Companies face increasing pressure to optimize their ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) profile, both to attract responsible investors, as well as mitigate risks and align with societal and environmental needs. Our expert local team is well-versed in ESG framework formulation, risk management, on-the-ground audits, and sustainability strategy development – all fine-tuned for the unique dynamics of Asia’s diverse landscapes.
With our strong connections across China and wider Asia, coupled with a deep understanding of local regulatory norms and societal expectations, we assist our clients in their ESG journey, throughout every stage.
When should someone quit their job? It is very easy to answer in some cases. Just be honest with yourself and have a clear goal of life, you always know when a job is no longer suitable for you. In other cases, It is a hard-answered question. Most people are often dishonest about themselves or have no clear goal.
At first glance, this seems weird. But, just take your eyes around your workplace. I am sure that you will realize, the number of people who really love their work are few. Additional, fewer people have goals. Most of them like to depend on “Fate”
First, this is a consequence of education. It leads to many adults still not knowing what job they love or what their talents are.
Worse, Most people do not take time to ask questions about what they want to do in life. In other words, how they want to live a life. So, they transferred that responsibility to their parents, their relatives, their friends, their boss also.
“Parents wanna me have a stable job” “My friends love to have a high-end salary” “Girlfriend wants me to become a manager” “My boss wants me to learn more” All of these become the criteria to choose the jobs of many people.
They try to follow those criteria, which will become a nightmare in the future. And then, THEY QUIT.
Many people quit their jobs at the age of over 30, because they realized that they did a job, they did not like. Then, meeting a career crisis when they found the right way to their favorite job. Let’s imagine, you are being an intern at the age of 30.
So, the question “When should I quit my job?”is really an easy question, if you know exactly what you need for yourself. On the other side, it may lead to an incorrect decision.
As someone who sells goods just because the job is easy to be recruited, then he quit because he is scolded by his boss. After that, he goes around the companies and realizes that most of the sales bosses scold the staffs. It is just different in level of scolding.
If you are a seller and can not stand it, do not start selling anything right from the beginning. Many people take years to determine the level of scolding that they can stand.
Of course, as I told you. You choose a job that you do not like. This is the reason why you can quit at any time. It is not closely related to your work environment, your boss, salary, benefits,…
When you do not like something, everything relates to it that will be become a trigger.
When you do not know what you like is, and the employers do not know what you like is.
Yeyyyy! Congratulation! It is a Boom
If you decide to endure a job that you don’t like or you don’t know if you love it. You must at least identify why you need to endure it. For example, how much money do you need? why do you need that much money? How much money will you make in years?. That’s when you know you should quit.
It is also the moment that employers know you should leave, if they really care about your motivation. But, Let me tell you good news, it is only 3% of employers have the ability to identify motivation through the interview.
I am also wondering, 3% is too much??
The rest of the employers just want (or be forced) to fill the recruitment KPI, so they won’t care about your motivation.
So at the end of this blog, What is the moment you should quit?
From the above sharing, you can easily realize that you should (or need) quit, when:
You don’t have any reasons to endure this job.
Honestly, people do not quit their jobs when they should (or need) to quit. They quit because they want. If you have ever learned to make decisions, you will know that is your mistake in the first step
You do not distinguish what you want and what you really need.
After reading the previous blog “8 SIGNS YOU’VE BEEN IN YOUR JOB TOO LONG“, you realized that you are wondering about staying or needing a new job to grow. A lot of questions run around in your head, one of them is: “WHEN SHOULD I QUIT MY JOB AND HOW TO MAKE A PLEASANT QUIT?”
PART 1
1.DOES ” A PLEASANT QUIT ” EXIST?
The thing that you call “A Pleasant Quit” does not exist in reality. “A Pleasant Quit” means “When you quit your job, everyone will regret losing a colleague like you”.
Why does it not exist? Because when you quit your job, there is never happen “Everyone feels regretful!” No matter how you good at work (even if you are the best person in your company). no matter how you good at your relationship with everyone in the company (even you are a person most favorite company).
When you quit, this is what will happen: – Some people will regret it. – Some people will feel normal. – And some people will feel happy.
You understand, right?
It does not depend on who you are, how you are, or which position you are holding. Even if you are a company owner. When you are a very good person, there will be people who do not like that good (for example people are often taken out to compare with you!). Even when you are the most loved person, there will be second favorite people happy when you leave, because now they are ranked first!
So, “A Pleasant Quit” is something that never exists.
2. WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN YOU QUIT?
Let me tell you the truth: The fact that “not leaving a bad rumor about me” when quitting, does not really exist…
I remember the day when I left “a quite big position” in a multinational company. Because I felt that I did not want to and could not contribute more, while the salary and benefits were good. Many people were surprised, they do not even believe in “retiring from work because of not feeling contribution”. For them, just needing adequate wages and benefits. The less work, the more happiness. So they think it is not the reason for my leaving.
