W14530 INDIAN METAL COMPANY’S TALENT MANAGEMENT DILEMMA Jittu Singh wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The author does not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The author may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Copyright © 2014, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2014-10-24 It was the Sunday before Diwali (the annual Indian festival of lights) in October, 2013. Any observer would have noticed from the body language of the senior executives of the Indian Metal Company (IMet) who shuffled into the boardroom in the headquarters building in Metconagar in eastern India, and from their initial banter, that they were unhappy about being called to attend a meeting on a weekend so close to their favourite festival. But the chief executive officer (CEO) had deliberately chosen the day and time to underline the gravity and urgency of the problem facing the company. When all were assembled, he set the agenda rather dramatically: Sorry for summoning you today. But we are bleeding where it hurts us the most. We are losing our best professionals faster than we can replace them. Unless we stop this bleeding quickly, all the big investments we are making in plant and equipment will go down the drain. There is so much at risk that I had no option but to interrupt your Diwali preparations. We must figure out what has gone wrong and what we need to do to attract and retain the professionals we need. COMPANY BACKGROUND: INDIAN METAL COMPANY I-Met was a pioneer in its industry in India. Incorporated in 1907, it had a consistent track record of performance and was among India’s most respected companies. Over the years, it had established a reputation for the quality of its management, its employee friendliness, its ethical conduct and its commitment to a wide range of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. In 1991, I-Met launched an ambitious program of modernization and expansion. As a result of these efforts, its world-class manufacturing facilities became capable of producing a portfolio of high-grade products much in demand in the construction and engineering industries. It also extended its business beyond India by acquiring foreign companies in Asia and Europe. In the process, it emerged as one of the five largest players in the industry worldwide (based on production volume). I-Met’s main operations were located in Metconagar — a city named after the company — in the heart of a mineral-rich belt in eastern India. With a population approaching one million, the town’s civic amenities were clearly superior to those in bigger metros of the country. Long-time residents, who initially came from all over the country to settle there, grew accustomed to its easygoing, comfortable lifestyle and could not easily contemplate moving anywhere else. However, it was not a preferred place among This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 2 9B14M121 younger professionals; they complained of limited career growth opportunities in the town because of the small number of potential employers, all of whom were engaged in the same kind of hard-core manufacturing engineering business. They also felt that the social life in Metconagar was slow and dull. Nearly 60 per cent of I-Met’s 30,000 employees were based in Metconagar. The rest were spread around various locations. Around 30 per cent were engaged in mining. The company’s fully owned mines were in small, remote hamlets nestled in forested areas three to four hours driving distance away. These locations lacked the civic amenities available in Metconagar. Because of their seclusion, and the added safety hazards involved in mining, young professionals (especially those newly married or with school-going children) did not like to work there. The remaining employees were scattered around India in sales offices and branches. On the strength of its strong public image, I-Met enjoyed preferential treatment from its various stakeholders. However, there was a steady decline in one area: its ability to attract and retain young graduates of India’s premier engineering and business schools. While an I-Met job was highly prized up to the 1980s, the best students at elite schools now preferred employment in other cleaner, more glamorous non-manufacturing industries. And even if some did join I-Met, more than 50 per cent tended to leave within their first two years. After five years, less than 25 per cent of the initial cohort was left behind (this trend was common to manufacturing companies). To compound the problem, I-Met had become a popular hunting ground for talent poachers from newer companies in the industry. Mid-career executives were being lured away by lucrative financial packages and fancy designations that I-Met was not able to match. Given its size (or larger workforce), it was constrained by the cost implications of significant across-the-board increases in compensation. At the same time, it was also concerned with the need to maintain equity among its existing employees. The company was in the middle of an ambitious expansion plan in its Indian operations. Much of it involved the latest cutting-edge technology. Therefore, the need to attract and retain competent professionals in different specializations had increased. Where would the required people come from if the bleeding of existing professionals was not stemmed quickly? PREVAILING HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) PRACTICES Recruitment I-Met had a long tradition of visiting premier educational institutions once a year for recruiting engineers and MBAs straight after their graduation and putting them through elaborate, long-drawn, in-house