小佛爷说
一名优秀员工离开你的公司另谋高就，也许是被另一家公司给出的高薪高福利所吸引，也许只是想尝试新的东西。可是几个月甚至几年之后，这个人又回来了。新公司的情况并不如意。这时候，你会重新雇用这名员工吗？
过去，离开一家公司被视为不忠，公司不能重新聘用一度离职的员工。但如今的员工在职业生涯中供职的公司平均超过12家，而公司苦于劳动力匮乏、技术人才紧缺，许多公司会考虑接受离职后又回来的“回旋镖”员工。
公司认为重新雇用离职员工有几个好处：首先，因为是熟悉的老员工，一些公司会觉得雇用他们比招聘新人更稳妥；其次，他们熟悉工作，需要的培训较少，入职适应期较短；另外，他们清楚公司的状况，所以这次会更加投入工作，再度离职的可能性较低。
也许最重要的是，他们在离开的这段时间里有所长进，会带来新鲜的知识和技能，而且变得更加成熟。
涉及回旋镖员工的研究很少，于是我们开展了研究，探讨回旋镖员工是否符合这些期待。我们的研究主要关注两个问题：
一、回旋镖员工回到以前任职的公司之后，工作表现是有所提升、保持不变还是有所下降？
二、回旋镖员工的表现和流动率，与更传统的内部晋升员工和外部招聘新人相比有何不同？
我们分析的数据库是一家大型零售公司八年间招聘（外部新人）、晋升（内部员工升职）和重新雇用（回旋镖员工）的三万多名管理者的相关资料。除了任职时间和离职原因等工作经历方面的信息，数据库中还有公司综合该管理者工作能力、工作职责和目标完成情况对其年度绩效做出的评级。以下是我们的结论。
回旋镖员工回归后的表现与离职前相当，而且再度离职的原因通常与第一次离职相似。换言之，看回旋镖员工离职之前的表现，足以充分预测他们再度入职后的表现。
内部晋升的管理者和外部聘请的新人管理者，假以时日都会获得优于回旋镖员工的进步。回旋镖员工回归后第一年的表现，与内部晋升者和外部新人不相上下，但之后就会渐渐落后。
回旋镖员工的流失率比另两种员工更高。这一点说明一度离开公司的员工可能还会再度离开。
我们还想了解，回旋镖员工第一次离职的原因能否提供更深入的信息。举例来说，这家零售公司重新雇用了一部分并非出于本意离职的员工，也许是提供“第二次机会”的一种方式。因此，我们将员工第一次离职的原因分为几类：预测未来工作表现的积极因素（如为了继续学业而离职）、相对中性的因素（如个人原因）和消极因素（如因为表现太差而离职）。
我们发现，第一次因为积极因素和中性因素而离职的员工回归后表现相当，与之相比，由于表现欠佳等原因离职的员工回归后表现较差。虽然我们希望“第二次机会”能有不错的后续，但研究表明前后两次的行为并没有太大的变化。
那么，聘用回旋镖员工究竟是不是好的选择？我们的研究验证了回旋镖员工将来的表现与过去表现一致的说法。所以与外部新人相比，回旋镖员工的风险可能更低，因为根据他们离职前的表现就可以预测以后的表现；如果以前的表现可以接受，那让他们回来就是个不错的选择。
另外，因为积极因素和中性因素而离职的回旋镖员工，在回归初期表现优于内部晋升者和外部新人。这一点印证了回旋镖员工入职适应期较短、能够更快地做出贡献的预想。不过，回旋镖员工回归后对工作的投入程度并未提升，而且再度离职的比例高于其他两类——是内部晋升者的两倍以上。
企业在考虑聘用回旋镖员工还是其他类型员工时，要衡量风险承受能力、首次离职原因、表现随时间变化的情况和稳定性这几个要素。下面的图表列出了以上提到的三类员工在几个招聘指标上的相对情况。比方说，工作表现的可预测性是回旋镖员工最高，内部晋升者较低，外部新人最低。
虽然被解雇的员工回归后表现如何也值得探讨（特别是现在疫情导致许多人失业的情况下），但我们的数据库里没有被解雇的员工的资料，而且以上结论可能不适用于被解雇的回旋镖员工。比如说，我们并不知道以前曾被解雇、后来又被重新雇用的员工离职率是否高于其他类型。从目前已知的结论来看，总体而言，我们建议重新雇用被解雇前表现较好的员工。
总而言之，回旋镖员工回归后的各种表现基本跟上次离职前一样。所以，不要草率地一概而论。首先要想清楚公司在人员方面重视哪些指标，如果追求可预测性、短期表现和节省培训成本，那么回旋镖员工就很适合你的公司。
约翰·阿诺尔德（John D. Arnold）、查德·范艾德金格（Chad H. Van）、迈克尔·C·坎皮恩（Michael C. Campion）、塔利亚·鲍尔（Talya N. Bauer）、迈克尔·A·坎皮恩（Michael A. Campion）|文
约翰·阿诺尔德是密苏里大学罗伯特·特鲁拉斯克商学院管理学系助理教授。查德·范艾德金格是爱荷华大学蒂皮商学院管理学亨利·蒂皮教席研究教授。迈克尔·C·坎皮恩是德克萨斯里奥格兰德河谷大学管理学系助理教授。塔利亚·鲍尔是波特兰州立大学商学院管理学卡梅隆教席教授。迈克尔·A·坎皮恩是普渡大学克兰纳特管理学院管理学赫尔曼·克兰纳特教席杰出教授。
朔间|译 周强|编校
英文原文
A stellar employee leaves your company for another job. Perhaps they were lured by a recruiter offering an enticing salary and impressive perks, or maybe they just wanted to try something new. But months — or even years — later, they’re knocking on your door again. Turns out the grass wasn’t greener on the other side. Do you rehire them?
