When the economy slows, it’s easy to ignore retention factors because management kids itself into believing that replacing people is no big deal.

But slow as it’s happening, the times they are a’chnging.

At least here and there, in companies that really understand the importance of attracting and retaining scarce talent.

“To reduce “female brain drain,” global companies such as Ernst & Young, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hewlett-Packard, Best Buy and dozens of others are increasingly offering a variety of flexible work options.”

Don’t get me wrong. These companies aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their corporate heart or caring social consciousness, they’re doing it because it makes financial sense, AKA, vested self-interest.

“Business analysts and executives say talent retention and the forces of demography are the chief reasons large, traditional companies accommodate the needs of female employees. Fifty-eight percent of college graduates are women, and nearly half of all professional and graduate degrees are earned by women…the number of women with graduate and professional degrees will grow by 16 percent over the next decade compared with an increase of only 1.3 percent among men.”

Many small companies are in the forefront, although they skip the language and the programs are more informal—that’s why they’re so often described as “being like a family.”

And although the work-life trend started with, and is being driven by women, the guys want it, too, as do the Millennials.

The economy will turn around—it always does; more Boomers will retire; talent will be scarcer and the companies that already know how to offer balance will have an enormous recruiting edge.

How does your company handle work-life issues?

Image credit: mjamesno

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: weirdvis

The best way to guarantee lots of media exposure is to be successful and in some way on the bleeding edge of your market—two feats that Google has managed since its inception.

Although it recently blew away its financial nay-sayers the media seems to grab for anything that looks like a weakness and pundits love nothing better than taking a poke at a high-flyer.

This is expecially true when high-profile employees leave, which they do no matter how great the company—it’s a personal thing—people get restless, annoyed, bored, follow their friends. Then there’s change—change that messes with people’s comfort zones because stuff is different.

CEO Eric Schmidt’s comment when asked about those leaving helps put things in perspective, “Let’s do some math. We have 18,000 people. What is 1% turnover [per month]? 180. Do you think 1% turnover is reasonable? In this area, it’s quite low. Ours is some small percent, 1, 2, 3%.

What bothers me is that some people write: “So-and-so left the company.” Well, they don’t also write that we hired 120 people that week, five of whom have Nobel prizes, three of whom have PhDs, and so on, who are beginning their career here now.”

Whereas most companies tightly control IT, Google keeps it’s people happy by giving them as much choice as possible in technology.

CIO Douglas Merrillsays, “Google’s model is choice. We let employees choose from a bunch of different machines and different operating systems, and [my support group] supports all of them. It’s a little bit less cost-efficient — but on the other hand, I get slightly more productivity from my [Google’s] employees.”

Other companies, not just technology, take heed. A wave of that could easily turn into a tusami fueled by Millennials and iPod lovers are agitating for and getting Macs in the workplace—an effort not instigated by Apple.

Considering how much money companies spend on incresing productivity and improving retention catering a bit on tech issues seems like a no-brainer.

How open are you/your company to choice?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

This is a continuation of yesterday’s post.

The cost really starts mounting up based on what leaves. Yes, of course, the person in that position matters, s/he was a unique individual with a unique set of skills—that can’t be duplicated, but it can be replaced. But the loss of a certain position at a certain time can wreak corporate havoc costing millions. For example:

• The engineer whose missing piece of the project delays delivery and launch of the product.
• The product marketing manager tasked with a new product launch.
• The admin no one noticed or worried about, who, in actuality, was both the department glue and grease.

Notice there are no senior managers listed. Think about it, if the VP of engineering leaves it may garner comment in the media and create headaches for the CEO, but it won’t delay the product.

But is turnover really as bad as I’m making it out? And if it is, can there really be enough ROI to offset it? I can almost hear the skepticism (and worse) echoing through cyberspace.

Frederick Reichheld, founder of Bain & Company’s Loyalty Practice and author of Loyalty Rules!, and other loyalty books, shows in carefully researched studies that a 5% improvement in employee retention translates to a 25%-100% gain in earnings.

So there’s your proof!

The solution overview I promised can be summed up in two letters, CC—culture and communication—and one guiding principle: People who join your company for money, will leave for more money.

I’ll elaborate on CC next week, but the principle needs no explanation, it speaks for itself.
Have a great weekend!