training programs before their assignment to their first jobs. They were groomed to fill the most important positions in the company. For certain specialized areas (such as chartered accountants for the accounting function or doctors for the company’s hospital), requirements were advertised throughout India whenever required. Shortlisted applicants were interviewed in a few metro cities. On selection, they were put directly into their respective jobs. Until recently, there was little direct recruitment at higher levels from outside. However, such recruitment had been stepped up to neutralize the attrition rate. Wherever experienced professionals were required urgently, they were recruited through open press advertisements and the services of headhunters. This marked a significant departure from the company’s earlier philosophy of recruiting only at the entry level and grooming trainees into future leaders. This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 3 9B14M121 Training New recruits (known either as graduate engineer trainees or executive trainees) were first put through a structured year-long training program. During this period, they received formal classroom training in the company’s history, operations and various businesses; they also moved around key departments to get a first-hand feel of how things were done. At the end of this training period, they were finally placed (i.e., assigned full time) to one of the company’s departments. As they progressed through their careers, they got repeated opportunities to undergo short training programs on a variety of technical and managerial subjects. For this purpose, I-Met maintained two large in-house training institutions, one specializing in technical skills and the other in managerial skills. Deputation for these in-house programs, as well as open programs conducted at leading business or technology institutes, was based on an assessment of training needs of individuals and also of organizational needs. Internal Mobility I-Met had to perform a careful balancing act between departmental pressure to tie down young professionals to the jobs assigned to them initially and the latter’s desire to move to greener pastures within the company. The graduate engineer trainees who were assigned to the mines, for instance, sought to move out of there as quickly as possible to jobs in Metconagar where living conditions were superior. Those who were placed in the production mills in Metconagar disliked shift duty and attending to breakdowns at odd hours of the day. They preferred openings in more glamorous departments such as marketing. Their departmental heads, on the other hand, were reluctant to accede to such requests because it was difficult for them to find suitable replacements. Since the preferred mobility was only in one direction (i.e., outbound), there was strong resistance in the mines and plant to internal mobility. Though I-Met’s official policy encouraged job rotation, it was unable to balance these competing pressures. Almost invariably, therefore, it ended up compelling individuals desirous of change to continue in their respective departments. Career growth for most was thus limited to the department (or division) one initially joined, at least for the first phase of one’s stint in the company. There was growing resentment about this practice. Compensation The compensation package offered to newly recruited trainees was fairly competitive by the standards of the metallurgical and manufacturing industries. However, it did not compare favourably with the packages offered by firms in other, less capital-intensive sectors, especially information technology (IT), fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), financial services and consultancy. The average difference was around 25 per cent. As a result, I-Met was no longer among the most preferred employers on the campuses of premier educational institutions. One distinguishing feature of I-Met’s compensation package was the relatively large non-cash component, especially for its employees in locations where it had its own townships. In Metconagar, for instance, employees were provided with: Accommodation in company-owned houses at a very nominal monthly rental; Highly subsidized electricity; Free water; This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 4 9B14M121 Free medical care for the family (including dependent parents) in the company-owned hospital; A conveyance allowance that was greater than the cost of travel in this town of short distances between homes and offices (senior executives also got company cars); and Access to a wide variety of sporting and recreational facilities (such as clubs) provided by the company. Employees with families found these facilities, and the comfortable lifestyle of Metconagar, of great value. They were reluctant to give them up and move to other cities where the compensation could be higher but the urban problems were also more intimidating. Yet, it was difficult to put a monetary value on these perks (though there were rough estimates that they accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the compensation in cash). The compensation of each executive was revised annually. The revision had two components: a modest annual increment based on seniority level and length of service and a performance bonus. The annual increments essentially neutralized cost-of-living increases and rewarded continued service. The bonuses were more substantial; they were based on formal performance appraisals. There was a marked upward trend in the quantum of annual bonuses and their percentage in executives’ total compensation package. Opinions about the bonuses were