Even though the cost to replace highly trained or longtime employees is staggering, the only time most managers give serious thought to employee retention is when a valued employee hands in a resignation. At that point, frantic to avoid having to hire and train someone new, most managers try, generally unsuccessfully, to talk the departing employee into staying. And even if the boss can convince the unhappy employee to stay, they frequently leave within six to nine months anyway. With unemployment at record lows, dealers and managers need to do everything they can to keep quality employees. And to be successful, the commitment to employee retention must come from the top. One way to make that commitment clear is to tie each managerıs success to his or her retention level. When keeping good employees becomes a company-wide goal, and the manager is held responsible for keeping productive direct reports on the payroll, they must take a long hard look at what they are doing to trigger turnover. Unfortunately, most bosses today view turnover as the companyıs or employeeıs fault, never realizing that mismanagement, not poor ³fit² in the job, is the leading cause of unwanted turnover. Nobody WANTS to mismanage employees, so why does it happen? Not knowing who each employee is or what really motivates them is why so many bosses accidentally mismanage direct reports. Because the managers are motivated by advancement or money or both, they erroneously assumes their subordinates are, too, which frequently backfires. Hereıs how: In an effort to reward an especially effective CSR, the manager decides to promote her, putting her in charge of former co-workers. Much more comfortable reacting than being expected to make things happen, she quickly finds the tougher personnel tasks - directing, disciplining and evaluating others and being held accountable for direct reports work - far outside her comfort zone. The same cautious, helpful nature that made her so effective when dealing with customers makes it almost impossible for her to be a stern leader in charge of delegating responsibilities and making important decisions. Likewise, some employees donıt want to climb the corporate ladder while others NEED TO. Knowing who NEEDS safety and security and who NEEDS challenge is absolutely critical to improving retention. The more aggressive, competitive and proactive the employee, the greater their need for advancement. Ignoring this or failing to provide them with the opportunity to move up will quickly send them in search of greener pastures, while pushing more cautious and less ambitious employees up the org chart will make them, however reluctantly, begin to look for a ³safer² job, with lower expectations. Knowing whether opportunity or security motivates an employee, though, isnıt enough to prevent unwanted turnover. Sure, it will help create a compensation package and career track that meet the employeeıs need, but to retain productive employees, the boss must communicate in a way the employee ³hears² and ³understands,² provide the right level and type of management, and understand the employeeıs need for stability or change. But how do you do any of that without spending years getting to know the employee? What can a smart but busy manager do, fairly quickly, to keep from accidentally mismanaging good employees or promoting the wrong ones? Profiling such prospective employees is a good place to start. Not only does it tell you who the employees are, it also tells you what they WANT and NEED to reach their maximum potential. For example, the people-based boss prone to providing general, public praise who has profiled subordinates will know which employees need that and which, because they are more pragmatic and reserved, need a more specific discussion of what, exactly, they did well and why (and would prefer it take place in private). Conversely, profiling will help the no-nonsense boss who wants ³just the facts² provide the stroking and public praise their more outgoing employees need and want. Giving employees the wrong ³type² of feedback can leave them feeling misunderstood and unappreciated: the people-based employee who is told, very specifically, everything they did right, thinks their boss likes their work but not them, while giving the more analytical employee generalized, public praise embarrasses them and makes them question whether their boss has any idea what they do. The more fact-based and skeptical the employee, the more likely they are to view public praise as patronizing or insincere. Inappropriate communication is not the only cause of unwanted turnover. Too much or too little management also sends good employees in search of the classifieds. The more independent and autonomous the employee, the more likely they are to resent a boss who tells them what to do, when and how, while a highly perfectionistic, by-the-book employee CANNOT be over-managed and will find working for an absentee, hands-off or ³just handle it² boss difficult and demotivating. Decisive, self-confident, and more independent employees usually wonıt work long for a boss they feel is over-managing or crowding them and although it may take a while longer, more accommodating employees working for a boss who doesnıt give them crystal clear expectations or specific, maybe even explicit, daily instructions will start looking for another job, too. The issues of preferred pace and comfort with change are a little more difficult to address because both the boss and workplace impact them. Some employees need a stable, predictable, routine-oriented environment that operates at a slow to moderate pace, such as a call center, while others need a dynamic, changing, blitz-paced corporate environment and variety of tasks to perform. The more methodical and patient the employee, the slower and less comfortable with change they are likely to be. And despite what many managers think, pushing systematic but slow workers to work faster not only wonıt work, it is often counterproductive, rattling the employee enough that they start making mistakes or become resentful because they view their methodical approach as the best way to assure quality work. Likewise, the more impatient and fast-paced the employee, the less comfortable they are with a slow-moving, process-oriented environment or a job that involves doing the same thing day in and day out. Not only does the impatient employee like to work quickly and see almost immediate results, they NEED change to remain challenged. Bureaucracies, where decision-making and projects move slowly and change is resisted, are not good ³fits² for the impatient employee who will eventually get fed up and leave. And, just as rushing the routine-oriented employee wonıt work, neither will begging blitz-paced employees to slow down, follow-up or finish what they start. Employees are who they are and although they can modify their behavior enough to do ANY job for a short period of time, they cannot sustain behavior that is radically different from their own for any length of time, because it is just not comfortable. To avoid asking employees to do things outside their comfort zone, it is important to know who your subordinates are - what motivates them, what scares them, the type, frequency and specificity of the feedback they need and the speed at which they like to work. Using that information to deal uniquely with each employee not only improves productivity, it greatly improves retention and employee morale. Even in this tight ³sellerıs² labor market, the employee who feels understood and appreciated by their boss is much less likely to leave than one whose boss makes them feel like a number.