Category Archives: retention

Overtime Rules and Flexible Work

The U.S. Department of Labor’s proposed overtime rules may or may not go into effect on Dec. 1 of this year.

But if the new regulations do become reality, large employers could face unintended and unanticipated consequences, according to new WorldatWork research.

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based non-profit HR association’s recent Quick Survey on Implementation of New FLSA Rules survey polled 948 WorldatWork members with compensation and HR generalist in their titles.

When asked how they are addressing or plan to address employees that were exempt under the old overtime rules who fall below the new standard salary level threshold, 73 percent of employers said they did or will raise some to the new minimum threshold, while reclassifying others to non-exempt. (Fifteen percent indicated that they did or will raise all to the new minimum salary threshold and maintain exemption, while 9 percent intend to reclassify all to non-exempt, and 4 percent said they were unsure of their plans.)

Among those who plan to reclassify employees to non-exempt, 49 percent said their workplace flexibility options will decrease. The number of large organizations planning to go this route is “of particular concern,” according to a WorldatWork statement summarizing the findings.

For example, 62 percent of responding companies with 10,000 to 39,999 employers said they intend to reduce the flexibility options they offer workers.

“The fact that larger employers are more likely to decrease flexibility will obviously affect more employees,” says Kerry Chou, senior practice leader at WorldatWork. “That being said, this result could be a byproduct of the fact that larger organizations are more likely to have formalized flex programs as opposed to ad hoc programs.”

Naturally, the new rules figure to have a significant financial impact on employers, with 69 percent of respondents telling WorldatWork that their overall costs have already increased or will increase as a result of the new standard salary-level threshold. Just 13 percent said that net costs have stayed or will stay the same, and they won’t require taking separate actions such as reclassifying employees as non-exempt to contain costs.

Some employers may look at cutting flexible work options as one way to offset additional expenses connected to new overtime rules, says Chou, adding that workplace flexibility can be a big factor in recruiting and retaining talent.

As such, companies that choose to offer fewer flexible work options may ultimately see higher turnover and greater difficulty in attracting replacements for departing employees, he says.

“The increased cost of overtime compliance, coupled with high turnover—or at least lower job satisfaction of current workers—are consequences that will need to be addressed.”

Forget the Fancy Job Titles

Employees walking around with titles like “chief happiness officer” and “product evangelist” are expected to be exuberant, enthusiastic proponents of a company’s internal and external brand.

And they could very well be crazy about the companies they work for. But they might not be so keen on such creative, “non-traditional” job titles, which a fair number of workers apparently don’t find all that endearing or even accurate.

A quarter of employees, to be exact, don’t care for using exotic monikers to describe their positions, according to a new survey from Spherion Staffing.

The Atlanta-based recruiting and staffing provider’s most recent WorkSphere survey found that 25 percent of employees consider “non-traditional” job titles unprofessional, and are against the idea of being christened with one. Nearly as many (23 percent) feel that flowery designations don’t capture what they actually do in their jobs. That said, 14 percent of employees who favor more tried-and-true titles believe they too could use improvement, saying that labels such as “project manager” and “specialist” are too vague.

Overall, 42 percent of workers said their current titles—be they old-fashioned or more “outside the box”—don’t really reflect their roles and responsibilities.

Regardless of what appears on their business cards, an overwhelming majority of employees expressed confidence in their ability to describe their jobs in a way that’s easy to understand. Eighty-nine percent of those polled said they would have no issues delivering an “elevator speech” that highlights their duties.

Those that don’t have such an easy time encapsulating what they do every day might struggle with summing up the complexities of their roles. Close to one-third (31 percent) of employees polled said their job or industry is too specialized to easily explain to a layperson. Twenty-nine percent said they try to avoid using work jargon in everyday conversation.

According to the survey, employees struggling to articulate their responsibilities may be making things harder than they have to be. Overall, 53 percent indicated they give different accounts of their jobs, depending on the audience. In addition, 11 percent said they sometimes lie about what they do for a living.

Whatever they tell others about their vocation, “employees take great pride in their job titles, and in some cases, a title that is considered limiting or hard to describe can significantly impact their job satisfaction,” says Sandy Mazur, Spherion division president, in a statement.

Faced with growing pressure to recruit and retain top workers, “reexamining how different titles are perceived and applied can make a big difference in building morale,” says Mazur, “and positioning a company as a favorable place to work.”

 

What Drives Retention Rates?

