Bosses Swear By the 90-Day Rule To Keep Workers Long Term (wsj.com) 93
An anonymous reader writes: In the quest to retain workers, companies are sharpening their focus on a very specific common goal: 90 days. Hold on to an employee for three months, executives and human-resources specialists say, and that person is more likely to remain employed longer-term, which they define as anywhere from a year on in today's high-turnover environment. That has led manufacturing companies, restaurants, hotel operators and others to roll out special bonuses, stepped-up training and new programs to prevent new hires from quitting in their first three months on the job. Heating and air-conditioning company Carrier Global began pairing new hires with a more experienced "buddy" in its manufacturing facilities after discovering most attrition happened before an employee hit the three-month mark, said Chief Executive David Gitlin.
Executives at Minneapolis video software company Qumu have retooled training and onboarding processes partly around the goal of reducing what the company calls "quick quits," or departures within three months, said Mercy Noah, Qumu's vice president of human resources. Some franchisees for McDonald's, Wendy's and others advertise new-hire bonuses of hundreds of dollars, many payable after 90 days; CVS Health gives warehouse workers at some of its facilities a $1,000 bonus if they stay on the job for three months. This summer's labor market is among the tightest in decades, and finding enough workers, let alone desirable workers, remains so difficult that companies are increasingly motivated to retain new hires. Three months has traditionally been considered enough time for employees to begin to prove themselves, veteran human-resources executives say. Many companies also still enforce 90-day probationary periods, with some withholding benefits like health insurance in the meantime. Just as it can take weeks of consistent effort to develop an exercise habit that sticks, employers have found that 90 days is typically enough time for workers to get into a steady routine of a new job. This can be particularly important for hourly employees in higher-turnover industries like hospitality or manufacturing, executives say, where workers have plenty of options.
Executives at Minneapolis video software company Qumu have retooled training and onboarding processes partly around the goal of reducing what the company calls "quick quits," or departures within three months, said Mercy Noah, Qumu's vice president of human resources. Some franchisees for McDonald's, Wendy's and others advertise new-hire bonuses of hundreds of dollars, many payable after 90 days; CVS Health gives warehouse workers at some of its facilities a $1,000 bonus if they stay on the job for three months. This summer's labor market is among the tightest in decades, and finding enough workers, let alone desirable workers, remains so difficult that companies are increasingly motivated to retain new hires. Three months has traditionally been considered enough time for employees to begin to prove themselves, veteran human-resources executives say. Many companies also still enforce 90-day probationary periods, with some withholding benefits like health insurance in the meantime. Just as it can take weeks of consistent effort to develop an exercise habit that sticks, employers have found that 90 days is typically enough time for workers to get into a steady routine of a new job. This can be particularly important for hourly employees in higher-turnover industries like hospitality or manufacturing, executives say, where workers have plenty of options.
Depends when those 90 days are (Score:2)
If its June, July , and August...
Then they go back to school
Re: (Score:2)
Still works.
Many summer/seasonal gigs will have an end of season bonus that you forfeit if you leave early.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they have a lot of employees resigning effective January 1 every year.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like it would be absolutely catastrophic in terms of the damage to productivity in January and February. If the leadership were a little bit more clueful, they would schedule these cliffs (including things like annual bonuses) in mid-November. That way, the already-half-useless time between Thanksgiving and Christmas could be used for doing interviews and hiring new people, and everyone would then start fully staffed in January.
Re: (Score:2)
Not every business is that way. Some actually get super busy at that time of year, especially retail.
Re: (Score:3)
And I would expect a lot of businesses find reasons to fire those employees when they have worked almost long enough to earn the bonus.
Re: Depends when those 90 days are (Score:2)
Those employees aren't useless. They fill in pretty well and the chance is that they'll come back after the education. If they do then they'll have a flying start over someone that is totally unfamiliar with the company.