divided. On the one hand, they were said to be playing an important role in the retention, and motivation, of high-performing executives. But on the other hand, there was also a great deal of frustration about the significant differentials in bonuses awarded to some individuals. Those who received less than they expected, or less than peers with whom they compared themselves, complained about subjectivity and favouritism. This had triggered some attrition. Other HR Systems I-Met had well-established systems for annual performance appraisals, talent reviews, promotions, engagement surveys, exit interviews, knowledge management and involvement in various improvement initiatives. There were several formal and informal forums for communication across the organization. The company’s top management prided itself in being readily accessible for listening to junior officers. I-Met had received several Indian awards in the past from independent professional agencies for the overall quality of its HR policies and practices. CROSSCURRENTS AT THE MEETING There was an uncomfortable silence when the CEO finished outlining the purpose of the meeting and inviting the assembled group to express their views on the causes of the attrition problem and solutions to it. The ball was kicked off finally by the vice-president (VP), Manufacturing, after which others joined in enthusiastically. VP, Manufacturing: We are facing a crisis. I’m flooded with resignation letters from our graduate engineer trainees and our experienced mid-ranking executives. The voluntary attrition rate among our officer category engaged in manufacturing operations last year alone was 3.52 per cent; in the previous two years, it was 4.23 per cent and 3.22 per cent respectively. Several of our mills are woefully short of qualified officers. HR is neither able to stem the tide nor give us suitable replacements in time to fill the vacancies coming up. If other companies can poach our people, why can’t our HR do the same from them? Let’s become more proactive and more aggressive. We should also upgrade our compensation package and improve our various rewards so as to retain our good people here. This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 5 9B14M121 Mining Manager: I wonder if anyone is interested in a career in mining anymore. When we go for recruitment to various campuses, students pretend to be keen on accepting a mining job. But soon after joining, they start pleading for a transfer to Metconagar. When we turn their requests down, they resign and run away. So if we really want the mining operations to continue, we must offer them a special compensation package far more attractive than we do at present. The compensation for mining professionals must be substantially higher than for officers in Metconagar and other metro locations to compensate them for the greater hardships they face. I am not suggesting anything radically new. After all, hardship allowances are common in industries like ours. My only appeal is that they be attractive enough. In the meantime, can we put a ban on transfers out of the mines to other divisions? Plant Head A: Favouring the mining professionals so openly may look like favouritism or discrimination against the manufacturing employees here. After all, this is mainly a manufacturing company. Parity must be maintained in compensation levels for different jobs at different locations. We may get away with a modest hardship allowance for officers in the mines. But if it is increased as much as is being suggested, I am sure the officers in the manufacturing plants here will feel aggrieved. Finance Chief: I too have problems attracting and retaining good chartered accountants. I lose many within two to three years of their joining the company. There is high demand for them in the financial services sector. They fear that they will stagnate in a supporting role in this company, which is essentially a manufacturing company. All I-Met’s top executives come from a production background. Therefore, I am not sure raising compensation levels is the best answer. We may end up paying more and still be left with the same problem. We need to understand why our people are leaving so soon after joining us. I suggest we focus more on these reasons before jumping to any solution. Plant Head B: I think the main reason for our problems is that we recruit the wrong guys from the wrong places. We have some corporate ego about recruiting the top-ranking students from the elite engineering and business schools. However, we forget that we are in a smokestack industry that is no longer popular among young professionals. How many of us sitting around this table would advise our own children to work in this company? I guess not many. Therefore, I think we should review our recruitment policy. Let us aim at recruiting people with more modest academic records from second tier institutions, especially from our neighbourhood. They will serve our purpose and, at the same time, be more likely to stay with us longer. Plant Head C: I tend to agree. Our shop-floor work does not require high engineering skills. We would be better off employing good science graduates or even well-trained candidates from the reputed polytechnics. They will bring sufficient skills and be less likely to leave us. CEO: That may solve your shop-floor problem in the short term. But will it not result in a more serious problem later of a shortage of leaders capable of assuming senior positions in the company? Chief of Sales: Our top management, operating out of Metconagar, is so manufacturing-centric that it does not fully appreciate what our sales force experiences in the marketplace. There is intense