From here starts a rumor “He quit because of some discontent with the leaders”. More worrisome, many people began to make a theory, that I quit because of my Boss. “His boss stomped on the spot, so he could not continue to promote, therefore he was dissatisfied” Even if I am a person who does not care much about the so-called position, that rumor may still exist, even now
So, the definition of “A Pleasant Quit” means not leaving a bad rumor about you, which also does not exist.
3. WHAT IS REALLY “A PLEASANT QUIT”?
“A Pleasant Quit”. For me, it is leaving your job without having any worries. For employees to not worry about leaving, there are two things you must definitely accomplish:
Talk frankly with your direct boss about the reason for leaving:
Because their direct boss is the reason, for many people. – If you see that your boss is not good at his expertise, tell them. – Your boss is not good at management, tell them. – Hating your boss for any reason, tell them Of course, you tell them in a polite and straightforward way, before leaving.
You can hear the explanation, or not. You do not need to believe the explanation if you feel it is not honest enough. But at least, you say your reasons and your boss knows your reasons.
Many people do not do this, because they are afraid. They fear their boss will: – Have bad speech about them when they accept new jobs. – Block their way back to the old company once the new place does not go well. You make decisions based on fear, you will never be able to walk comfortably and calmly.
Take a look at it, if it is just because of your boss’s speech, the company does not hire you, there are only two possibilities: – Firstly, it is that company is hasty when they don’t hear your story, Is this a worth company? – Secondly, your ability is too bad to convince an employer, so is it the fault of your boss? You are still scared. No problem, you can not do it. It just does not think about anything nice. Nothing peace comes from fear.
And please note, there is an only one person you need to talk frankly about the real reason you left, that’s your direct boss. Colleagues with the department, the high-level boss, the HR department, etc that is the place you should choose to provide suitable information. If you can’t tell the truth to Boss in front of them, don’t think about what else to do behind their backs. Just taking a quickly leaving.
The second thing to do, after having a straightforward discussion with your direct boss is:
Having a reasonable time to hand over the work to the team
“A Pleasant Quit” of course includes handing over what you have done to the company. Pay special attention to legal issues in the process of handover such as documents, equipment, money… The handover must be made in writing with the signatures of both parties, and you should keep a copy or take a picture of the handover minutes to avoid future problems.
More importantly, make sure you do the best as you can to help your substitutes (of course, if the company has recruited a substitute before you quit), and do not share with them about why you quit.
I’m a recruiter at heart. So, I fully endorse any and all methods that result in clients attracting, hiring and retaining talent as and when they need.
But the days are numbered for internal recruiters. Companies’ needs are changing, and agency recruitment is having to evolve to match. Leaders are denouncing relics of the past and embracing a method of recruitment that scales with business objectives.
That method is outsourced in-house.And it’s leaving in-house recruitment in the dust.
The Death of Recruitment
The trouble with in-house
In-house recruiters are typically burned-out employees who, frankly, didn’t cut it in the agency world. Barely pitching for one role at a time, these recruiters struggle to compare against the companies that scale the whole market. Their inability to recognise the movers and shakers, or emerging technologies that affect roles, prevents them from being totally effective.
The process of attracting people for a single organisation, where the role is standard (most are) and the organisation is run-of-the-mill, is hardly revolutionary work. That’s why in-house methods are (in the main) mediocre. I mean, sending InMails to people they don’t know on LinkedIn professing to have the best possible new opportunity for them… c’mon.
This is common though! Over the last decade, a wave of companies attempted to build in-house teams. Despite thinking they could cut costs, the market tightened, drying up available talent for key hires and restoring the need for talent acquisition partners.
Why agencies are evolving
Since agencies redefined what recruitment meant, businesses wanted more. Most of the companies I work with now used to be recruitment agencies but have since transformed into talent solutions providers. In-house recruiters simply can’t match their impressive portfolio of products and services.
The traditional agency model is evolving and diversifying – to cater to businesses with high-volume recruitment plans, for example, and address an ever-widening skills gap. Consequently, key hires know their cost. Exhausted internal recruiters are clueless when it comes to what lures these guys in, leaving businesses with subpar solutions.
So in came outsourced in-house. This new kid on the block acts as a welcome middle ground, offering businesses an agency recruiter to work on-site (or remotely if preferred) for a few days a week.
Establishing the middle ground
With this method, recruiters tap into the resources, functionality, drivers and management of a recruitment business while being coached daily on how to attract more clients.
