Is there anything about your organization's policies that may make some of them think about leaving now, or when the recession's over?



Some organizations have outdated or ineffective policies that need to be updated for changing workplace situations, or which could create costly problems.

Your organization needs clear policies to follow as guidelines, but don't let them hamstring it, creating unnecessary losses.

Here's a terrific example.

A major dairy products manufacturer in the Northeast I conducted numerous training and consulting assignments for had a policy of no more than two vacation days being taken during the month of December, when its plants were busiest keeping up with consumer demand for holiday foods such as whipped cream.

One employee, who'd been with the company 13 years, had an opportunity to spend two weeks in England at a holiday family reunion, with relatives he'd never met, and some he likely wouldn't ever see again.

He was aware of the vacation policy, but asked his manager to make an exception in his case, and let him take two weeks off.

What would many, if not most, managers do in such a situation?

They'd tell him they were sorry, but the rules were the rules, and deny his request because they felt the need to follow policy, to be consistent, and not to play favorites.

However, his manager was wiser than most, and went to his boss.

He believed the employee's long and solid track record, his willingness to work overtime and on weekends, to take on new projects, and to accept feedback and improve how he did his job meant the company should grant him an exception.

His boss agreed, and the employee got the two weeks off.

There are two important considerations here:

One, what kind of a message would the company have sent if they'd denied his request?

How might this have affected his future performance? Or his staying with the company instead of looking for a new employer?

Second, how did the employee's immediate boss handle other employees who cried, "favoritism?"

He told the complaining employees something like this: "You work for me the way he does, arriving for work on time and ready to go, doing high quality work, fixing mistakes, meeting deadlines, helping others out, coming in on a Saturday, willingly changing assignments and improving how you do things when I ask you to, and you can bet I'll go to my boss and ask for an exception for you, too."

That was the end of it.

But something very important was demonstrated here.

I suggest management's actions helped take the focus of the disgruntled employees off the one employee's holiday trip, and instead sent them these messages:

> That hard work doesn't go unappreciated in the company.

> That they work for a boss who is willing to go to top management on behalf of his employees when warranted.

> That their management is willing to reconsider, and revise or go against stated policies when there's a valid reason to do so instead of rigidly adhering to them no matter what.

Now they know much more about how to work with management—so that both they and management win.

As I've frequently written, the single largest reason good employees leave is due to an unsatisfactory work relationship with their immediate boss.

If this is true, than I suggest the reverse is also true; that one of the single largest reasons good employees stay with an employer is due to a great working relationship with their immediate boss.

In this actual situation:

1. Don't you think it's highly likely the high-performing employee became even more loyal to his boss and the company, and worked even harder on their behalf? (Isn't this what you would have done if you were this employee?)

2. Isn't this what you would have wanted your boss to do if you'd been this employee?

Be willing to modify or get rid of dated or rigid policies that box your organization in when it's advantageous to do so (assuming it's not illegal, unsafe, or patently unfair), and you'll find you have another effective employee retention tool.