competition out there for good people. Our star performers are enticed away by lucrative offers from our competitors and other marketing-oriented companies. Yet, HR does not give me any freedom to deal with this problem. I am bound by rules that may be all right for the manufacturing plant but are not at all suitable for the marketing and sales function. Take housing for instance. Our officers in Metconagar live in spacious company-owned houses almost for free. But our sales officers have to manage with a very modest housing allowance even in the costliest metros. Same with car allowance. In Metconagar, officers rarely have to drive more than a kilometre from their homes to their office. In cities, they have to drive at This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 6 9B14M121 least 10 times that distance in crowded traffic conditions. Yet the allowance is the same! We need more flexibility in fixing pay and deciding on promotions. Plant Head C: We have to face the fact that there are many attractive job opportunities available out there today for competent professionals. No matter how much we pay, somebody else will pay a little better to steal our good people. Therefore, I feel the best solution is to tie people down for defined periods through binding bonds or contracts, even though this practice may not be very popular elsewhere. The punitive compensation that will have to be paid in case anyone wants to leave before the contract period expires will act as a deterrent to their leaving. So why don’t we introduce such contractual employment? Let new recruits sign bonds for a defined period of service. That way we will at least be sure of how long they will be available to us. Head of IT: I agree that the employment market is at its peak and good professionals are in great demand everywhere. Therefore, it may be difficult to stem the outflow of people. But we can borrow a method from IT companies to find replacements just as fast as the outflow. Many companies in the industry offer monetary incentives to their employees to poach friends from other companies. Let us join the game. We too can offer prize money, maybe equal to a month’s salary, to anyone who entices a qualified friend away from another company to join us. Chief of Research & Development (R&D): I think there is too much centralization and standardization in HR-related matters. We have some very bright young scientists in our department with degrees from very prestigious institutions. They are working on challenging projects and have published in reputed technical journals. But we treat them in the same manner as anybody else in the company. As a result, we keep losing our most promising people at an alarming rate. Scientists need to be handled differently. Our HR policies must allow for such exceptions in a critical area like R&D. Chief of Medical Services: To most of you interested in production and profits, the company hospital may not appear like an important department — except when you or one of your family members needs our medical attention. Well, our biggest problem is to get enough good doctors. And even when we succeed in getting a few, we lose them quite quickly. Their most common complaint is that the hospital is treated like a stepchild in this company. We are always short of money needed for purchasing state-of-the-art medical equipment and even for maintaining what we already have. We are often the first victims of economy drives. We are left with progressively less money for medicines, for paramedical and nursing staff and for upgrading our physical infrastructure. Working with such serious handicaps, our poor doctors are left to face the wrath of our patients and their family members. Everyone fires abuse at them and accuses them of incompetence. Why would a good doctor suffer such indignity? Therefore, they leave out of frustration. Our management must understand that running a hospital is quite different from running a production mill. Leave medical professionals free to run the hospital the way it should be run rather than letting manufacturing engineers decide things. Plant Head D: I don’t think harping on the good old days is going to help us much now. We must face up to the fact that any professional today has a very wide choice of careers and employers. He will tend to go where he gets the best deal. This is only natural. So we have to either make our compensation package better than others or else learn to live with the problem we are facing. Given the financial strength of our company, and our future prospects, I am confident we can afford to pay our executives better. I personally think that we should drastically reduce the training period for trainees we recruit from campuses each year. Since they tend to leave within five years, why waste a lot of time training them. Let This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 7 9B14M121 us put them on the job as quickly as possible. This way, we will at least get some productivity out of them. To the best of my knowledge, this is what other companies that had training programs similar to ours have done already. And when they leave, let us recruit somebody else as quickly as possible. If we have an efficient, roundthe-year recruitment program, we will not experience much difficulty. VP, HR: One of I-Met’s great strengths is its 100-year-old culture. Selecting good candidates initially, grooming them and then establishing a long-term relationship with them have been key elements in shaping this culture. We like to think of our people as members of the I-Met joint family. We take pride in saying that thousands of our employees have worked all their life only for I-Met. Would