Well, since I've been at my current job 30 years (Score:3, Funny)
We're all freaks here (Score:4, Insightful)
You are a freak, but not because of your employment. ;-)
Having the same job for a long time has a lot to do with your personality combined with the luck of finding a job early on that suits you, treats you well, and is ran as a stable business.
Too many jobs these days are in industries that face regular cycles. Or are in a new business, either completely new or experimental business units in a larger corporation. This volatility is more common in the tech industry, but we're seeing a lot of disruption in the service, manufacturing, and transportation industries as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even that's not safe anymore. The business itself can evaporate due to changing market or bad management trying to "pivot" to the new and shiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
trucking is a pretty volatile career. You're unlikely to remain at a single company for long, and a lot of people are doing a mix of full-time and independent contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many jobs these days are in industries that face regular cycles.
You've got that backwards. Over time, jobs have been getting less and less seasonal. Before the industrial revolution, very few professions weren't seasonal as most people were farmers.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe just a masochist?
Re: (Score:2)
I know that's why I'm at 22 years and counting. Pain is something you gotta practice. I've practiced it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe his employer is.
(I just passed 30 years, too. There are employers out there that you can make a career at, and be thankful you did. Rare, but they do exist.)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of times, people leave their job that treats them like humans for another job that pays more and are shocked when they find that the new, better paying company, pays that way because it's the only way to get people due to how they treat their staff.
Re: (Score:2)
I just passed the 8 year mark at my current employer and it is the longest stretch I have ever been at the same company. I am 45 and I envision my current employer to be my final employer.
So, I think it is just about finding the right fit. I have had so many bad bosses and worked in so many toxic environments, I was lucky to find a stable company that treats their people well.
You were lucky to have found that early in your career.
Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It does. In many lower-skill jobs the break-even point for a new employee comes at about 60 days, so hitting 90 days means you have a month with some semblance of profit. You also improve the chances that the person is going to make friends with co-workers and develop at least a temporal bond to the company. Oh, and you buy time.
I'm curious how this is going to evolve with the "engineered" recession. Will automation continue to accelerate or will companies expect to return to more normal wages? Or, wil
Re: (Score:2)
It does. In many lower-skill jobs the break-even point for a new employee comes at about 60 days, so hitting 90 days means you have a month with some semblance of profit. You also improve the chances that the person is going to make friends with co-workers and develop at least a temporal bond to the company. Oh, and you buy time.
Except that if they don't want to be there, they will do a bad job, customers will complain, business will suffer, and there go your profits.
Worse, the ones who really hate the job will think, "but if I stay past 90 days, I get a bonus, so I'll stay for 91 days," and then quit. So you'll have the losses incurred by workers who hate the job *plus* the extra bonus money that doesn't even halfway cover the damage caused by the loss of reputation.
Or you end up firing the workers anyway for being too bad at the
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's *every* 90 days, you are actually *encouraging* job hopping with such a scheme.
Generally, people want stability with their job. It's not universal, but generally true. Further, the bonuses are usually small enough that it encourages people to stick it out at the start but not to keep jumping ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's *every* 90 days, you are actually *encouraging* job hopping with such a scheme.
Generally, people want stability with their job. It's not universal, but generally true. Further, the bonuses are usually small enough that it encourages people to stick it out at the start but not to keep jumping ship.
Tell that to the revolving door between the major tech companies, where a lot of people jump ship to collect the hiring bonus every two or three years and then switch companies as soon as they hit the cliff when the sign-on stock grant ends so that they'll get another big stock grant. It's a big enough problem that those companies and several others engaged in a no-poach agreement and ended up paying a very expensive settlement in the resulting class action lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a different category than the one that most of the summary was talking about. There is some cross over, but most of it was talking about the lower end of the job market.
But what's the difference? If you have the same sort of perverse incentives to switch jobs, you're more likely to switch jobs. In both cases, you have a talent pool that is in high demand with too few people to fill all the slots. So why would the fact that they're not making as much money make them less likely to job hop when there's such an obvious bonus for doing so? If anything, that should make them *more* likely to do so, because that extra money will make a bigger difference in their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No poach means that. It means the company
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problems is, we have a couple of generations of kids that don't know what "words" means.
