keep the door open and don’t burn bridges.
by steven e. sacks
the new fundamentals: practical guidance for today’s accounting firms
a more mobile workforce should make accounting firms think seriously about how effectively they handle staff departures.
more: be a talent magnet | the 5 keys to success in accounting careers | the holy grail: finding the right talent | the power of ‘real influence’ | stop wasting time in useless meetings
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.
in fact, the whole process of recruitment and retention needs careful evaluation so the same mistakes are not repeatedly made. otherwise, firms engage in the act of insanity, the definition of such usually attributed to albert einstein is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
when a staff member approaches a superior about leaving the firm, a careful, deliberate exit interview should be conducted to determine what drove this decision. there are basic areas to cover: what did the individual like and dislike about the firm? was the work challenging? was there a negative aura to the culture? was there a lack of growth opportunities? was there a disconnect between the leadership and staff?
this discussion should not be a breeding ground for recriminations or for either party to be alienated, but for the firm to see what protocols and processes either need to be improved or created.
much like a strategic plan, this feedback cannot simply be compiled and then filed away. this means that firm leadership and the human resources department should work in tandem to evaluate approaches that enhance the recruitment and retention experience.
“i can’t go back to yesterday because i was a different person then.” – lewis carroll
to gather the salient information, the firm should use a structured approach that includes a questionnaire covering the key elements of the firm. a questionnaire does not have to be of the one-size-fits-all variety because a manager experiences and views issues differently than a second-year staffer. make sure that the appropriate questionnaire is used so that patterns can be observed and compared with other individuals at similar levels. you may discover a commonality of circumstances that caused a majority of departures.
there are times when it may not be worthwhile for the departing member to open up with someone higher in the firm because of built-in biases or the sense that the information shared may be used to blacklist the individual with potential employers. some firms use a trusted outside advisor who specializes in cpa firms or even an industrial psychologist whose expertise is in organizational dynamics. this person is viewed as less threatening than an “insider.” however, in reality, there is still a risk irrespective of whether it is an internal or external person.
firm leaders i have spoken with believe that if the exit process is handled deftly, where the departing individual is treated with sincere care and respect, they will have no compunction about calling the departing individual six or nine months later to see how things are progressing – maybe with an agenda. an offer to meet for lunch would most likely be accepted. it does not matter if nothing immediately comes from this. however, it shows if the firm and former staffer are maintaining a dialogue. and if both parties are then the exit process was handled professionally and effectively.
remember, the avoidance of bridge-burning works both ways.