it be right for I-Met now to abandon its old culture and shift to one where people come and go every day? What will happen if we close our eyes to the increasing attrition rate and recruit a large number of individuals from other companies to fill vacancies? Training Manager: I hope you will forgive me for what I am going to say. I think all of us in this room are responsible for chasing our young professionals away. When our newly recruited graduate engineer trainees go to your departments for training, you do not seem to have enough time for them. After a cold reception, they are handed over to unprepared and unwilling guides who, at best, give some hurried, unstructured information. Thereafter, the trainees are left to wander around the shop floor aimlessly. This unpleasant first impression is what sticks in their mind. They wonder, “Am I really wanted here?” In my opinion, our attrition rate is more because of our attitude towards our young recruits than their compensation or other reasons. Isn’t that the inference to draw from our exit surveys? If we treat them better, and pay more attention to them, they are likely to stay with us longer. Our senior executives must transform themselves into eager mentors. HR Manager: Our analysis shows that most of our trainee executives leave during the first three years of their service in this company. We have very little attrition thereafter. Where do they go after leaving IMet? According to our information, most opt for higher studies, especially MBA programs. They do not go to work for other companies. Keeping this in mind, I suggest that we offer MBA-type education inhouse at company cost to out trainees. We can request one of the business schools to design and conduct such a program for us. I feel that this will stem the tide. VP, Manufacturing: Let us not focus only on trainee executives. Please don’t forget that we are also losing key people at higher levels. We have become a favoured hunting ground for lots of new companies in our and allied industries. They are extremely aggressive in pursuing our top talent. We need to defend ourselves from their aggression. We have to get our HR act in place urgently. Noticing that the meeting had degenerated into a general griping session that was not leading to a cogent action plan, the CEO concluded that it would be more prudent to adjourn it. But given the importance of the subject, he did not want to shelve it indefinitely. Therefore, he announced the formation of a threemember committee to study it in depth and submit a recommendation report two weeks later. A final decision on the course of action would be taken then. The committee quickly settled down to work. It began by first examining some background information already available in the HR Department and then holding small group discussions with young professionals to understand their mindset. What were their aspirations? What grievances compelled them to seek alternative careers? What suggestions did they have for better talent management? Some of the information collected is described below and in Exhibits 1 to 4. This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 8 9B14M121 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SURVEYS In order to monitor employees’ perceptions of their overall working experience, I-Met had been conducting engagement surveys at regular intervals, often internally but occasionally with the help of independent consultancies. A review of recent surveys indicated a fairly consistent pattern in the findings. The overall engagement index remained stable around 80 per cent (4 on a 5-point scale). There was little change in both the topand bottom-ranked dimensions. The highest rated dimensions were company image and reputation, professionalism of management, well-established concern for employee welfare and well-being and the convenience of living in Metconagar. Quite predictably, the lowest ranking item each time was compensation and rewards. Among the other dimensions at the bottom consistently were slow career progress, unnecessary bureaucracy and the difficulties of living in remote mining towns. EXIT INTERVIEWS I-Met’s HR Department routinely conducted exit interviews with all officers leaving voluntarily. While reviewing the summarized data from past interviews, the committee noted that: Most voluntary separations involved young engineers, MBAs and chartered accountants with less than five years of experience in the company. There was a noticeable fall in the number of separations among those who had crossed the five-year experience mark. In general, there was an inverse relationship between length of service and tendency to leave. More than 65 per cent of the young professionals who left within their first five years in the company indicated that they were leaving to pursue higher studies. The remainder left in search of alternative career paths. According to HR counterparts around the country, the two preceding trends were not unique to I-Met; they were shared by other companies in other industries too. The attrition rate was highest among those placed in the remote collieries and mines. Among the primary reasons cited for leaving were job dissatisfaction, poor career planning and growth prospects, inadequate compensation and unfair appraisals resulting in inequitable financial rewards. SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS The committee members held several rounds of face-to-face meetings with small groups of young professionals to understand their perspective on the subject of talent management. Here is an illustrative sample of their views: Our appraisals have become meaningless. Nobody follows the system properly. My