hi Friends,
After retaning many. of employees & taking care of each & every who is working in the company ,after than even if they don`t get the appriciation from the top management & as well as from the employees for implementing the rules & regulations of the company, in both of the condition the HR can not make both of them happy at the same time so condition of an hr is just like a sandwich in a company so better option is to resign.
regards,
sheetal.
From India, Ahmadabad
After retaning many. of employees & taking care of each & every who is working in the company ,after than even if they don`t get the appriciation from the top management & as well as from the employees for implementing the rules & regulations of the company, in both of the condition the HR can not make both of them happy at the same time so condition of an hr is just like a sandwich in a company so better option is to resign.
regards,
sheetal.
From India, Ahmadabad
Hi..
Realy beyond to understand that what do u want to prove through this posting. Such type of baseless things should not be part of this forum. HR people are also human beings & should not be discriminated for anything. Please be responsible enough.
And my cordial request to change your login name. This is realy childish & ridiculous.
I hope u wont mind all these.
Regards,
Vikas
From India, New Delhi
1Realy beyond to understand that what do u want to prove through this posting. Such type of baseless things should not be part of this forum. HR people are also human beings & should not be discriminated for anything. Please be responsible enough.
And my cordial request to change your login name. This is realy childish & ridiculous.
I hope u wont mind all these.
Regards,
Vikas
From India, New Delhi
So anisha here u agreed that every human being has its own needs, likes and dislikes, and its a ridiculous question that why HR cant change job.
But when you pose the attrition as a problem, it is a problem for you because you dont want to do recruitment, you want the person to stay with you, here dont you care as a human for their needs, the same definition of attrition for you is the very important need of the other person who has resigned. So if HR themselves can change jobs, then they should not create a word such as attrition and force / motivate others not to leave jobs. It is very simple, let me put it, you have a like for a particular thing, and you take that thing, but when you comes to employees why you are against them, when they change jobs. Why you need to work on attrition, because your definition of attrition is the other persons important need, like and dislike etc which you yourself mentioned in this post. So practically speaking what attrition are you eligible to do, when you yourself dont think of staying in the job for long time.
The same way the HR changing their jobs for their needs can be termed as attrition by me.
WHAT U HAVE GOT TO SAY IN THIS CASE...... Hope I made my point clear.
Look let me tell you again,, for HR you tell it as security, success , good salary etc, but when others do why the HR only terms it as attrition.
so according to me what you think as attrition is nothing but your thinking, and it is the other persons important need. So how can you just term any other human beings need and ignore it and not recoganise it and term it as attrition. What right you have to access the other persons need and term that the JOB that he changed was JOB hopping and not because of his need was not satisfied.
The same applies to other employees also, but you term the other employees not sticking to the company as attrition, and are setting out to work and discuss here the issues like attrition, retention and other things. So if anyone is here who has worked with a company and is stable then I am sorry to them for this post, but for others who themselves are looking for change, dont try and do retention policies, and work on attrition, you are just not fit for that, first make yourself stable, then work on making others stable.
SO TO MAKE IT TOO SIMPLE ,,, LET ME TELL YOU ONE THING..
Attrition is a reduction in the number of employees through retirement, resignation or death
RETIREMENT ; this u cant control
DEATH ; neither can you control this
RESIGNATION ; this you try to control hard, but for the other person it is because his particular need is not fulfilled so he resigns.
Here probably fulfilling each and every persons need is impossible for HR, as then u will THINK BIG ABOUT COST REDUCTION and other factors, HR considers only employees , it never takes a single employees problem seriously ,,,, because there are n number of reasons for that.
Then ultimately HR puts the blame of attrition on employees who are innocent, and Management beleives that HR is not responsible for attrition.
But if you see, in real HR does not even try to solve each and every employees problem, it just conducts exit interviews and files them in their desk ... So my question is how far is HR justifiable as to control attrition, and regarding their own stability to TOP management.
From India, Pune
But when you pose the attrition as a problem, it is a problem for you because you dont want to do recruitment, you want the person to stay with you, here dont you care as a human for their needs, the same definition of attrition for you is the very important need of the other person who has resigned. So if HR themselves can change jobs, then they should not create a word such as attrition and force / motivate others not to leave jobs. It is very simple, let me put it, you have a like for a particular thing, and you take that thing, but when you comes to employees why you are against them, when they change jobs. Why you need to work on attrition, because your definition of attrition is the other persons important need, like and dislike etc which you yourself mentioned in this post. So practically speaking what attrition are you eligible to do, when you yourself dont think of staying in the job for long time.
The same way the HR changing their jobs for their needs can be termed as attrition by me.
