I'm fully aware that this isn't a popular answer, but it is reality.
This is anecdotal, but I've had an employee leave when she was paid 3 times what I made and given almost full autonomy. She hired away all of the staff at a branch office except a woman dying of cancer and another who was about to move out of state, then took the entire set of clients with her. This was an actual non-compete situation that nearly cost 13 other people their jobs and nearly bankrupted us 6 times over the next 2 years. We took on more debt while trying not to go under to avoid having to fire people who didn't deserve to lose their jobs over a crappy situation.
There are some people who will be unhappy regardless of what you do for them. In that particular situation, I cannot imagine anything else that we could have done for her. Some people are just self-centered and oblivious to the reality that their actions have consequences.
Yes, you better believe the stability of the business isn't your problem but it is mine and No Raid clauses exist primarily to prevent the actions of a few people from affecting the lively hoods of everybody else who works for the company.
If a bunch of people are unhappy and want to leave, then they are welcome to seek out other opportunities. Nobody's holding them hostage. What we are doing is making sure that before they start working at our company, they understand that if they aren't happy they are free to go work somewhere else but they are not free to actively jeopardize everybody else. If that is a problem, they don't have to come work here.
Pretty simple. You are put off by not being able to recruit away my staff...don't work here. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.
I'm not trying to start a fight here, but at no point did I ever imply that I was entitled to employees.
There are certain realities to management and in many cases one bad employee who is thinking of leaving or planning on leaving can have a huge effect on other people in the office. When that behavior turns into "we should all go work at X" in a coordinated effort it can be hugely damaging and significantly more so than everyday turnover.
What's more is that when something like this happens the owner/manager rarely even gets any reaction time to find out why the person(s) left or are leaving to address the problem.
I've experienced this recently. Had an employee leave who complained constantly to the point that other staff contacted me to say they were considering looking elsewhere because the office was so negative. That one employee left and tried to recruit 3 other people with her until that clause stopped it.
As soon as she left, everything in the office got better. That was 2 years ago and none of those other 3 employees she tried to recruit away have been so unhappy as to leave...because we do everything to take care of our employees.
One part of keeping employees happy is knowing the company that they work for is stable. Knowing you're doing everything to make sure that is the case goes a long way to reducing workplace stress.
My fear here is that you're dramatically oversimplifying and the basis for that is the shortness of your replies without seeming to read any of my responses.
Running a business is complex and you deal with a lot of things that aren't anywhere in the realm of what you got into the work to do in the first place. What works one place doesn't necessarily work at another. Sometimes it depends on the type of people who you're hiring as to what type of policies will work.
For employees looking at the long term, 401k's with employer matching are huge. For others it's stock options. For some it's flexibility.
The particular business that I'm talking about is in the same city as the main graduate program in the state for the service we offer, so we get a lot of new grads with a lot of workplace inexperience. We've seen a repeat trend of this "Oh, lets all go work here next" behavior but only in this one city, which is what led to the policy in the first place. For that personality, happiness is job hopping and taking their new friends and clients with them.
I'm just trying to help you understand that all situations are not equal.
"I'm not trying to start a fight here, but at no point did I ever imply that I was entitled to employees."
Yes, you did.
"There are certain realities to management and in many cases one bad employee who is thinking of leaving or planning on leaving can have a huge effect on other people in the office. When that behavior turns into "we should all go work at X" in a coordinated effort it can be hugely damaging and significantly more so than everyday turnover."
Then maybe you should treat your employees better. Either way, not my problem.
"What's more is that when something like this happens the owner/manager rarely even gets any reaction time to find out why the person(s) left or are leaving to address the problem."
Like all things with management, you have to be more proactive, not reactive. Again, not anyone's problem but yours.
"Sometimes, that one person just needed to go and everybody else will be fine"
If that were true, then everyone else wouldn't be looking at joining that person.
"My fear here is that you're dramatically oversimplifying and the basis for that is the shortness of your replies without seeming to read any of my responses."
That's because it is simple. You do not have the right to employees.
"Running a business is complex"
Nobody said otherwise. Still no excuse for you to be putting restrictions on your employees like that. You don't own them.
This is anecdotal, but I've had an employee leave when she was paid 3 times what I made and given almost full autonomy. She hired away all of the staff at a branch office except a woman dying of cancer and another who was about to move out of state, then took the entire set of clients with her. This was an actual non-compete situation that nearly cost 13 other people their jobs and nearly bankrupted us 6 times over the next 2 years. We took on more debt while trying not to go under to avoid having to fire people who didn't deserve to lose their jobs over a crappy situation.
There are some people who will be unhappy regardless of what you do for them. In that particular situation, I cannot imagine anything else that we could have done for her. Some people are just self-centered and oblivious to the reality that their actions have consequences.
Yes, you better believe the stability of the business isn't your problem but it is mine and No Raid clauses exist primarily to prevent the actions of a few people from affecting the lively hoods of everybody else who works for the company.
If a bunch of people are unhappy and want to leave, then they are welcome to seek out other opportunities. Nobody's holding them hostage. What we are doing is making sure that before they start working at our company, they understand that if they aren't happy they are free to go work somewhere else but they are not free to actively jeopardize everybody else. If that is a problem, they don't have to come work here.
Pretty simple. You are put off by not being able to recruit away my staff...don't work here. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.