Around the world, pay matters most to workers. But other factors that keep them loyal vary quite a lot, a new study finds. And they’re changing as the nature of work evolves.

The results are part of the 2016 Global Talent Management and Rewards Survey by Willis Towers Watson. Every other year the company surveys workers around the globe to see what rewards and conditions keep them happy or attract them to new jobs.

This year’s survey, conducted in April and May, included 31,000 employees in 29 markets. In studying retention factors, the London-based consulting firm ranked eight countries, including the United States. (See the full results at the bottom of this post.)

Pay was the top priority in each, says Laura Sejen, managing director for talent and rewards at Willis Towers Watson.  After that, the No. 2 retention driver in most countries, including the U.S., was career advancement opportunities.

For multinational companies, those two factors are fundamental to attracting and retaining workers, Sejen says. Workers want clear expectations not only for their current job, but also for what they need to move up.

For a global employer, “If I could only do two things right, I would focus on those,” Sejen says.

Career advancement opportunities wasn’t the No. 2 retention driver everywhere, however. In China it was the physical work environment. In Brazil it was the length of the commute. In India it was job security.

Sejen notes that work environment has been moving up in the list of priorities globally. She thinks longer hours and a trend toward open offices and shared workspaces may have increased employee awareness of the physical environment as a factor in their job satisfaction.

“That, I think, is just a reflection of how the work environment has changed,” Sejen says. “It’s important. We spend a lot of time at work.”

Among the eight countries studied, job security was No. 2 only in India. But it’s slowly rising in importance around the world, Sejen says.

How workers define job security varies, however. Few workers expect a job for life. But many worry about losing financial security, and others worry about their jobs changing.

Sometimes mundane local conditions like traffic congestion influence the rankings. It makes sense that commute times would be important in Brazil, because cities there tend to be dense, sprawling and challenging to navigate, Sejen notes. “If you’ve ever been to Sao Paulo, you can appreciate that.”

Retention drivers Globally Brazil Canada China Germany India Mexico U.K. U.S.
Base pay/salary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Career advancement opportunities 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2
Physical work environment 3 4 2 5 3
Job security 4 7 3 3 2 6 3 3
Work-related stress 5 6 4 5 6 7
Trust in senior leadership 6 5 4 4
Relationship with supervisor 7 5 7 7 6 7
Length of commute 2 4 4 4 5 6
Retirement benefits 6 6 4 5
Flexible work environments 5
Challenging work 6
Opportunity to learn new skills 7 7 7 5
Source: 2016 Global Talent Management and Rewards Survey by Willis Towers Watson

Don’t Forget About Boomers

It’s easy to get caught up in how to attract and retain the millennials and members of Generation Z who will comprise the overwhelming majority of the workforce before too long.

Then there are the Gen Xers to consider—so crucial to your success today, as they settle into vital management roles within the organization.

But what about baby boomers?

We all know that boomers are hitting retirement age, but many are staying on the job. Much has been made of how companies will replace the knowledge and experience that boomers will take with them when they do leave the workforce, but a new survey from the Futurestep division of Korn Ferry looks at what this generation is bringing to the business now, and what motivates these employees most.

The poll asked more than 1,300 global executives to evaluate the role of baby boomers in their organizations. More than half (55 percent) of respondents said that boomers were willing to work longer hours than other generations, and were considered the second-most productive cohort, after Generation X.

Naturally, these seasoned employees require little hand-holding on the job, with 31 percent of executives saying boomers need less feedback than their younger colleagues, “demonstrating how boomers are also seen as reliable, in addition to hardworking,” according to a Korn Ferry Futurestep statement.

How do these dedicated workers find fulfillment on the job? Fifty-four percent of executives said that offering boomers the opportunity to make an impact on the business was the best way to retain boomer talent.

“This far outstrips the ambition of other generations, with just over a quarter (28 percent) of executives surveyed indicating that making an impact at work was the key motivator for millennials,” according to Korn Ferry Futurestep, “highlighting just how integral baby boomers are to businesses today.”

Most companies recognize as much, of course, and are eager to take advantage of boomers’ wealth of knowledge, with 50 percent considering “experience and expertise” as the main reason for bringing them into the business.

Once boomers are on board, how do you retain them?

It’s not necessarily money. Just 6 percent of respondents cited regular pay raises and promotions as the best way to retain boomers in their organizations. No, as previously noted, 54 percent of respondents said boomers most value the opportunity to make an impact, followed by “creating a culture that aligns with their values,” at 22 percent, management responsibilities (10 percent) and work/life balance (8 percent).

