To retain or not to retain, that is the question (talent).

Perhaps the term "talent retention" is not the most appropriate, but for the purposes of this note the term is used with the usual positive approach.

In summary, I know of two positions on the issue of talent retention: those who say talent should be retained and those who say it should not be retained.

Those who say retain talent point to, among other things, the issue of implicit costs; replacement will likely require a higher salary than the person is currently being paid, plus hidden costs of loss of know-how, learning curve, risk of someone from outside the company adapting and working, leaving or not working out, and having to find another person versus retaining a person who knows the company, the culture, the processes, the people, the history of the company, the transactions, the context, and so on.

Those who say the talent retention approach is wrong point out that if a person wants to leave for whatever reason, salary, position, motivation, boss, etc., it is better than letting people be happy elsewhere. They do not give weight to the cost issue or accept it as an inevitable part of the process.

However, there is something else behind this situation, and that is that potential departures or resignations of employees send a message to organizations that they may not be taken care of. Few organizations conduct exit interviews. In my personal experience, one in ten. And then it remains to be seen if these interviews are just a formality or if decisions are made about the situations for which people are leaving. In the only case I have seen, the exit interview ended up in a drawer where no one ever read it.

People may leave because of a bad relationship with the boss, especially when the issue of offering a higher salary is not enough to retain people. In cases where the salary issue is the driver of the need to leave, making the adjustment may keep the person for a while, but if the necessary adjustments are not made to the compensation schemes, over time the adjustment will be overshadowed by inflation and over time will be out of the market.

In terms of talent retention, they have explored options in addition to or instead of paying higher salaries, the so-called "emotional salary," and have sought to provide benefits such as home office, flexible hours, amenities in the workplace, healthy, open work cultures, tolerant, empowering, results-oriented, free time management, respectful treatment, open to ideas and criticism, communication, and a universe of ideas.

Another issue to consider in the equation is the profile of people; a company needs different types of profiles, from those who seek stability and permanence to those who seek learning and challenge, without the above being necessarily exclusive.

Those who seek continuous learning and challenge are people who are hungry to learn, to eat the world, to make changes, to fix things, to take the work to the next level, once they have achieved that, if they do not find more challenge or motivation in the company, they will look for it elsewhere. This profile is not necessarily bad in companies, it is just necessary to identify them and get the most out of them, while they are in the company, they will be a factor of change, if you want to keep them you have to design a good incentive and motivation plan.

Considering the above, what will be the most convenient: to retain talent or not to retain talent?

I would like to know your comments.