Talent retention via extended notice periods. Surely there's a better way....?

Today, I thought I’d share some frustrations I have with the misuse of extended notice periods by some employers, and the ill-feeling it generates, which can only be counter-productive in the long run.

It’s commonly accepted that those in management, highly paid, or specialist knowledge roles will need to sign an employment contract that requires the individual to serve a three month notice period. The reasons are justifiable, and rarely cause any problems for the individual when they come to leave, as future employers would generally expect to have to wait three months to secure the services of someone at an equivalent level.

The problem is when an individual is in a position or at a career level where it is extremely rare for someone to have a notice period any longer than one month. In these circumstances, the individual will face genuine problems securing their next move and will effectively be stuck with the following options:

·         Option 1: To accept the reality of seeing good opportunities pass them by whilst they try to find an employer who considers them to be so perfect for an opportunity that they’re happy to wait a full two months longer for them to start than they would for the next best applicant.

·         Option 2: To resign before securing their next position in the hope that they will be offered something suitable within the last 5-6 weeks of their notice period.

·         Option 3: To not honour their full notice period and risk leaving their current firm under a cloud after a month.

None of the options are attractive, and all of them are to the detriment of the individual’s future career. Option 1 will inevitably mean missing out on good opportunities, which will lead to compromise on the range of opportunities they would consider. Option 2 is throwing the dice; hoping that a suitable opportunity will arise within a specific timeframe and therefore also encouraging compromise. Option 3 could well lead to real problems further down the line, and would clearly damage relationships that have taken long to build.

The reasons for these unusually long notice periods that I’ve encountered is generally due to them having been introduced during negotiations between an employer and employee when the employer is attempting to retain them with a counter offer, or whilst appeasing a restless employee who feels undervalued, with a slight change in job title and a payrise.

It will of course only happen to individuals that an employer particularly wants to retain, and can seem at the time to be a tit-for-tat compromise during negotiations. Ultimately however, the introduction of an extended notice period is not going to encourage someone to stay with a firm if they want to leave, it just makes it difficult for them to do so and limits the career options available to them. Surely there are more positive ways to retain talent within an organisation? If not, wouldn’t it just be better to wave goodbye to a star performer on good terms rather than chaining them down whilst they grow resentful?

The recruitment process, and how it reflects on your business....

It seems a lifetime ago now, but back in the glory years before the recession, there was a lengthy period when the legal accounts sector was considered to be very much a “candidate driven” jobs market. An above average jobseeker would have their pick of the jobs, and employers would have to act fast to secure them.

This turned on its head during 2008-2010 as the number of vacancies on the market dwindled and those employers who were hiring had the luxury of taking their time to scour the market safe in the knowledge that they didn’t have much competition for candidates. Whereas it used to take on average 3-4 weeks from issuing a job description to sending out an offer letter, during and post recession the average has risen to anywhere between 4-8 weeks.

The jobs market today is very different from the lows of 2009/10 however. Admittedly it hasn’t recovered to anywhere near 2007 levels and looks unlikely to do so for at least a couple of years (and that’s probably being optimistic), but there is now enough movement out there for jobseekers to have some choice and to be put off if they’re left hanging in the balance for too long.

We’ve experienced first-hand a number of processes lately where we’ve been instructed to recruit for a vacancy and have duly submitted CV’s, but the trail has then gone cold for as long as 2-3 weeks before interviews have been requested. Of course, there can be a number of causes behind this, especially during the summer months and at the end of the year during the holiday seasons. However, regardless of the reason for the delay, it does send out a negative message to the applicant. Either that they are not really considered desirable to the firm, or that the firm is disorganised.

Similar delays have even happened following interviews, sending an even stronger message to the candidate that they are not considered desirable enough to get them back in straight away. Of course, sometimes this is because the client is indeed hoping to find someone they consider a closer match to the role, but this hasn’t always been the case, and increasingly these employers are losing out on high calibre applicants who have either gone elsewhere during a delay or have pulled out of the process feeling that they are clearly not a “must see” for the next stage of interview.

If your firm has kept applicants hanging in the balance for extended periods lately; whether it be due to a line manager procrastinating over the review of CV’s, interviewers going on holiday, or simply having started the hiring process a couple of weeks too early, the end result is a negative image of the firm being sent to all those applicants who have been submitted (and who they talk to), and possibly losing out on the best talent available.