Lateral quitter: Difference between revisions

Management will steadfastly deny any lateral quitter is missed. The trend towards “exit interview by [[chatbot]]” — if they bother with one at all — suggests corporations systematically undervalue the people that they are losing.   

Indeed, [[HR]] departments everywhere appear gripped by the conviction that having employees ''at all'' is a matter for regret. Convinced that Robots, or offshoring, or chatbots, are in all respects a better option, the [[HR military-industrial complex]] makes scant effort to discourage, impede or even identify those who are thinking about leaving, let alone asking those who do what their motivations were.  

This is an oversight. On the premise that all staff bring ''some'' value and, unless your approach to hiring is catastrophic, a good half bring [[Cost-value threshold|more than they cost]], lateral quitting is, broadly, a negative-sum game. That is, a game businesses should try to avoid playing.

That being so, some curiosity amongst the good people of [[human resources]] might be in order for no other reason than to generate some juicy [[metric]]s. The [[JC]] finds management’s inflated expectations of aggregated data tiresome, but here is exactly where it might be useful, for the questions to be posed are themselves historical:  

This kind of data might suggest some answers to this question: ''what does the firm do, or permit,  that drives good people away''? This can, in a limited way, inform future behaviour: ''do less of that''.

So herewith a golden chance to gather data that your staff are otherwise strongly disinclined to give you. Strictures of [[chain of command]] and general conventions of corporate obsequity mean wise staff won’t usually tell you what they really think. But free, for the first and last time, of those chilling effects, ''they might in an exit interview''.   

What are their motivations for leaving?