As reported by HRI, how leaders respond to a crisis is a "critical test of their stewardship," according to Helio Fred Garcia, executive director of the Logos Institute for Crisis Management & Executive Leadership. Garcia was interviewed in 2006 by Wharton MBA student Romi D. Garvey. Boards are expecting more transparency in crisis response plans, both because of uneasiness concerning personal liability and for reassurance that the firm is prepared to handle operational glitches. Companies can gain a "first mover advantage," says Garcia, if they are prepared to act quickly. "If a corporation is able to demonstrate that an operational setback is exactly that, it declines adversaries the opportunity to interpret the crisis as they wish," Garcia explained in the interview. Following are some of his suggestions on how leaders can prepare for a crisis.

• Define what a crisis is, what the early warnings are and which senior executive is responsible for the preparation and response. Ensure this person has full authority to mobilize resources.
• Test the crisis response plan through activities such as war games, exercises and other ways to practice quick decision-making.
• Stay in control of the crisis response agenda so that "media, adversaries or the rumor mill" don’t take over the definition of the situation. Develop response tactics and messages that provide stakeholders with what you want them to think, feel, know and do.
  (Wharton Leadership Digest [Garvey], March 2006)

As reported by HRI, the supply of leadership talent in the 25- to 44-year-old group will be short by some three million leaders by 2008 - when the demand for such talent is increasing, according to Michael Echols, vice president of strategic initiatives at Bellevue University. Among the leadership talents that need to be developed is an ability to process large amounts of information using skills in "analysis, synthesis and critical thinking" - skills typically developed over an extended period of time. While training and development is often considered a cost to be minimized, it may be preferable to consider it a long-term investment that pays off in avoiding recruitment costs and productivity loss due to attrition. (Workforce Performance Solutions [Echols], May 2006, pp. 20-23)

As reported by HRI, significant proportions of workers aged 30 to 50 anticipate leaving their current employers within three years’ time, reports the American Business Collaboration, a consortium of seven major U.S. companies that offers management advice relating to employee issues. The consortium polled 2,775 individuals nationwide in 2006, finding that a third of workers in the 30-40 age group and 25% of those from 40 to 50 said they’d change employment before three years passed. The survey found that employees who worked hourly said they expected to average a half-dozen different employers during their careers, while salaried workers estimated that they’d work for an average of five employers. Surveyed workers aged 30 to 60 reported a lack of career development options as the leading driver of job dissatisfaction. (DallasNews.com [Moos], October 16, 2006)

As reported by HRI, among many companies, recruiting younger workers takes precedence over developing strategies for retaining older workers, according to The 2006 Merrill Lynch New Retirement Study, which polled 1,000 U.S companies, 250 of which were Merrill Lynch clients, with another 751 selected at random. Regardless of fears over losing "skilled professionals," more companies (61%) are engaged in developing recruitment strategies for young hires than are crafting ways to retain older workers (38%), and less than half (45%) are evaluating "priorities of older workers who may want to continue working." The following are additional recruitment and retention best practices targeting older workers:

• flexible work schedules and technology that enables remote work assignments;
• more assignment choices, including reduced pay and hours, mentoring and coaching options and full health benefits for part-time and seasonal positions;
• phased-in retirement plans and a realignment of pay structures to benefits.
  (The 2006 Merrill Lynch New Retirement Study [Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.], 2006, pp. 14, 16)

As reported by HRI, to retain their top employees, organizations should invest in more comprehensive benefits aimed at work/life balance; this was the overall recommendation of a 2006 report from Washington, DC-based nonprofit New America Foundation and Workplace Flexibility 2010, a program of the Georgetown University Law School. Specific suggestions in Promoting Children’s Well Being: The Need for Workplace Flexibility included employers’ offering short periods of leave that would enable workers to handle unexpected obligations, extending telecommuting and other flexible work arrangements, offering longer periods of leave to employees who face caregiving responsibilities and providing an option for less than full-time hours to accommodate workers with health or other issues that prove unmanageable on a full-time work schedule. In addition, the report recommends that employers take action to help employees who take leave time transition in and out of the workplace more seamlessly. (Bulletin to Management, October 31, 2006, p. 347)

As reported by HRI, multiple considerations underlie employers’ willingness to rehire former employees, observes Bruce Tulgan, head of the Connecticut-based management-training firm RainmakerThinking Inc. According to Tulgan, the overall shift from long-term to short-term periods of employment has made employers more amenable to rehiring former workers, as has the desire to recoup the investment an organization has made in finding and training employees. Certainly, Tulgan says, the tighter market for talent - especially in industries such as health care and accounting - has made companies more willing to reconsider their traditional approaches to recruitment, including rehiring policies. Finally, he explains that retention rates for rehired employees tend to be high, making them a more sought-after group among potential recruits. (Staffing Management [Pulley], July-September 2006)

As reported by HRI, organizations’ effectiveness in retaining workers in China is likely hampered by HR professionals’ misunderstanding of the factors driving retention for employees there, notes a 2006 report from the staffing firm Manpower, Inc. The organization notes that 70% of the HR practitioners they surveyed for The China Talent Paradox report said that workers in China leave employers to find better-paying jobs, while only 15% of employees cited compensation as a reason to change jobs. Conversely, 68% of employees in China said that career advancement options would lure them away from their employers. Fifty-seven percent of HR professionals said that workers would leave to pursue career growth. China’s HR practitioners should gain a clearer understanding of the factors driving retention and act to address them, the report concluded. (Global HR News - Asia [Smith], October 2006)

While seven out of 10 HR managers said that retaining talent was a key issue for their organizations, they claim that senior leaders don’t necessarily find retention such a compelling issue, according to a 2006 report on retention by Monster Intelligence, the research arm of the online career site Monster.com. The organization polled 600 HR leaders across the country, finding that the respondents said that only 60% of senior leaders thought retention was a vital issue. At the board level, the HR managers said, the perception was lower still - they said that only 40% of company directors perceived retention to be a crucial issue. (Retention Strategies for 2006 and Beyond [Monster Intelligence], Winter 2006, p. 7)