Forget holiday pay, or the nightmare of employees taking annual leave in the middle of a project. With hiring costs soaring (and rightly so) too, the need for enterprises to embrace agency innovation in the shape of new solutions and products just makes economic sense. Hiring a journeyman professing to be a superhero recruiter does not (why else would they give up the dream and take a salary, however inflated it might be?). Now it can cost anything from £10k to £20k for one person to be the resourcing agent and place 2-6 people every month!
But it isn’t just money. Businesses that rely on outsourced in-house are “buying the time” of a specialist – including the use of their latest tools, methods and reach. It delivers the desired outcome, whether through a nurtured relationship with a significant talent pool or wealth of services including Statement of Work projects or even employer branding.
This efficient and proven approach is what solidifies the benefits of aligning with a professional and accountable partner. The choice to outsource in-house has never been more compelling.
If you can’t find new talent externally, consider using reskilling to build your new employees in-house.
“Adaption is better than specializes in one skill”
It doesn’t matter how talented your new hires are, or what stellar technology training they’ve received. Chances are within a few years those skills will be obsolete.
Technology evolves so quickly that it is no longer enough to hire for the skills needed today. To stay relevant, companies need to hire people who have the ability to constantly learn new skills that may not yet exist.
So, it’s time to change strategy from hiring new one into helps available employee to adapt with new technology
This focus on reskilling as a talent management strategy is already taking place, said Art Mazor, principal of Deloitte’s human capital management consulting practice, in Atlanta. “Most big companies today are focused on reskilling, and for good reason: The half-life of skills is two to five years,” he said. “That has huge implications for recruiting.”
With demand for talent at an all-time high, companies can’t expect to pluck these skills ready-made from the talent pool. They will have to create them in-house by providing employees with constant access to training, and incentives to continuously reskill.
Research from McKinsey found 82 percent of executives at large organizations believe retraining and reskilling must be at least half of the answer to addressing their skills gap, with 27 percent calling it a top five priority. And 74 percent of global recruiting firms say reskilling workers represents an effective strategy to combat the perennial skills shortage, according to Bullhorn’s 2019 “Staffing and Recruiting Trends” report.
“Reskilling is an important solution to the talent shortage,” said Vinda Souza, vice president of marketing for Bullhorn. She said that as long as there is low unemployment, companies need to consider what training they can provide to new and existing talent to constantly close new skill gaps.
74 percent of global recruiting firms say reskilling workers represents an effective strategy to combat the perennial skills shortage
To reskill someone, look for people with “adjacent skills,” said Jesper Bendtsen, head of recruiting for Thomson Reuters in Toronto. “Don’t just look for people who know blockchain or AI,” he said. “Look for people who work with related technologies that will lend themselves to your future needs.”
That talent pool may already be on staff. Bendtsen noted that employees who have been with the company for years may not have the exact skills you are looking for, but they know your culture, your customers and your way of doing business. “Start by looking internally at who might be interested and able to transition to a new role through retraining,” he said. An internal upskilling program can help companies close talent gaps while reinforcing their commitment to the existing workforce.
When recruiting externally, companies need to consider what skills they are looking for and how that impacts the recruiting process. New hires need to be willing and able to learn new skills and to tackle nebulous workplace challenges. Identifying these skills requires more thoughtful assessments of candidates’ soft skills and personality, not just their past history, Mazor said.
Companies need to consider what skills they are looking for and how that impacts the recruiting process to find the right one
Some organizations are adding virtual reality, automated simulations and gaming tools to the recruiting process to observe how candidates handle unknown situations and learn new information to solve problems.
“These tools test their predisposition for handling challenges while creating a compelling candidate experience,” Mazor said.
Companies are also integrating hiring managers into this assessment process. At Thomson Reuters, for example, software engineers oversee candidates as they complete coding challenges, while asking questions about their process.
“The goal isn’t to see if they get the right answers, but to see how they tackle problems and use information,” Bendtsen said. “It’s an objective way to assess a candidate’s skills and ability to learn.”
Using automated simulations and gaming tools to see how your employee tackle problems and use information
This new approach to recruiting could make it easier for companies to look further afield for candidates who show an aptitude and interest in learning, even if they don’t follow a traditional academic or career path, said Tara Cassady, senior vice president at Cielo, a global recruitment process outsourcing provider in Milwaukee. “You want people who are curious, have an aptitude to troubleshoot, and who use technology to solve problems,” she said. These lifelong learners could just as easily come from tech schools, boot camps and online universities as from traditional college campuses.
Once they do find or retain these candidates, they are also investing more effort into retaining them, she said. From ensuring that interns have a clear path to employment, to making sure newly trained talent are given new assignments and competitive salaries, engagement and retention must be part of the reskilling trend, she said. “If you are going to invest in training talent, you don’t want to lose them to a competing firm.”