WHAT U HAVE GOT TO SAY IN THIS CASE...... Hope I made my point clear.
Look let me tell you again,, for HR you tell it as security, success , good salary etc, but when others do why the HR only terms it as attrition.
so according to me what you think as attrition is nothing but your thinking, and it is the other persons important need. So how can you just term any other human beings need and ignore it and not recoganise it and term it as attrition. What right you have to access the other persons need and term that the JOB that he changed was JOB hopping and not because of his need was not satisfied.
The same applies to other employees also, but you term the other employees not sticking to the company as attrition, and are setting out to work and discuss here the issues like attrition, retention and other things. So if anyone is here who has worked with a company and is stable then I am sorry to them for this post, but for others who themselves are looking for change, dont try and do retention policies, and work on attrition, you are just not fit for that, first make yourself stable, then work on making others stable.
SO TO MAKE IT TOO SIMPLE ,,, LET ME TELL YOU ONE THING..
Attrition is a reduction in the number of employees through retirement, resignation or death
RETIREMENT ; this u cant control
DEATH ; neither can you control this
RESIGNATION ; this you try to control hard, but for the other person it is because his particular need is not fulfilled so he resigns.
Here probably fulfilling each and every persons need is impossible for HR, as then u will THINK BIG ABOUT COST REDUCTION and other factors, HR considers only employees , it never takes a single employees problem seriously ,,,, because there are n number of reasons for that.
Then ultimately HR puts the blame of attrition on employees who are innocent, and Management beleives that HR is not responsible for attrition.
But if you see, in real HR does not even try to solve each and every employees problem, it just conducts exit interviews and files them in their desk ... So my question is how far is HR justifiable as to control attrition, and regarding their own stability to TOP management.
From India, Pune
No Mr. u r not making any point u r just creating a senseless argument on a useful site...
1st thing we can only motivate people if they wann stick to the company for eg: ur kind of person wann leave the job we will be the happiest person
and we dont tie people we give counter offers , we talk to them n try n solve their problems and once their problems are solved than only they remein with the company so saying this that we try and control attrition, YES I AM PROUD TO SAY WE DO, as we have sales strategy and other strategy we have employee attrition strategy too... so stop wasting others time in making such statements and get back to with ever field u work in as i am sure u cant be from HR dept...
NOW THIS IS WHAT U CALLED MAKING A POINT MR SHAITAN...
cheers
anisha
From India, Mumbai
1st thing we can only motivate people if they wann stick to the company for eg: ur kind of person wann leave the job we will be the happiest person
and we dont tie people we give counter offers , we talk to them n try n solve their problems and once their problems are solved than only they remein with the company so saying this that we try and control attrition, YES I AM PROUD TO SAY WE DO, as we have sales strategy and other strategy we have employee attrition strategy too... so stop wasting others time in making such statements and get back to with ever field u work in as i am sure u cant be from HR dept...
NOW THIS IS WHAT U CALLED MAKING A POINT MR SHAITAN...
cheers
anisha
From India, Mumbai
Well well well anisha I am not interested to comment anything, I would like some members to fully understand my post and reply it.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Very,very amusing thread. Really am enjoying it. Have heard of ALTITUDE sickness. Now I am encountering a person with "ATTITUDE" sickness! :D :) :lol: :oops: :roll: :twisted: :evil:
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Mr. Shaitan
It is as good as saying " If you are a doctor treating and curing other patients then you yourself should never fall sick and be treated" :roll:
Are HR professionals not Human?? :evil:
Sultana
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
It is as good as saying " If you are a doctor treating and curing other patients then you yourself should never fall sick and be treated" :roll:
Are HR professionals not Human?? :evil:
Sultana
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
You have a good point in raising the issue of attrition but to make a sweeping generalization is neither helpful.
Attrition is a bitter pill to swallow and nobody in HR, in his right mind, is happy about it. Attrition is being done in critical situations for the survival of the company. Even the largest corporations faced attrition at one point or another (I am speaking here in terms of workforce reduction or layoffs). Attrition also happens (sometimes) when a bigger company takes over another organization.
But to say that HR is blaming the hapless employees for attrition is incorrect and illogical as it ran contrary to retention programs. And to blame HR for attrition is unfair.
As you may know, the HR in an ideal situation stand on the middle ground to serve the interests of both employee and management. In small companies, the HR may not have the capability to take an employee's problem seriously but big organizations have employee relations section that helps bridge the gap between management and employee. Employee relations also looks into problems concerning an individual and his supervisor. In this globalized age, harmonious relationship and not competition between management and employee is one of the driving factors for a successful organization.