boss did not sit with me to discuss and fix my goals. Even today I do not know the goals against which I have been rated. After the appraisal, I was simply shown my form and told to sign it. There was no feedback about what I did well and what I did not. There was no discussion about my professional development and about my future in the company. I think the whole appraisal process is subjective. The company says rewards are performance-based. But in reality, they are “godfather-based.” If you have a well-disposed patron in the company, the sky is the limit for you. But if you are merely a high performer without a guardian angel, you will only be given more and more work to do. Forget rewards! This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 9 9B14M121 The annual bonus amounts are quite substantial these days. If the wrong person receives a huge bonus, it hurts genuine performers that much more. They fall way behind their mediocre but lucky colleagues each year. How long can they ignore such inequity? So they leave. Our organizational hierarchy has been flattened. While it may have helped in some ways, it has greatly reduced promotion opportunities. What are our growth prospects? We see our friends in other companies rising rapidly to very high levels. Here we are stuck for unduly long periods at more junior levels. When we were interviewed on our campus, we were given a very rosy picture of the working conditions in the company. But the reality now is very different. We are stuck in this remote mining town surrounded by terrorists [a reference to Maoist radicals active in the region]. We have long working hours in the harshest of weather conditions. Our work is highly hazardous. So tough is our life here that our family does not even want to stay with us. We trainees are often told that we are special. But all that we do is run odd errands for our bosses. We are not given challenging jobs with responsibility. Dissatisfaction with the job is why many trainees like me leave the company. There is an official job rotation policy in the company. Why, then, aren’t we allowed to apply for career opportunities in other departments of the company? Our applications are either not forwarded or not considered. The company prefers to recruit a stranger from outside rather than give a chance to someone who is already here. Bosses here tend to treat us as captive prisoners; they just will not let anyone go anywhere else. It seems our company starts valuing people only when they submit their resignation. All sorts of concessions are suddenly made in desperate attempts to hold them back. This practice has sent out an unspoken message to all: if you want something, first blackmail the management by threatening to leave. Why can’t we take better care of our silent, honest, solid citizens? I often wonder what the criteria are for appointing our bosses. Some of them have such poor leadership qualities. They are only concerned about themselves. Their behaviour with their people is so crude! I really think they are chasing the company’s youngsters away. The world has changed. There are plenty of attractive job opportunities available in new, and now famous, companies. I-Met has to compete with them to hold on to its good people. I am afraid it is losing the race. The committee had become so engrossed in its background work that it had almost forgotten the deadline for submitting its recommendations. Therefore, a telephone call from the CEO’s secretary inquiring if its report was ready came as a severe shock. It had now to quickly synthesize its views and prepare a clear, cogent action plan. But it was still not sure what to recommend. What would be acceptable to both management and employees? What was the best way to meet the talent management challenge facing IMet? This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. Page 10 9B14M121 EXHIBIT 1: ATTRITION IN ELITE CADRES Group Graduate Engineer Trainees Chartered/Cost Accountants/Company Secretaries Executive/Personnel Trainees Systems Trainees Researchers / Geologists/Technical Doctors Previous year 38 (4.6%) 18 (10.1%) 2 years ago 45 (6.6%) 9 (4.5%) 3 years ago 36 (6.1%) 13 (7.3%) 8 (5.4%) 9 (5.8%) 6 (4.69%) 23 (7.5%) 9 (5.2%) 6 (3.5%) 8 (7.14%) 20 (6%) 8 (5.7%) 11 (3.9%) 7 (7.2%) 21 (6.2%) Source: Created by authors from company files. EXHIBIT 2: MAIN CAUSES OF ATTRITION (CITED IN EXIT INTERVIEWS) Going for higher study Personal or family reasons Dissatisfaction with career progress / growth opportunities Inadequate compensation Job dissatisfaction Unfair appraisals leading to inequitable rewards Source: Created by authors from company files. EXHIBIT 3: OVERALL EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS (FROM ENGAGEMENT SURVEYS) 1. 2. 3. 4. Main strengths of I-Met Company reputation Professional working environment Employee-orientation Comfortable lifestyle in Metconagar 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Main weaknesses of I-Met Non-competitive compensation Slow career progress Bureaucracy Ad-hoc recognition & rewards Difficult lifestyle in collieries and mines Source: Created by case author. EXHIBIT 4: FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Turnover Total expenditure (before depreciation) Profit before taxes Profit after taxes Payments to employees Previous year 33,933 22,397 9,857 6,696 3,047 2 years ago 29,396 17,914 9,777 6,866 2,837 3 years ago 25,022 17,854 7,214 5,047 2,618 Note: All figures are in crores of rupees (1 US$ = 60 Indian Rupees). Source: Created by authors from company files. This document is authorized for use only by Xiaohan Xu (xiaohan.xu2@pepperdine.edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment