A Quick Study | by Dr. Jerry Newman
All turnover is not created equal. Consider the case of Daniel at my favorite Burger King. Daniel was the top sandwich assembler. He was in his mid-twenties, an engineering graduate trying to decide what life means. It turned out Daniel was the glue that held our group together.
He was personable and had a wide range of interests that meshed with other crew members. Interested in Hacky Sack? He’d join in when there was a lull in the work flow (and the manager wasn’t looking!). Like video games? He could talk expertly about strategies to move to new levels. Even I connected with him. Finding out that I’m a university professor, he started probing about schools and career options. I liked Daniel. Others did too. He made going to work fun, and that might help explain our low 111 percent turnover rate.
Flash forward several months. I drop in to talk to Kris, one of my favorite managers. Almost immediately she launches into tales of disappointment: “It’s not like it used to be, Jerry. You were here during the Golden Years. My turnover is up, and I just can’t get the place moving faster.” She mentions in passing that Daniel is gone but doesn’t link this to her problems.
I remember the way she treated Daniel while I was there. Even though Daniel was very good at his job, and Kris showed signs of appreciating this, she was still not very attuned to what made Daniel tick. He wasn’t here for a permanent job, and he disliked working extra hours. But because he was so good, Kris made him her go-to guy.
Staff shortages? Kris would ask Daniel to work extra hours—saying yes was painful, but saying no was pressure that Daniel didn’t want. I don’t know for sure this is why he left, but it certainly didn’t help.
What’s wrong here? Poor talent management. I think most quick-serves do a good job of talent management at the top. McDonald’s knows who its top 200 are and it works hard to build skills so, when the time comes, the right person is ready for the job. Ask most brands what they’re doing for talent management at the store level, though, and the answer is much less satisfying.
It’s a simple truth: Lose a Daniel and that is far more devastating than losing the typical crew member who is just killing time until the right career choice becomes available. I suspect few people enter fast-food jobs expecting to make it a career. Talent-management programs at the store level can and should focus on changing a few minds—showing that a career in fast food can be a viable option. This is particularly important when you have future stars in your crew. Losing them, like losing Daniel, is very high-cost turnover.
So what can we do? First, I recommend looking at your key employee turnover statistics. If overall turnover is 150 percent, maybe that’s not nearly as painful if your key employee figures are much lower. (To figure out your key employee turnover, divide the number of key employees you lose annually by your total number of key employees.) I suspect most brands don’t officially keep that statistic, but I’m hoping as we focus more on the type of loss and how to minimize key exits that the numbers are, at worst, half of our 150 percent figure.
Second, maybe we can take some cues from talent management as it’s practiced at the top of the hierarchy. That’s what Yum! Brands does. With more than 11,000 restaurants worldwide, Yum is always looking for talent to play key roles at the store level. Yum trains store managers to review crew-member potential to assess bench strength.
A select few are identified for further training to prepare them for shift-supervisor and assistant-manager positions. Similarly, two to three of the supervising crew members are targeted for possible movement up to store-manager level. In fact, this review might expand beyond the store level to identify a group of high potentials who can be trained to fill store positions anywhere in the region.
How do we manage the high-potential process at the store level? First, recognize that advancement potential in a store, franchise, or brand is a reward. Most employees rank it as No. 2 or No. 3 in importance.
Second, it’s inexpensive and easy to create layers in your store, as many as 10 if you work hard at it—McDonald’s, Yum, many of the big brands have layers of assistants and team leaders. Banks have built tall hierarchies for years. If you can’t pay high wages, make advancement opportunities plentiful!
Third, let it be known what you will use to review crew-member potential. Of course, this will include the criteria you use for regular performance reviews. Please tell me you do regular reviews, this is one of the most effective and inexpensive motivational tools available. There also should be a short section of your evaluation process that assesses potential: team skills, engagement, life goals, etc.
Fourth, show favoritism. I know, I know … favoritism is supposed to be bad. I disagree. Productive employees with potential should command more of your time and more of the rewards. That means you need to know what is important to them. Remember Daniel. He didn’t like working extra hours. My manager should have recognized this.
Finally, when promotion opportunities become available, celebrate them. Create a ceremonial tradition, and let your entire crew know that promotions are earned and how. And most importantly, make sure the promoted crew member and others know that advancement is a regular part of the fast-food experience. Always leave the carrot dangling.