Historically, leaving an organization was considered disloyal, and rehiring former employees was considered taboo. However, in an age when the average employee will work for more than 12 different employers during their career and companies are grappling with a tight labor market and skill shortages, many organizations are giving consideration to these “boomerang” employees.
There are a few assumed benefits of rehiring former employees. First, because boomerang employees are known, some firms consider them to be less risky than first-time hires. Boomerangs also already know the job and require less training and onboarding time. Moreover, because they know what they’re getting into, boomerangs may be more committed this time and less likely to leave again.
Perhaps most importantly, they may have improved thanks to the experiences they had during their time away and will bring back fresh knowledge, skills, and maturity.
Very little research has examined this staffing strategy, so we set out to see if boomerang employees were living up to those assumptions. Our research addressed two main questions: 1) Does the job performance of boomerang employees improve, stay the same, or decline upon returning to their former employer? and 2) How do boomerangs’ performance levels and turnover rates compare to the more traditional options: internally promoted employees and first-time external hires? We analyzed a large dataset consisting of eight years of archival data on over 30,000 employees who initially were hired (external hires), promoted (internal hires), or rehired (boomerang employees) into management positions at a large retail organization. In addition to job history information such as tenure and reasons for departure, the dataset included the organization’s annual ratings of managers’ job performance, based on their competencies, job responsibilities, and goal accomplishment. Here’s what we found.
Boomerang employees’ performance tends to remain the same after being rehired. Additionally, boomerang employees who leave the organization a second time tend to do so for reasons similar to their first departure’s. In other words, boomerang employee behavior is fairly predictable based on the behavior they exhibited during their initial tenure.
Both internal and external hires improve more over time than rehires. While boomerang employees perform similarly to internal and external hires in the first year, they are outperformed after their first year on the job.
Boomerang employees are more likely to turn over than both internal and external hires. This suggests that if an employee has left an organization once, they may be willing to do so again.
We were curious if the reasons boomerang employees left in the first place might provide more insight into our findings. For example, this retail company had rehired some employees who turned over involuntarily, perhaps as a way of providing a “second chance.” So, we classified the reasons for initial turnover based on whether they might be a positive indicator of future job performance (such as to continue their education), a relatively neutral indicator (such as personal reasons), or a negative indicator (such as termination due to poor performance).
We found that return performance was comparable among boomerang employees who had originally left for positive or neutral reasons. In contrast, boomerang employees whose initial turnover was for performance-related reasons did not do as well as those positive or neutral employees. Although we had hoped there would be a good “second-chance” story here, we found that behavior was consistent before and after rehiring.
So, can hiring boomerang employees still be a good investment? Our findings did support the idea that boomerang employees’ future behavior is likely to be consistent with their past behavior. As such, a boomerang is probably less risky than someone unknown because organizations can expect that boomerangs will perform similarly to the way they did before. If that performance level is acceptable, then they may be a good hire. Additionally, boomerang employees who left for relatively positive or neutral reasons initially outperformed internal and external hires. This supports the claim that boomerangs require less onboarding and may contribute more quickly than other hire types. On the other hand, boomerang employees did not appear to return with higher levels of commitment. In fact, they turned over at a higher rate than other types of employees — more than twice as much as internal promotions.
These factors (risk tolerance, initial turnover reasons, time horizon to performance, and need for stability) are all important for organizations to consider when evaluating whether to rehire or look elsewhere. The table below summarizes the implications of these considerations based on an organization’s objectives in the hiring process. For example, predictability of job performance may be highest among boomerang employees, somewhat lower among internal promotions, and lowest among external hires.
Although it would be interesting to know how employees who have been laid off do when they return (especially given the mass layoffs resulting from Covid-19), our data did not include layoffs, and some of our findings may not apply to that group of boomerang employees. For example, we don’t know whether employees who have been laid off and are later rehired would turn over more than other hire types. Given what we do know so far, in general, we would recommend rehiring good performers who had previously been laid off.
The bottom line is that boomerang employees are likely to be about the same as they were before, rather than better or worse, upon rehiring. So, don’t just believe the hype. First, consider your organization’s objectives, and if predictability, short-term performance, and lower training costs are your goals, boomerang employees may be right for you.
Android版下载
iOS版下载
投稿及内容合作 | zhenminma@hbrchina.org
广告及商务合作 | luojiajin@hbrchina.org
,