Top Talent?

Interesting survey from HBR:

Our survey found that the top reason otherwise engaged employees decide to look for a new job is a lack of learning and growth opportunities — they can’t see how to move forward and continue to develop if they stay in their current role. When their future at a company looks like more of the same — or isn’t really defined at all — they begin to spend more time on Dice, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter.

I could probably agree to some extent, but it is difficult to define “top-talent”. I have realised working in a specific environment that the more you do things of the same, the more you are likely to be dissatisfied. Earlier on while writing the blog, someone suggested that writing consistently is a “market signal.” Employers tend to choose people with a demonstrable value in writing, for example. I spoke to a cross-section of recruiters later, and they hardly weigh this metric. Does it mean recruiters are not aware or the recipient organisations are not open to this skill-set? More likely, the latter. Therefore, the job dole out partly becomes an exercise in “gatekeeping” or ticking the “diversity boxes”. I persist with writing because I can continuously enrich myself for personal growth. It does a world of good.

Therefore, if you feel reading, carry on. I have put out a large body of work in the public domain. If you don’t like, close the tab with no feelers hurt!

Top talent, therefore, could be “heavy-hitters” or the ones bringing in “more revenue”. As enterprises (and other organisations) have zero budgetary support for “research and development”, good ideas (or even solving friction points) in patient experience/improving quality of life metrics are relegated to the sidelines. This is despite C-suite titles related to “patient experience” or having “feet on the ground” to prepare “excel sheets”. I have long spoken out against the practise of having “social-media” feedback sessions, which does more harm to the branding than good. It doesn’t signal that organisations are responsive. It means they persist with the policy frameworks, causing more harm than good. The workflow has to change (and not throwing good money).

Retaining talent also comes with being empathic with the junior employees. Its the immediate managers that have to take the lead. Dissatisfaction with the reporting person reflects on the administration, which may or may not be involved in the well-being of the employee.

In short, people want a supportive work environment — opportunities, flexibility, and recognition are all elements of that. They’re not the only ones, however.

I wouldn’t go in the repetitive trope around “diversity and inclusion”; employers need to hire people best suited for the role, instead of biasing hiring decisions on other metrics.