They are entitled and think they should start at a top level, low responsibility/high pay job just for showing up to process oxygen on the clock.
They don't realize that most jobs are things that you don't really like to do, that you'd rather be doing something else, BUT...that this is ho
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, more than a couple of generations! People have just not wanted to work anymore since at least 1894!
https://twitter.com/paulisci/s... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does offering an incentive to keep an employee there a few weeks longer make any sense if they don't want to be there? Isn't this just a case that people who don't like a job tend to quit in the first 90 days? The problem isn't the 90 days, it's that they don't like the job.
Agreed, is it 90 days to get an employee to settle in and decide they can stay put where they are at, regardless of how much they like it, or up 90 days to decide you just can't stand being at this place any longer? I'm thinking the latter and that keeping them there past the decision point has no impact on the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
They're already starting from a standard of just whatever miserable work that can't be automated away done by the fewest people possible. I don't think they're interested in fixing that at the high cost it would have. They're happy just slowing turnover down to filling the job 4x a year instead of 6-10.
Re: (Score:2)
I now work for a large investment bank and quite frankly, the first few months were the highest stress. I had to learn the company way of doing things and what requests I need to create to be granted temporary access to preform the work I need to do for a given task. Also had to learn the basics of the products I support. There were multiple days I wanted to quit. After I pushed through that, I started to feel secure and now I actually like my job so I can see the logic.
Re: (Score:2)
There are jobs that people do for money, not because they like them. Most jobs, actually. The least you like the work, the more likely you are to "try" some other place, even though it could be even worse.
If you also consider that finding a replacement can be complicated, and the cost of the hiring process, incentives make a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether an employee dislikes their job is not relevant to the employer per se, it's whether they dislike their job enough to leave. The amount of dissatisfaction it takes for the employee to leave increases with time, at least over the short to medium term, so the employer just needs to lower the initial dissatisfaction for retention.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanting to be there isn't binary, it's a continuum. And the success of a retention program isn't whether it eliminates all attrition, but holds onto enough additional workers to be worth it. So if there are a significant number of workers who aren't completely sold on the job, but stick around long enough to get the 90 bonus and have by that time decided that it's better than looking for a new job, then it may be a success. Presumably some of these retention programs will be worth it and others will not.
Re: (Score:2)
Does offering an incentive to keep an employee there a few weeks longer make any sense if they don't want to be there? Isn't this just a case that people who don't like a job tend to quit in the first 90 days? The problem isn't the 90 days, it's that they don't like the job.
I once was hired in a company that shall remain nameless.
Probation was 90 days.
They did some non-tastefull stuff both during the hiring, and during the probation.
After 90 days they said "congratulations you are in".
I should have quit then and there, on the spot, as a matter of principle.
But the money was good, so, as a proverbial man-whore, I reamined there for a year. Eight months in, I saved their HLR from being swaped out. That was a big deal.
Now you tell me if it behooved the company to use good-old mon
If you offer me a bonus, payable after X days (Score:2)
I will stay for X+1 days.
Quite frankly, if it seems like you feel you have to "bribe" me to stay for that long, I can't see a reason to stay any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, if a LOT of companies are doing this, it's actually better to change jobs every 91 days to collect more bonuses. That bonus is more than you would get with a better wage over the same time period.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, if a LOT of companies are doing this, it's actually better to change jobs every 91 days to collect more bonuses. That bonus is more than you would get with a better wage over the same time period.
Unless you lie about your employment history, your resume is going to look pretty unattractive to employers if you do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, it's either take the person with the bad resume or just leave the job open. Especially if the wages aren't good without that bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that in practice it's more like at least X+1 days. There'x always the chance that you'll find yourself enjoying the job enough that you'll decide to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
A job that has to bribe me to stay is likely not one of those that you really enjoy...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The reason why I stay with a company has surprisingly little to do with money.
