This “inside out” approach hasn’t worked with customers, so why do we think it will work with employees? Aren’t employees our valued customers after all? In an attempt to improve customer retention, companies are migrating from an “inside out” to an “outside in” orientation. I’m betting we can improve employee retention by applying the lessons learned during this migration.

When companies start in an “inside out” mode, they develop their processes, policies, and procedures by defining what is best based on the company’s perspective of things. In this mode, the company talks about “holding on to” or “keeping customers.” Recent customer retention research has demonstrated that this “inside out” strategy is detrimental to the bottom line.

Companies are learning how to flip their thinking so they start designing strategies around the customer’s perspective. This “outside in” approach enhances customer satisfaction and retention. Once embraced, this approach helps companies create environments in which customers want to stay. Companies no longer “hold on to” or “keep customers.” Instead they build a partnership based on insight and trust.

In the same way we can enhance employee retention by looking through their eyes. By focusing “outside in,” we can stop “holding on to” employees and start creating environments in which employees want to stay and grow.

Recently, I was working with a company to build a performance management infrastructure for its call center agents. As we were designing the metrics, one of the team members mentioned that there is some “big brother” concern from the agents whenever management talks about “schedule adherence” or “agent utilization.” The employees can become fearful when they believe they are always being watched by an unseen force.

The recognition of employee concern led us to a discussion about how the names of metrics typically aren’t employee-centric. We communicate measures to the employees using attributes that are important from the company point of view, but not necessarily from the employee’s point of view. If I am an agent, hearing the term “agent utilization” may make me feel “used.” The names of measures should help agents understand how they are contributing to corporate objectives.

In the meeting, we discussed whether “a rose by any other name” would be less offensive. Our conclusion was that re-naming might seem like wrapping paper that only disguises the reality. However, agents will begin to understand the difference if the company’s motivation and message is clear and managers give the employees time to adjust.

So how could you better name a metric that is currently called “schedule adherence” or “calls per hour?” Because your organizations are unique, the answer is different for each of you. However, you can ask specific discovery questions. For example, how does a metric align to corporate objectives? How do you frame the metric from the employee’s point of view? Does “calls per hour” become “customers per hour?” Does “schedule adherence” become “attention to schedule?” Only you, with the help of your employees, can define those nuances.