More than this, in HR we do not simply conduct exit interviews and simply file them to rot away. We try to examine the experience of the employee, understand the reason behind his resignation, look for any trends, and learn if we are faring any better. Any information that we get from exit interviews is valuable to us.
Indeed, when it comes to cost reduction it is the employees that are always first to go. Why? It is because corporate owners do not see that human resource is also one of the important assets a company has. Unlike finances, land, and other materials, human resource cannot be translated into something that is profitable. Hence, it is not surprising that in some companies only 10% (or even less) are allocated for manpower in terms of annual expenditures or capital outlay.
If HR will not control the attrition rate, it will fail in its fundamental function in management. As I've said, HR will try to create that balance between management and employee but in some situations somebody has to give.
In a situation wherein you have to choose between a layoff of a few employees and the inevitable closure of the company, which one would you prefer?
From Saudi Arabia,
Attrition is a bitter pill to swallow and nobody in HR, in his right mind, is happy about it. Attrition is being done in critical situations for the survival of the company. Even the largest corporations faced attrition at one point or another (I am speaking here in terms of workforce reduction or layoffs). Attrition also happens (sometimes) when a bigger company takes over another organization.
But to say that HR is blaming the hapless employees for attrition is incorrect and illogical as it ran contrary to retention programs. And to blame HR for attrition is unfair.
As you may know, the HR in an ideal situation stand on the middle ground to serve the interests of both employee and management. In small companies, the HR may not have the capability to take an employee's problem seriously but big organizations have employee relations section that helps bridge the gap between management and employee. Employee relations also looks into problems concerning an individual and his supervisor. In this globalized age, harmonious relationship and not competition between management and employee is one of the driving factors for a successful organization.
More than this, in HR we do not simply conduct exit interviews and simply file them to rot away. We try to examine the experience of the employee, understand the reason behind his resignation, look for any trends, and learn if we are faring any better. Any information that we get from exit interviews is valuable to us.
Indeed, when it comes to cost reduction it is the employees that are always first to go. Why? It is because corporate owners do not see that human resource is also one of the important assets a company has. Unlike finances, land, and other materials, human resource cannot be translated into something that is profitable. Hence, it is not surprising that in some companies only 10% (or even less) are allocated for manpower in terms of annual expenditures or capital outlay.
If HR will not control the attrition rate, it will fail in its fundamental function in management. As I've said, HR will try to create that balance between management and employee but in some situations somebody has to give.
In a situation wherein you have to choose between a layoff of a few employees and the inevitable closure of the company, which one would you prefer?
From Saudi Arabia,
Hi, Shaitan, I don't understand your grammar,but all I know is when Human Resource Managers resign, the motives should not be underestimated. Usually, HRs are part of company's management (and employees as well). I read in Personnel Management by H.J. Sherman and K Chruden that a clash in personality between a superior and a subordinate is something for which both have a measure of responsibility. I hope this is making sense. Thanks
Hi,
My views are the following:
Major employee usually leaves the job bcoz of three reasons:
1) Monetary Reasons
2) Job Environment
3) Better Work opportunities
But as a HR we need to more responsible while leaving the job:
Firstly do not try and disclose to employees from the early stage that the we are leaving
As an HR, plz try and complete all the formalities that the company policy says, for eg: Notice period, exit formalities etc. HR personnel is the role model of the company, if the rules of notice period are broken by the Hr how can the employees abide to them.
While leaving do not speak any negative points of the company or the reason of leave.
Even Hr is an employee and work for their bread and butter, but separation is a very crucial issue, and the HR should know how to handle this, without giving a bad impression to the employees and hurting company's goodwill amoung the employees and management
Meanwhile the Management should also understand for the Hr leaving and try to retain them if the reason is manageable by them.
Best Regards,
Tina
From India, Mumbai
My views are the following:
Major employee usually leaves the job bcoz of three reasons:
1) Monetary Reasons
2) Job Environment
3) Better Work opportunities
But as a HR we need to more responsible while leaving the job:
Firstly do not try and disclose to employees from the early stage that the we are leaving
As an HR, plz try and complete all the formalities that the company policy says, for eg: Notice period, exit formalities etc. HR personnel is the role model of the company, if the rules of notice period are broken by the Hr how can the employees abide to them.
While leaving do not speak any negative points of the company or the reason of leave.
Even Hr is an employee and work for their bread and butter, but separation is a very crucial issue, and the HR should know how to handle this, without giving a bad impression to the employees and hurting company's goodwill amoung the employees and management
Meanwhile the Management should also understand for the Hr leaving and try to retain them if the reason is manageable by them.
Best Regards,
Tina
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Strategic-hr-ma nagement2_422.p df
Job Description - HR & Admin.doc
Tangent HR Solutions.ppt