At a certain level of income, money stops being interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The reason why I stay with a company has surprisingly little to do with money.
At a certain level of income, money stops being interesting.
Which is why those are focused on lower wage jobs where people will leave for an extra dollar an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
And especially there you'll have people switch jobs after they finished their "must stay" period at McD, because BK across the road offers the same deal.
It's like staying with your phone provider only as long as you absolutely HAVE TO to qualify for that new phone, afterwards it's the next provider's turn with the same "free" phone deal.
Re: (Score:2)
And especially there you'll have people switch jobs after they finished their "must stay" period at McD, because BK across the road offers the same deal.
It's like staying with your phone provider only as long as you absolutely HAVE TO to qualify for that new phone, afterwards it's the next provider's turn with the same "free" phone deal.
Yea, that is always a challenge. The hope clearly is they’ll still stick around if they find the wage and working conditions desirable; if not at least you saved some recruitment costs an OT replacing them immediately. One side effect is you need to also give bonuses to long term staff out of fairness and ensure their wages are not lower than new hires since they have stuck around.
Re: (Score:2)
Genius comment.
I am continually amazed (Score:3)
at the number of books/articles/lectures/etc that are spent on the subject of employee retention.
It's not rocket science:
(1) If the employee is (already) qualified (and has experience), point him at the task at hand, and get out of his hair and let him do his job. Let him know bossman has his back if he needs is, but get the hell out of the way and let him work.
(2) If he needs spiffing up, team him with your best men, and see (1) for the rest.
(3) Treat him like a human being, a team member who brings value to your company, pay him, accordingly, give him good benefits, and see (1) (or (2)) for the rest.
(4) If there is an issue, listen to each person in private, and find a solution that is good for the people first, and the company second, then implement said solution, and get out of the way.
(5) Publicly state to your people, that you have their back, and follow your words, and get the hell out of the way
Re: (Score:2)
It's even easier than that: just pay more than the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I'd definitely take a salary cut for a better work atmosphere (nicer colleagues, less stress, more interesting projects etc.). I think I'm not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely would too. But this data looks to be related to bottom-wage jobs and there just isn't enough room to take a cut. I worked for many years at a salary half or less of my market value because I liked the work and liked the people and had a 10 minute commute. It was a public-funded job so the wages weren't going to improve. In the end, I didn't leave for better pay. It was to start my own business and have more control over my working hours. To me, there was nothing worse than getting paid to
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I'd definitely take a salary cut for a better work atmosphere (nicer colleagues, less stress, more interesting projects etc.). I think I'm not the only one.
It depends where you are on the salary chain. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, then it doesn't really matter if you have less work stress as your peronal stress will be high.
When I was young and had no bills, work atmosphere was key. Now that I am older, work atmosphere is a factor but not the leading one.
And honestly, job hunting is stressful beause of the unknows that come with switching to a new employer. I know we usually hear the stories of people being layed off because they make too much, but
Re: (Score:2)
You see, companies want to improve employee retention without increasing any costs. And that is not easy.
End of trial period? (Score:1)
Saved by Captain Obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw this.
"which they define as a year or more"
Guess what, I did a study, found out that my employees that stayed on 60 days were more likely to stay on for 61 days than the ones that didn't stay on 60 days.
So now you bribe them to stay 90 days, but after that carrot is gone why should they stick around for 90 more days at effectively less pay, since that bonus is gone?
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what, I did a study, found out that my employees that stayed on 60 days were more likely to stay on for 61 days than the ones that didn't stay on 60 days.
How about a year, did you test that?
So now you bribe them to stay 90 days, but after that carrot is gone why should they stick around for 90 more days at effectively less pay, since that bonus is gone?
The same reasons anyone stays in any job. If the research is accurate, there's a significant correlation between staying 90 days and staying a lot longer. Which is much more significant than the obvious fact that staying 90 days makes it more likely to stay 91, and staying 364 makes it more likely to stay 365.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The correlation between people not staying 90 days and not staying a lot longer is 100%.
