and performance even while meeting resource needs, but filling a vacancy with an existing employee is actually easier said than done. Scores of complexities need to be addressed like:
Self-service – When advertising internally, companies do nothing more than post openings on the intranet or on bulletin boards near the cafeteria. It is up to the employees to identify their needs and reach out for matching opportunities on their own. This self-nomination approach limits the effectiveness of internal recruitment as employers have no control over who applies, or more importantly, who doesn’t. The best employees may either be unaware of the vacancy or reluctant to pursue the same. They may even find it easier to seek out similar opportunities outside the company than within.
A more proactive approach is called for where HR managers can effectively seek out key employees or even look for the right employee in the internal talent pool.
Managerial possessiveness – It has often been noticed that managers feel a sense of ownership over the resources in their department, refusing to allow their best and brightest staff to be shifted to another division. They feel threatened by apparent employee disloyalty and may hold back internal mobility by vetoing the move or even punish workers for contemplating the move. Further discontent also stems from the prospect of having to recruit a replacement again.
Top management should anticipate objections from concerned managers and facilitate discussions that enlighten them on the bigger picture of broader success. Once managers understand the overall benefits (especially as employees may leave due to lack of new opportunities) they will embrace the change, at times even to the extent of initiating career planning dialogue with employees.
The ins and outs – Companies impose internal transfer restrictions based on tenure, performance rating or even managerial approval which can frustrate talented and ambitious employees to the point of jumping ship.
Sometimes, releasing a trained employee from an existing department or ongoing project is not that easy.
Infighting and jockeying for positions comes into play; employees even angle for transfers just to escape a boss. Managers are also known to indulge in favouritism, isolating the rest.
Internal candidates may bring familiarity, but still need time and space to pick up the finer aspects of the role. At times, they may need training and guidance to become acquainted with the new line of business.
Therefore, internal recruitment needs to be a systematic process that avails maximum benefits instead of further complicating the system. For instance, managers should conjoin employee career aspirations with internal job requirements and not use transfers just to aid retention. Then and only then, it can create an effective internal resource rotation that aids successful succession planning.
PAYAL CHANANIA
No comments:
Post a Comment