Why Attraction is Worth More Than Retention
The phrase “attraction and retention” is so entrenched in business-talk that a Google search with quotes around the terms turns up 306,000 hits.
That’s a lot. But it’s dwarfed by the active-voiced “attract and retain,” with 2.07 million hits.
If memory serves, the phrase comes out of the “war for talent,” initiated in 1997 by McKinsey.
Was that war ever won? Apparently not. In 2007, Bob Sutton was announcing “The War for Talent is Back.”
In fact, as of just a few months ago, McKinsey was announcing The Return of the War for Talent (“It’s Baack!”).
But, as of two weeks ago, according to search firm Morgan McKinley, the War for Talent is Over.
The War for Talent has had more comings and goings than Cher has had farewell tours. So it goes with business concepts that mean whatever you want them to mean.
(For a really wonderful read on the abuse of “war for talent,” read Malcolm Gladwell’s article The Talent Myth.)
But I digress. The WFT is fought on two fronts—finding talent, and keeping it. Despite the eerie parallels with roach motels, the language "attract and retain" has stuck.
“Attract” has taken a back seat to "retain," and it’s not hard to see why. Consider the well-established economics of customer loyalty. Employees form relationships and gain hard-to-replace skills, referred to in distinctly non-human terms as “relationship capital.”
Yet, just as the best defense may be a great offense, the best retention strategy may be a great attraction strategy.
For one thing “retention” often lives down to the very behavioral language used to describe it. Think handcuffs, golden or otherwise; do-not-compete clauses; hands-off clauses in search firm contracts. More benignly, flex time and use it or lose it vacations.
But more importantly, think what a really fabulous, unbelievable attraction proposition does for retention. Suppose you had an extraordinary new-hire offer. Tons of money, social good, ambience, benefits, advancement, work-life balance, cachet. Maybe like Google a couple of years ago.
Why would someone leave such a place? Not for money, or promotion, or lifestyle. More typically it’s because their life goals had simply changed.
It happens. Twenty-somethings have kids. Project management loses its appeal after being the meat in too many sandwiches. You cannot “retain” people whose life goals have shifted. And if you keep only the employment contract, they lose their enthusiasm.
But what about the greatest attraction pitch of all—"We Care about YOU."
If you could believe a firm really cared, if they could prove it to you—wouldn’t you want to join that firm? And stay there, until they were simply incapable of meeting your changed needs?
I’m saying yes, of course you would. They catch is, why would you believe it?
Well, suppose the firm paid a recruiter to hire you away from them? Suppose they paid you massive severance packages should you decide to leave? Suppose they developed alumni programs, like universities with “graduates?”
The really fine consulting firms—Bain & McKinsey, for example—truly value their alumni—you are a lifetime member, you’re just working the client side as an alum.
But even more sharply, think Zappo’s. Here’s one more great Zappo’s article, from Fortune’s January 22 issue
Zappos bribes trainees to leave. Few do. When Zappo’s recently had to lay off 140 people, they were extra-generous in terms of severance. They offered 6 months of paid COBRA health care. And so on. Remember, these are not people Zappo’s is trying to retain–these are people they’re letting go.
eBay gets it. "How you treat the leavers has a strong impact on how the stayers feel about the company," says Beth Axelrod, eBay’s SVP of human resources.
Exactly. How these companies attract—a values-based culture that actually values customers and employees, not just their abstract corporate-finance-centric “relationship capital”—directly drives their success at retention.
Don’t focus on retain—that’s about the company. Focus on attract—that’s about the employee. Then live the values.
It’s the paradox of trust. If you actually set someone else’s priorities above your own, you get back boatloads of what you want.
But only if you’re willing to put your motives second. You actually have to care.
I recently subscribed to your blog after seeing your interview with Dave Stein (great interview by the way.) As I read your words I got goose bumps because you are so right on target. I was in a business the other day where the service was way sub par and posted on the wall was a sign "Our customers are our most important asset." It’s all about walking the walk and it all begins with how your treat your own staff.
Charlie: The concept of "life long members/employees of the firm" is a concept foreign to many NA businesses. Valuing alums & treating them like "life long employees" w/ respect & gratitude is the hallmark of a smart organization. I would also include former "partners/ providers" as well. Some organizations are terrific at this. Some consulting firms do it exceptionally well, others do it selectively. What I mean by doing it well is by treating and valuing each and every alum exactly the same way, regardless of title, tenure, senority, etc. Some do it by upper tiers only, to me that’s as phony as a sign saying, "We care about our people ".
It’s no secret that consulting firms in particular, have a large % of rehires, cannibalize each other constantly for talent, and loose a lot of talent to clients organizations. So it would seem logical for firms to do their best to treat alums w/ "kid gloves". Whether it be attracting the alum back or having them "advertise" by referring talent or hiring the firm for business – it’s priceless advertising!!
I wonder how often organizations query their alum/ former "providers" for feedback, not often enough would be my guess. That’s a missed opportunity that could provide some very valuable insight regarding their business & "Employers of Choice" reputation in the marketplace. Granted, some alum/providers might be reluctant to be forthright but I think many would be willing to pass along "the BUZZ" they hear in the marketplace, especially if they believe the organization really "cares".
Steve, thanks for those kind words (and welcome to the blog subscription list). Your comment gives me an excuse to praise Bill Brooks, your company’s founder. I’m indebted to him for uncovering what was to me a priceless insight in his little book with Tom Travesano called "You’re Working Too Hard to Make the Sale." Roughly paraphrasing, "people overwhelmingly buy what they need from those who understand what they want." Every word is meaningful.
And I understand the Brooks Group is doing a fine job of carrying on the tradition. Congratulations to you all.
To Barbara’s point, I once organized a first ever alumni reunion in my company, and the response exceeded all our expectations. In particular, the gratitude at the sense of inclusion was palpable. Yet only a few North American firms have figured out how to tap the natural sense of community and inclusion that is lying there, simply for the asking.