KEY POINTS:
Sally, who didn't want to give her full name, says: "I was so excited when I was offered my first job in financial services. I had worked in other areas before, but this was what I really wanted to do.
"The first couple of years were great - I thrived in the company and felt a lot of loyalty to my boss. Unfortunately, though, this boss moved on and another was put in his place.
"I just could not deal with the new guy - he always undercut me, was sarcastic and even nasty while being nice to my colleagues!
"I complained to higher management, but it got to a point when I realised they weren't going to do anything but pretend to listen to me. So I left, as I realised my self-confidence was being affected. I was finding it really difficult to drag myself into work everyday. I was sad about it because I liked the company; I just couldn't deal with the person who was managing me."
Sally's story is not unusual. Research shows that it's very common for people to change jobs more because of their managers than the company.
Management consultant and author Andrea Needham says more young people leave because of managers than older employees who "tend to be more compliant. Because of their histories they often assume that all bosses are bad and that they don't treat you well. Younger people are less accepting of this notion."
Needham says the problem is not how to sack the boss when he or she turns out to be bad, but how to hire good bosses.
"Sacking is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; however, it's easier than some think. There's a prescriptive process to follow that tells you what to do. The hardest aspect of flicking bosses is that you have to sit on it and follow through the process. This takes a lot of time and energy, and the damage the person is doing can be great. It's simply best not to hire bad managers."
Needham's book, Workplace Bullying, revealed the big leadership problem in New Zealand.
In her most recent work, Courage at the Top, Igniting the Leadership Fire, Needham says: "The bottom line is that leadership is a privilege - not a right.
"Boards must go out of their way to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the individuals in the most senior management roles, such as the CEO, are the best individuals they can possibly find. It is the single biggest and most strategic decision the board can make."
So Needham says the single most important thing is for a company's board to do is appoint a good CEO and the single most important job of the CEO is to choose good managers.
"Managers take care of business. They are there to motivate, ensure productivity, growth of the business and success."
Needham suggests using good psychometric testing when selecting managers.
"Interviews are no good - workplace bullies are extremely good at interviews, good leaders can often be subtle and quiet. They're sometimes not the people who make the good impression at the interview."
Look at the work culture, she says.
"Often the culture starts from the top. If the leaders behave well, the people under them will usually behave well. Good management is enabled because of a healthy culture."
Bad managers to beware of, says Needham, are:
* Jerks - inconsistent "hangers on" who have been in the company for years and are self-interested and not very bright.
* Cowards - managers who turn a blind eye to problems, particularly when it comes to workplace bullies.
* Bullies - tend to be credible in the eyes of management; only the people who are being bullied see their true nature. Bullies are hard to get rid of and cause a lot of damage, particularly as they tend to pick on the most competent employees.
* Technocrats - these managers have no people skills. They believe in rules, and don't believe rumours, so nothing is investigated. They are extremely hierarchical and, Needham says, should never be in management. They're often the people who were very good at their job, but were promoted, and accepted the promotion because of money.
Needham agrees that in order for the company to know what's truly going on in the workplace, exit interviews are critical, "but they must be done by a third party, perhaps an HR consultant, as people are more likely to be honest if they're not speaking directly to the company.
"At the exit interview, always ask open questions. Ask what the employee would change about the company, ask what could have been done earlier on to avoid the resignation, ask what the employee thinks of the company culture."
Tanner Menzies' New Zealand manager, David Doyle, says an exit interview can be a valuable tool, providing guidance for the future based on a review of the past.
"It is important to understand, however, that the results can be skewed dramatically if the process is applied inconsistently.
"Take the example of the inconsistent and disorganised manager, who loses staff regularly but fails to follow the procedure in time to capture the thoughts of his or her [many] exiting staff.
"The exit interview process becomes a random event, driven by the staff rather than being a mandated process. It is inevitable that in this environment, he or she will do less exit interviews, and lean towards longer-serving and compliant staff.
"Contrast this with the organised, methodical manager who applies the process regardless of circumstance, including non-performers and disgruntled staff in order to capture all information and benefit from the data over a reasonable sample. If time or other constraints exist, this manager will outsource the process, increasing objectivity.
"All information is followed up on, and made available. While there will be a higher proliferation of negative outcomes, this approach will allow for useful data to be captured and acted on - a key objective of the process."
He says exit interviews need to be seen as part of a bigger picture. The key here, like so many business practices, is being systematic. Think of the following when considering exit interviews:
* Is there suitable structure to how you gather and collate the interview? If your percentage of exit interviews is less than 80 per cent, the data may not be worth using.
* Is the information being aggregated across the entire business? Sample sizes need to be substantial to be valid, and given we spend all our time trying to reduce turnover, it should be the type of information where trending at business unit level is difficult.
* Have we analysed the information for real trends or patterns? The fact that someone left due to a massive clash of personality is not a relevant outcome of the exit interview; a subtle but recurring theme of dissatisfaction over internal communication is.
* Are we doing something about it? Almost every business globally will make a short-term, tactical change to its operations resulting from the global market conditions.
The great ones will be systematically tweaking their HR strategies to increase retention and reduce turnover, giving them a vital edge over time.