“While many in the baby boomer generation are working longer to provide more financial security after seeing their retirement account balances tumble during the Great Recession, their desire to extend their careers is not entirely financially motivated,” says Jeanne MacDonald, president of global talent acquisition solutions at Korn Ferry Futurestep.

“What is often overlooked is the fact that the majority of the people in this generation are highly motivated, enjoy what they do, and they provide great experience and value within the global workforce.”

Workers Open to Working Elsewhere

dissatisfied employeeAs you walk through the cubicle farm/office maze/factory floor of your organization, know this: More than half the people you’re passing are open to finding a new job elsewhere, and of those employees, 44 percent are actively looking for new jobs.

That’s according to Aon Hewitt’s latest Workforce Mindset study, which surveyed 2,000 employees. What are the factors most likely to lure employees away from their current jobs? The following are the five key differentiators, according to the survey:

1. Above average pay (62 percent)

2. Above average benefits (61 percent)

3. A fun place to work (58 percent)

4. Flexible work environment (57 percent)

5. “Strong fit with my values” (56 percent)

Of course, the common prescription for avoiding turnover has been keeping employee engagement levels high. But that’s hardly a cure-all either, according to “The Dark Side of Employee Engagement,” a new Harvard Business Review piece by Lewis Garrad and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. They cite a number of studies showing that highly engaged employees can be too satisfied with the status quo, more prone to burnout and its attendant ill effects and “too positive” — in other words, highly engaged people can crowd out the more introspective, less-extroverted types who nonetheless are often key to a company’s overall success.

So what to do? Try “training employees to leave their jobs,” writes Hootsuite’s Ryan Holmes, particularly if you want to retain your star employees. Many workers, particularly younger ones, leave companies not necessarily because they’re dissatisfied with their compensation or their manager but because they want to try something new, acquire new skills and push themselves in new directions, he writes. Holmes found that giving employees stretch roles at Hootsuite to try out new positions and acquire new skills without having to leave the company has yielded positive results.

Ford’s Drive for a ‘Cooler’ Workplace

If you’re looking for additional signs of the digital economy’s impact on the workplace, check out this article appearing earlier this week on Forbes’ website titled “Ford Will Spend at Least $1B to Make Itself a Cooler Workplace.

300px-Ford_Motor_Company_Logo_svgAccording to the article, Ford Motor is reportedly looking to invest more than $1 billion into making its workplace a lot cooler.

The piece called into mind last year’s General Electric commercial, in which the main character, Owen, is surprised by friends with a cake, balloons and noisemakers. Why? Because they heard he had landed a job as a software developer. When he explains he’s going to be working for General Electric writing code for trains and planes, however, his friends seem confused, with one saying, “You mean you’re going to work on a train?”

It’s a clever commercial (a favorite of mine, I might add) that successfully gets across the point that GE in no longer just an industrial powerhouse, but rather an organization that’s increasingly depending on technological innovation to drive its businesses.

Nor is GE alone in that regard. Automakers such as Ford are also realizing they’re competing in a very different business environment today.

As Doron Levin writes in Forbes’ piece, “The No. 2 U.S. automaker has been saying that it believes digital companies like Uber Inc. and Good could overturn auto making unless it can create mobility products and services instead of just cars and trucks.”

Ford, in response, is now committed to revamping its workplace in order to make it an attractive place to work and, as the Ford press release puts it, “foster innovation and help drive the company’s transition to an auto and a mobility company.”

According to the release, the 10-year transformation of the company’s 60-plus-year-old Dearborn facilities will co-locate 30,000 employees from 70 buildings into primarily two locations—a product campus and a world headquarters campus. More than 7.5 million square feet of workspace will be rebuilt and upgraded into even more technology-enabled and connected facilities.

Changes include “a walkable community with paths, trails and covered walkways,” a new design center, autonomous vehicles, on-demand shuttles, e-bikes, new on-site employee services, wireless connectivity speeds that are up to 10 times faster than today, and more green spaces.

A second campus location—around the current Ford World Headquarters building—will feature “a new Ford Credit facility and provide on-site employee services, improved connectivity and enhanced accessibility to the expansive green space that surrounds the building.”

As Ford President and CEO Mark Fields notes, “As we transition to an auto and a mobility company, we’re investing in our people and the tools they use to deliver our vision. Bringing our teams together in an open, collaborative environment will make our employees’ lives better, speed decision making and deliver results for both our core and emerging businesses.”

