A few years ago, I read the Daniel Pink book, Free Agent
Nation, and it changed my thinking on the future of the global workforce. In his book, Pink describes a world where
power has shifted from large, staid multi-national corporations that dictate
the terms of employment relationship, to individuals with specific skill sets
that hawk their abilities to the highest bidder (or the employer offering the
most attractive benefits, flexibility, connections or advancement). The world was changing, and individuals now
had the means and the flexibility to take advantage of those changes.
Sounded exciting to live in a time when the scales were
tipping in the worker’s favor. Then the
global recession hit, and worker leverage cratered. The common employee did not have to be told
that they were lucky to have a job; they only needed to read a newspaper or
watch Up in the Air starring George Clooney.
The power that seemed so close was suddenly shifted right back to the
corporations.
Then I read an interesting article that tickled my
contrarian funny bone. Maybe companies
should grant free agency to their employees.
Andy Porter, the VP of HR/OD with Merrimack Pharmaceuticals
in Cambridge, MA, has a blog called Fistful of Talent, and he puts forth the theory that granting free
agency to employees once every 3 years could actually have a positive effect on
internal talent and results within a company.
Porter believes that sneaking around job boards and scheduling
clandestine lunches with recruiters is childish, and for a company, an unstoppable
practice. So stop trying to stop
it. Let’s be adults and accept that
people (our employees) will be looking to improve their lot in life, and
there’s nothing wrong with that. In
fact, we should want employees who are looking to improve and grow. The prospect of impending free agency could
provide a necessary push.
This writer understands that if free agency is offered to
employees every 3 years (and I quote):
Your Current Job May Begin to Look Much Better: all of us have complained about our
current jobs at different times – too much of this, not enough of that, or I’m
ready for something more. But the funny thing is once you go out and
interview with another company you’ll often view you current job in a whole new
(often positive light). Turns out the grass isn’t always greener.
Your Skills Have Changed:
Three years is enough time for an employee to have learned and mastered a new
set of skills. In fact, depending on your industry, three years of experience
can have a significant positive impact on your compensation. Marketable
skills = more $. On the other hand, if an employee’s skills have declined
or haven’t kept pace with new advances in the marketplace, a company should
have the right to adjust compensation accordingly.
Motivation: If an
employee knows that every three years they’ll have an opportunity to test the
market value of their skills there’s a higher likelihood they’ll make the
investment to learn something new. This goes both ways – if a company
knows that it runs the risk of losing top talent every three years I’d be
willing to bet they would make a greater investment in professional
development.
The full monty can be found here:
Whenever I hear a speaker on the importance of increasing
employee retention rates, I shut down. I
scowl. I cross my arms. I have long considered myself to be a member
of the club of human resource professionals that believe that the pursuit of
longer and longer employee tenure as a measure of success was wrongheaded. Employee retention should not be the Holy Grail
of staffing metrics. Turnover is
inevitable. Turnover in many cases is
good. (Reasonable) turnover is actually
preferred in a knowledge economy. So
instead of fighting against turnover, go with it. Embrace it.
Grant free agency, and let the labor market work its
invisible magic. Maybe the best
employees will take their talents to South
Beach, but that’s a risk
worth taking.
No comments:
Post a Comment