The implicit assumption of a "war for talent" point of view is that the departing workers lost to competitors. Managers must take into account two criteria - the purpose and knowledge departing employees - in determining how best to manage employee turnover. There are four different scenarios. In the first, the employees with the knowledge that is shared or low strategic value to leave to join competitors. This hampers the production potential of the organization, while increasing that of its competitors. Defensive maneuvers (such as increased employee benefits) is recommended. In the second scenario, employees with the knowledge that low strategic value depart to join the co-operators. Administrative and human capital, the costs incurred are to be weighed against the potential benefits of social capital - the new business opportunities that can be derived ex-employees in their jobs. Companies are encouraged to take measures to maintain relational positive relations with these former employees. The third scenario - employees with a strategically important company-specific knowledge to resign to take a job with a competitor - is potentially the most damaging forms of turnover. Companies can stress response (for example, the threat of lawsuits for non-compete contracts) in addition to defensive maneuvers to keep important employees. In the fourth scenario, workers with a strategically important company-specific knowledge to leave work for the co-operators. Because of this loss is the high administrative and human capital costs, companies have a strong incentive to adopt defensive strategies to reduce such turnover. But it can also lead to opportunities for businesses to expand their social capital with important customers and suppliers. Therefore, when the defensive maneuvers fail, the company should consider adopting a relational approach, maintaining good relations with employees leaving for the transition into their new jobs. "Hide
by Deepak Somaya, Ian O. Williamson Source: MIT Sloan Management Review 8 pages. Publication Date: July 1, 2008. Prod. #: SMR284-PDF-ENG
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Coca-Cola Company: Accounting for Investments in Bottlers
ABB and Caterpillar (A): Key Account Management
Aerospace Technologies Inc.
Paradox of Coordination and Control
Financial Accounting Standards
Perelson Weiner LLP
Accounting for Income Taxes
Yale University Investments Office: November 1997
Office of the Rail Regulator (Abridged)
Revenue Recognition at Starbucks Corporation