It’s just one more example of how new business models, including those coming out of Silicon Valley, are increasingly borrowing from the Silicon Valley playbook and are beginning to think differently about their workplaces.

Think different? Now wouldn’t that make a nice ad slogan for someone.

Learning from Exiting Employees

Whenever we ask employment and HR experts about the value of exit interviews, they inevitably arrive at the same, logical conclusion: Departing employees can be a source of priceless advice that, if acted upon, may just save you from losing talented workers in the future.

Taking action, of course, is the key. And the problem, as the experts have always pointed out, is that some (many?) employers don’t do enough with the information gleaned from exit interviews to address the issues that soon-to-be-former workers bring to light.

Take heart, however. Menlo Park, Calif.-based staffing firm Office Team offers evidence that more companies are getting the message.

Office Team’s recent survey of more than 300 HR managers found 63 percent of these respondents saying their organization commonly acts on feedback received in exit interviews.

How are they reacting? When asked how they follow up after conducting said interviews, the most common actions were to update job descriptions (29 percent), discuss feedback regarding management (24 percent), make changes to the work environment/corporate culture (22 percent) and review employee salaries (19 percent).

The poll also asked HR managers how often their firms act on the information gathered during exit interviews. Thirty-five percent said they do “somewhat often,” while 28 percent reported taking action “very often.” Another 24 percent indicated they instigate change based on exit interview feedback “not very often,” and 13 percent said they “never” do so.

In a press release highlighting these findings, Office Team offers some tips for getting the most out of these final sit-downs with employees about to leave the organization. For example:

  • Time it well. Consider scheduling the meeting on one of the worker’s last days. Keep the conversation brief and professional.
  • Don’t make it awkward (and make sure HR is involved). Because departing employees may be uncomfortable discussing certain topics with their supervisors, have an HR representative conduct one-on-one meetings in private settings.
  • Don’t get defensive. Avoid correcting or confronting the employee, and listen carefully in order to gather as many details as possible.
  • Don’t brush things off. Give all comments that are shared the proper attention. Also, check for patterns in feedback collected from employees, which can signal persistent problems.

“The only silver lining to losing employees is obtaining useful feedback to help stem further turnover,” says Brandi Britton, an Office Team district president, in the aforementioned statement.

“Departing workers can provide valuable insights that current staff may be reluctant to share. Although not every criticism will be worth responding to, the most crucial issues should be addressed immediately to help keep existing team members happy and loyal.”

Why You Shouldn’t Link Culture and Retention

Here are some vexing questions on culture: Why do people leave Google, Virgin and Zappos and take jobs elsewhere? Why, if 516216924 -- worker leavingthose companies are so focused on building exceptionally strong and compelling cultures, don’t people stay forever? Doesn’t it entirely contradict all the rhetoric about the power of culture if even the bellwethers of the corporate-culture surge can’t convince people to stay?

So poses Colin J. Browne — head of a Gauteng, South Africa-based culture, engagement and leadership think-tank firm called How to Build a Happy Sandpit — in a recent post on his company’s website. In his words,

“One of the greatest misunderstandings about culture is that it has some mystical power to lock people in to your organization for the long term. If you’re building it for that, you could be wasting your efforts … .”

On the contrary, he writes,

“[t]he answer lies in what I consider one of the most fundamental hallmarks of human nature: Familiarity breeds contempt. In a work sense, Happy Sandpit research [of 308 executives and business leaders over the past three years] shows that, within about 18 months, all employees slightly resent you for ever hiring them in the first place.

“It’s not that they don’t like their work, or their workplace, their colleagues or their bosses, it’s just that when we become used to things, we’re less inclined to see them as fresh and exciting and more inclined to overstate the irritations that surround us. And any workplace is full of irritations.”

In Browne’s estimation, given enough time and enough repetition of the tasks that make up [employees’ roles], the artifacts, strong values and general way of feeling while they are there begin to take a back seat to the day-to-day of their work. In that context, a new job offer bears the promise of reinvigoration, reinvention and a release from the things they’re bored with.

Since many more companies are awakening to the understanding that focusing on culture strengthens their employee-value proposition, the things you offer your employees may begin to lose their edginess, he says, adding that “you can get caught up in a vicious cycle if you react to that.” As he puts it,

“A far better goal for your culture efforts is to increase productivity, the voluntary sharing of talent, good will and skills, to iron out the rough spots that create barriers to team work and to develop a clear set of profiles for the people [who] you’ll have to hire to replace the ones [who] have left.

“Culture isn’t about retention. It’s about performance. Let that inform your decisions and you could save yourself from a world of pain.”

Not that we haven’t presented this premise in previous features and news analyses, but his way of articulating it caught a fresh eye so I gave it a fresh look.

I also contacted Browne to ask him specifically what HR practitioners and leaders should be doing to achieve that “far better goal.” His response:

“The one challenge shared by anyone who leads people in a discretionary environment [differentiated from a non-discretionary one, such as the military, where you are expected to follow orders fairly rigidly] is to convince people to volunteer their best efforts, loyalty and enthusiasm for the long term. You can’t lift them up by their feet and shake that stuff into their brains, so they have to choose to give it to you.

“Every culture conversation seems to be about how we make that happen, but I think we’re overlooking a couple of obvious things which keep hindering progress pretty much across the board:

  1. We don’t build jobs that support best efforts, loyalty and enthusiasm in the long term. You can come out of a design college and get a job at your dream digital-design company, be given the latest Mac computer and software to work on, in a great office, with exciting people and still feel like your job is boring within six months, because the projects you are working on and the clients you’re working with are, in fact, boring. Unless we’re building perfect jobs, therefore, which in an imperfect world with imperfect clients is impossible, people will find that they’ve had enough one day and go and find something else to do.

  2.  People are more loyal to their friends than they will ever be to a boss or a company. Ironically, the best reference for this is the behavior of soldiers in combat. While it’s often supposed that soldiers commit acts of great bravery for the grand notion of country, or unit or even God, the evidence suggests that, instead, they do it for the person next to them. When the order to retreat is given, they will blatantly ignore that order in order to rescue one of their colleagues. At the moments that matter, their loyalty is clear, and it’s not to ‘management’ or any sort of system. It’s to each other.”

I asked him to send me a specific, itemized list of the things HR should be doing or thinking about in light of his research. Here is that list:

  • You increase productivity when employees feel that they will let their colleagues down by slacking and care enough not to want to do that either because they’re emotionally invested or feel emotionally handcuffed. Either way, it works. This doesn’t happen overnight of course, but, by increasing the autonomy of individual teams — you can be as granular about this as you like, and I would encourage you to not be too broad — [so they can] make decisions on their own behalf [and] you make them more accountable for their results and actions, which then makes each individual member accountable to the others. You can’t be the one person who never pulls [his or her] weight in such an environment and expect to get anywhere. And to counter an obvious objection, if you find you have an entire team of slackers who merely cover each others’ backs instead of a productive team that cheers one another along, you change the challenge that they must meet and leave them to sort out the how. Raised expectations can have a very big impact.

  • They share talent, good will and skills voluntarily, because they’re sharing them with people they care about and whose success they link to their own. It doesn’t have to be altruistic; it just makes good sense as long as it is reciprocated and constant.

  • You iron out the barriers to teamwork by allowing them to decide how to work together. This goes to point one. Managers should care about the results and have a view about the way in which those results are achieved, but you’re unlikely to get the best out of people when you force them to stick to a rigid process that prevents them from developing their own flow. This may seem like voodoo to many organizations, which depend on processes to iron out the risk of defect, but those things are not mutually exclusive. You can have processes that must be adhered to, being followed by two teams with wildly different personalities, and get identical quality.

  • You create a clear set of profiles to replace those people by giving employees some say, or perhaps even all the say, about the people who join their team. They’re the ones who have to work with that new person and, unless you long to deal with employee friction, the manager’s view should be given less importance.

His list, he says, is a worthy goal of culture because it achieves the things you need it to: people giving their best efforts while they are with you.

Bezos Offers His Take on Culture

I have no way of knowing the full extent to which last August’s New York Times’ blistering article about Amazon’s workplace irked founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. But if I’m correctly interpreting his most recent shareowners’ letter, I can’t help but conclude the story, though not mentioned by name, continues to weigh heavily on his mind.

Amazon.com Sign

As I’m sure most of you remember, the article—titled “Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace”—takes aim at Amazon’s hard-charging culture, one that reportedly encourages employees to “sabotage” co-workers.

Some of those interviewed by the NYT said “the culture stoked their willingness to erode work-life boundaries, castigate themselves for shortcomings (being ‘vocally self-critical’ is included in the description of the leadership principles) and try to impress a company that can often feel like an insatiable taskmaster.

“Even many Amazonians who have worked on Wall Street and at start-ups say the workloads at the new South Lake Union campus can be extreme: marathon conference calls on Easter Sunday and Thanksgiving, criticism from bosses for spotty Internet access on vacation, and hours spent working at home most nights or weekends.”

