Canadian HR Reporter - Sample Issue

CANADIAN HR REPORTER September 5, 2016 INSIGHT 19 Retaining workers who have outgrown their jobs People change and grow, and some turnover can actually be quite healthy Question: We have a number of employees who seem to have outgrown their jobs. What can we do to help retain and engage those individuals? Answer: We all change, grow and move on in our jobs and careers. A job that was once a perfect fi t for someone may not always be ideal for that person. While it is defi - nitely a good idea to try to engage people as much as possible while they are still with the organiza- tion, some turnover can actually be quite healthy and it may not be a good idea to try to retain people at all costs. What an employer wants from an individual employee may not be the same as what that person wants for her own career. at can be a problem when a highly valued employee isn't promoted or allowed to transfer internally to another job simply because it would be too diffi cult, time-con- suming or expensive to replace that individual. Employing such tactics is a rec- ipe for disengagement. In the end, it may be impossible to retain such employees anyway. It is much better to try to retain valued employees in some capac- ity than have them leave the orga- nization altogether. Where there is nowhere for such individuals to go, employers should focus on enriching their experience and provide mean- ingful development opportunities while they're still there. Outgrowing jobs, careers Over the years, people master ex- isting skills and acquire new ones. ey may also develop new inter- ests and want to take on greater challenges. As individuals, we tend to change as we age and mature and acquire wisdom through experi- ence. Our physical bodies change, and the way we think and recall information tends to change over time as well. While there's often a tacit as- sumption that people are inher- ently resistant to change, people can get bored doing one thing for the rest of their lives. Some peo- ple even thrive in an atmosphere of constant change. People may fi nd they stagnate if they never move beyond their comfort zones by trying something new and diff erent. Many people even decide to completely switch careers. After all, we are often told we can ex- pect to change careers several times in our lives. With so many jobs, functions and even entire industries disappearing virtually overnight due to technological ad- vancements and outright disrup- tion, people need to be prepared to change focus in order to remain current and employable. Particularly ambitious people tend to want to be promoted, take on additional responsibilities and increase their compensation. While lateral moves can provide valuable development opportu- nities — especially given today's leaner and fl atter organizations — many people would prefer to have at least some upward trajectory in their careers. Tips for dealing with ambitious employees Here are some tips to help deal with employees who feel they have outgrown their current roles: • Expand responsibilities through job enrichment and job enlarge- ment initiatives. • Assign employees to task forces, committees, cross-functional teams and special projects. • Consider the possibility of temporary assignments and secondments. • Develop dual-career paths for employees who want to move into management as well as those who would prefer to remain in technical roles. • Provide employees with oppor- tunities to train others and trans- fer their knowledge. • Avoid stereotyping employees based on their current roles or assuming they wouldn't be in- terested in or capable of taking on greater challenges. • Develop a skills inventory for each employee in the organization. • Conduct top talent reviews and include high-potential employ- ees in succession plans. • Provide adequate training and development and establish tu- ition reimbursement programs. • Ensure managers do not thwart employees' career ambitions or refuse to release them for lateral transfers or internal promotions. • Create internal recruitment poli- cies with reasonable time-on-job limitations for internal transfers and promotions. • Develop an employee alumni network and actively promote job opportunities to former employees. Above all, it is important not to try to retain ambitious individuals against their will. Rather than trying to keep them in jobs they have outgrown, it is actually a better strategy to make it easier for them to move on to other roles they would be more suited for — whether those roles are within the organization or elsewhere. Brian Kreissl is the Toronto-based product development manager for Carswell's human resources, OH&S, payroll and records retention products and solutions. Brian Kreissl TOUgHeST HR QUeSTiON Employee dismissal decision by Supreme Court bad for workers Given concerns over youth unemployment, decision is particularly troubling A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on a labour regulation quietly fl ew under the ra- dar. e 6-3 decision confi rmed that, under Canada's Labour Code, employers operat- ing in federally regulated industries (such as airlines, broadcasters and banks) cannot dismiss non-union employees without fi rst establishing a clear case for dismissal, even if employers off er a generous severance package. On fi rst blush, the decision ap- pears to "protect" employees from arbitrary dismissals. In reality, it solidifi es a regulation that ulti- mately hinders employment op- portunities and overall prosperity, hurting workers in the process. In general, when labour regula- tions are overly restrictive, they impede the ability of employers and workers to adjust to chang- ing economic conditions such as a weakening economy or the intro- duction of new technologies that improve how products are made or how services are delivered. Dynamic economy e mark of a dynamic economy is one where employers and work- ers can quickly and easily respond to market changes. For workers, a dynamic econ- omy aff ords them greater oppor- tunities to fi nd jobs that better match their preferences for com- pensation, working conditions and career prospects. To create those opportunities, employ- ers must be able to reallocate resources, changing their mix of capital and labour, when a chance to enhance operational effi ciency arises. Research confi rms this. Coun- tries with less-restrictive overall labour regulations have better job-creation records and experi- ence faster-growing economies. While restricting the ability of employers to dismiss employees is just one type of restrictive regu- lation, the Supreme Court's deci- sion nudges Canada in the wrong direction. A comprehensive survey of the literature, released in 2013 by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that restrictions on dis- missing employees slow down the adoption of new technology and impede recovery from economic shocks. ese restrictions also encour- age the use of temporary con- tracts instead of permanent posi- tions, and tend to benefi t labour market "insiders" at the expense of new entrants with less experi- ence, including young workers. Fewer job opportunities ese negative consequences ulti- mately translate into fewer job op- portunities. A 2012 study (Labor Market Flexibility and Unemploy- ment: New Empirical Evidence of Static and Dynamic Eff ects) by the International Monetary Fund examined the impact of labour market regulations in 97 countries from 1980 to 2008 and found that, along with other restrictive regu- lations, stringent rules on hiring and fi ring result in higher levels of unemployment. And, again, younger workers breaking into the labour market are particularly hard hit by re- strictive labour regulations, as explained in the 2014 article "Fis- cal adjustments, labour market fl exibility and unemployment" in Economics Letters. Given concerns over youth un- employment, the Supreme Court decision is particularly troubling. If the federal government wants to help young workers, making labour regulations less, not more, restrictive would be a better approach. Fortunately, the Supreme Court decision interprets existing law, so the current policy is not set in stone. Parliament is free to change the rules for dismissal and make them less restrictive. More broadly, the federal gov- ernment could reform other la- bour regulations to allow for a more fl exible labour market. is would better serve workers by fa- cilitating a more prosperous and dynamic economy. If there's one positive from the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, it's how it's shining a light on federal labour regulations — an issue that receives little at- tention. e government has lots of room to improve those regula- tions in a way that better serves workers. Charles Lammam is director of fi s- cal studies and Hugh MacIntyre is policy analyst at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver. Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre GUeST COMMeNTaRY A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on a labour regulation quietly fl ew under the ra- dar. e 6-3 decision confi rmed that, under Canada's Labour Code, employers operat- ing in federally regulated industries (such as airlines, broadcasters and banks) cannot dismiss non-union employees without fi rst establishing a clear case for dismissal, even if If the federal government wants to help young workers, making labour regulations less, not more, restrictive would be a better approach. While lateral moves can provide valuable development opportunities, many people would prefer to have at least some upward trajectory.

• Cover