True, and useless. You must have known that, so what was your point?
Re: (Score:2)
How about a year, did you test that?
It's a poorly conveyed study at best. From the article I would imagine the actual results are that the rate of people quitting drops off sharply after 90 days.
The same reasons anyone stays in any job. If the research is accurate, there's a significant correlation between staying 90 days and staying a lot longer. Which is much more significant than the obvious fact that staying 90 days makes it more likely to stay 91, and staying 364 makes it more likely to stay 365.
It is, but correlation is not causation. All other things being equal, the first 90 days is the hardest to learn a new job and become comfortable with it. That's the point of the article. But, when companies manipulate the first 90 days, they're manipulating the outcome. Sure, people are motivated to stay 90 days to get that sign on bonus, but if
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, you just have to get people into the job being part of their routine. It's hard to change course and takes active effort so after 90 days, people see that as part of their life and don't have the energy to change - no mater if that routine is toxic.
I'd bet good money the same is true with relationships outside of work. Once you hit that 3 month mark with a person being part of your daily life, it's hard to make a change even if you would be happier in the long run (I can speak with personal e
Here is a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to retain workers longer term then continually adjust their pay to match the range for new hires scaling to account for how much their pay is over the existing base. Most companies punish loyalty and promote churn. It is extremely inefficient.
Re:Here is a thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to retain workers longer term then continually adjust their pay to match the range for new hires scaling to account for how much their pay is over the existing base. Most companies punish loyalty and promote churn. It is extremely inefficient.
Or at the very least increase nonmonetary benefits. I understand cashflows are a tricky thing, but maybe instead if you don't have maternity/paternity benefits, introduce them after a few years of vesting (or even just a general chunk of time for sabbatical every X years, to be fair to nonparents)? Or give a base benefit that increases over time, like additional vacation that scales in a reasonable timeframe (none of this 6 weeks at 30 years shit, an extra week every 3 years is something people might actually consider). And on and on. I've heard of companies reducing vacation time for the most senior employees and thought "Why? How much money can that possibly be saving?"
I think one benefit of giving employees more time off is it forces an organization to actually have process in place and dusted off for extended absences. If Mike is going to be out 3 months on paternity leave, any competent organization is going to make sure Mikes work is documented and a system is in place to seamlessly transition Mikes work to others for a few months until he comes back. You know when else that will be useful? When Mike decides he wants to pursue his dream of being a windsurfing instructor and puts in his 2 weeks. If your organization can't afford for people to take a few months off in a block then it isn't ready when someone leaves, full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Can;t believe I had to read this far down to find this comment. My last two jobs, I would get a yearly COLA raise (2.3%, 2.7%, whatever it was), but new hires frequently came in with a 5-10% raise over what they were making wherever they came from. Finally I left (for a 12% raise), and then two years later was offered to return for another 15% raise. Wouldn't it have been more profitable to keep me on and give me the raise, rather than spend two years trying (and failing) to find someone to fill my shoes
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to retain workers longer term then continually adjust their pay to match the range for new hires scaling to account for how much their pay is over the existing base. Most companies punish loyalty and promote churn. It is extremely inefficient.
I see this often. I think companies know that most people hate job hunting and - if they work a day shift - have little time for it.
When I worked at a major health insurance company 5 years ago, we had awesome employees that had been there for 4-7 years making $14.50 an hour. All new employees where hired at $16 an hour. Same job, same req, same everything, just with a new "starting" salary. The starting salary was key since the job's pay range stayed the same. If they had change the actual pay range, th
Ah, yes (Score:5, Informative)
Many companies also still enforce 90-day probationary periods, with some withholding benefits like health insurance in the meantime
Not the point of the article, but another casual reminder of the suck that is the US healthcare system.
Once again, correlation and causation are confused (Score:2)
I expect that the "if they stay 90 days they're likely to stay long term" is based on 90 "regular" days. Going all out to make new hires happy for 90 days and then dropping the special effort probably just means they'll be gone within the next 90 days.
The real solution is just to make a good work environment for ALL employees such that the newcomers experience enough during that first 90 days that they want to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
YES! Seriously, you dangle a bonus at the end of 90 days that effectively results in a 50% pay raise, sure I'll stick around. Once that's gone, and you don't give me that recurring 50% pay raise, what's the incentive for me to stick around? Off to the next company offering me a 90 day bonus. This is just dumb!
Local Sweat Mill (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating and informative example.
Meanwhile, economists root their entire discipline in the assumption that "people are rational".
blah (Score:1)
It's like dieting (Score:2)
On one hand, most any diet can work, because it makes you actually think about what you eat. On the other hand, people rarely stick to them, so most of them fail.
Treating new employees with special care to help them want to stay, is a good step. Regardless of the specific tactics, the concept makes a company think about how it treats their employees and what it might take to get them to stick around. On the other hand, companies always forget about everything but the bottom line, so soon they forget about t
Isn't this just common sense? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The tail wagging the dog (Score:2)
This seems like the perfect strategy to keep your employees for exactly 91 days.
Not surprised (Score:2)
This is old news [wikipedia.org].
PAY MORE MONEY YOU GREEDY F*&!$ (Score:2)
Interviews (Score:5, Funny)
Candidate: Oh, those employers offered a bonus after reaching 90 days of employment. I did the expected thing and maximized my profits. I should make a great employee in that I will certainly look for opportunities to increase profitiability.
Interviewer: We offer a retention bonus after 90 days as an incentive to stay.
Candidate: That's great to hear and I see opportunity to profit there. I think that's a great program to have. You can count on me to see areas where I can improve outcomes and jump at new incentives.
Interviewer: You'll have to stay another 90 days to receive it.
Candidate: The ROI on that initiative is a little under-performing. I suggest you release the bonus at 90 days to increase profit potential.
Interviewer: Hm. Thanks for your time?
Candidate: Yes, at $75/hr that will be $35 for the opportunity for you to have made your case to me for employment at your organization. No partial hours shall be allowed. All transactions will be rounded up to the next full hour. All information shared with me in the interview are now mine and may be used without legal remedy by the user, you. You agree to only pursue disagreements through an arbitrator of my choosing. You like this and want more of it.
Reminds me of an old joke... (Score:2)
I was told that most traffic accidents occur less than 20 miles away from home, so I moved 40 miles away. Keeping them until they are employed over 90 days won't change the fact that they are likely to bolt soon, it just draws out the process. Of course, this assumes they aren't leaving BECAUSE you have a toxic work environment. If it is YOUR workplace that is driving them away, then by all means, solve those issues.
omg, they got it backwards (Score:2)
Yeah, no. Morons. PHBs. Managers.Shit for brain MBA students.
It's not that if you can somehow manage to keep someone for 90 days, they magically turn into loyal employees. You know, day 89: Doesn't care about your company, day 91: Would die for you.
In fact, economists tend to get most things backwards.
This one is the same. It's not that keeping someone for 90 days means they'll become long-term employees. It's the other way around: People who aren't going to hang around for the long term are likely to quit
Campbell's Law (Score:2)
Campbells' Law: [wikipedia.org]
The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.
One of many examples that spring to mind: some years ago there was the observation that high school students who took junior-year "advanced algebra" -- the first math class that wasn't mandatory for graduation -- had much better success rates at the college level. So a number of U.S. states (mostly in the South, as I recall) made it mandatory. Of course, that didn't help the people forced to take it against their wishes; now the signal was the next non-required course.
Working with Assholes (Score:2)
Most people don;t want to work with assholes, a term that when used, everybody understands. I know when I detect an asshole at work, if they don't leave then I will.
Maybe, one day, HR will get a clue and stop hiring them, they make life miserable.