Soon after the NYT’s article appeared, Jeff Bezos sent a memo to employees expressing is disbelief in the article’s claims, noting that it doesn’t reflects the Amazon he knows.

Well, now roughly eight months later, Bezos obviously felt that further clarification or messaging was needed.

After noting that Amazon has now become the fastest company ever to reach $100 billion, Bezos went on to share his point of view on the topic of corporate cultures, pointing out that, “for better or for worse, [corporate cultures] are enduring, stable, hard to change.”

The letter explains …

“They can be a source of advantage or disadvantage. You can write down your corporate culture, but when you do so, you’re discovering it, uncovering it—not creating it. It is created slowly over time by the people and by events—by the stories of past success and failure that become a deep part of the company lore.”

It continues …

“If it’s a distinctive culture, it will fit certain people like a custom-made glove. The reason cultures are so stable in time is because people self-select. Someone energized by competitive zeal may select and be happy in one culture, while someone who loves to pioneer and invent may choose another. The world, thankfully, is full of many high-performing, highly distinctive corporate cultures. We never claim that our approach is the right one—just that it’s ours—and over the last two decades, we’ve collected a large group of like-minded people. Folks who find our approach energizing and meaningful.”

It’s anyone’s guess, of course, as to whether Bezos’ latest shareowners’ letter is his final volley at the NYT’s article—and certainly that was one of its intended targets. But a close reading of it certainly suggests Bezos wants the world to know he’s quite satisfied with the culture he’s built at Amazon.

And why wouldn’t he be? After all, whether Amazon is your cup of tea or not, Bezos now has 100 billion reasons to be satisfied.

Why Young Women Really Leave Their Jobs

If you’re thinking that the talented young women departing your organization are going home to start families, you might want to think again.

In compiling its special report, What Executives Need to Know About Millennial Women, the International Consortium for Executive Development Research recently interviewed executives and “rising female stars” between the ages of 22 and 35 at a group of seven organizations including BlackRock, eBay and HubSpot, according to ICEDR, which supplemented these interviews with surveys of talent leaders and millennials from a handful of other companies.

In doing so, ICEDR study authors Lauren Noël and Christie Hunter Arscott found the majority of business leaders they interviewed were laboring under the impression that most millennial women leave their companies around age 30 in an effort to better balance work lives with family demands, or because they are about to start a family.

The millennial women taking part in the study, however, told a different story.

Indeed, 65 percent of young female respondents said that finding another job with better pay was the top reason why they quit their last job. A lack of learning and development opportunities was cited by 62 percent of millennial-age women, while 56 percent pointed to a dearth of “interesting and meaningful” work, and another 56 percent walked away because of what they saw as an imbalance between the effort they expended and the compensation they received.

This isn’t to say that twenty- and thirty-something women don’t value work/life balance, though, as 54 percent of women polled indicated they would soon be starting a family and would like to spend more time with them.

If the execs taking part in this study were taken aback to find their responses didn’t quite jibe with those of their young female stars, they weren’t the only ones.

“When considering the main reasons why women around age 30 leave organizations, one might expect the primary influences to be motherhood or difficulty integrating work and life,” the authors write in the report.

“Surprisingly, young women identified finding a higher paying job, a lack of learning and development, and a shortage of interesting and meaningful work as the primary reasons why they may leave.”

Unexpectedly, the authors also found female participants in their 20s offering similar responses.

“There is a popular perception that millennials’ desires will change over time. Interestingly, our survey revealed that women in their 20s largely do not leave organizations for different reasons than women in their 30s,” the authors write, noting that four of the five top reasons for leaving were identical across the two age groups.

Noël and Hunter Arscott—both millennials—offer some “key actions” employers can take to help attract, engage and retain female employees in this age group.

For example, they urge leaders to provide extra support to women during key transitional phases in their professional lives, “including university to first job and changing roles. Start early and pursue targeted interventions at critical career and life junctions.”

Employers must also understand that millennial womens’ input has “broader talent implications” throughout the organization, say Noël and Hunter Arscott.

“By implementing strategies and programs informed by the needs of millennial women, leaders will simultaneously be addressing what matters most to broader talent pools.”

Ultimately, “motherhood is not the primary reason women around 30 are leaving organizations,” they write. “Focus on what matters most: pay women fairly, challenge them with learning and development opportunities, and provide them with meaningful work.”