动力。对于企业的高级管理人员，首先要给予与绩效挂钩的合理薪酬。一方面，设立绩效浮动奖金，有选择的公开他们的绩效考核结果，并根据简单有效的等级分布制来确定绩效。另一方面，根据高级管理人员的等级和绩效，制定相应的年薪制，股票期权制等，在为高级管理人员提供具有绝对竞争力的薪酬的同时，还要满足他们的个性化要求。其次要给予员工以公平竞争的合理薪酬，避免薪酬制度上的不公平现象。对于高级管理人员来说，他们创造的价值要大于企业员工平均创造的价值，他们的薪酬水平也要高于企业平均薪酬。因此，高级管理人员的薪酬应随行就市，确保其薪酬与创造的价值相适应，甚至不能低于竞争对手的出价，只有这样，才能防止优秀的高级管理人员被竞争对手挖走。
(三)制定有效的激励制度，满足高管人员需要
企业应该制定各种激励制度，满足高级管理人员的需要，使企业对他们产生吸引力。一是决策自主权。高级管理人员具有较强的自主性，他们通常在自己的业务中不喜欢被干涉，更强调工作的自我引导。企业应该在工作中充分授权，使高级管理人员有一种被信任的感觉，使他们对工作有更大的热情。二是提供挑战性的工作。高级管理人员看重自我价值的实现，渴望企业和社会的认可，挑战性的工作可以很好的满足他们的这种需要，使他们对工作产生极大的热情。三是弹性工作制，在适宜的位置上可以推行弹性工作制，使管理人员可以比较自由的支配工作，有利于提高士气，减轻高级管理人员的压力。
(四)建设优秀企业文化，营造和谐团体氛围
企业文化建设是现代企业管理中的重要内容。国内外经验表明，成功的企业一般都具有优秀的企业文化。企业文化可以使员工建立共同的价值观念和行为规范，在企业内部形成巨大的向心力和凝聚力，使员工产生一种自我激励和自我约束。优秀的企业文化可以营造一个健康和谐的工作环境和积极上进的工作氛围，对人才产生强大的吸引力和凝聚力。 企业应该从各个方面加强企业文化的建设，摆脱过去企业文化建设形式主义的误区，努力形成积极向上的文化，用企业文化来吸引和留住优秀的高级管理人员。
(五)制定合理离职制度，减少企业损失
合理的离职制度可以有效的降低高级管理人员的流失，即使员工离开，也能最大限度降低员工的损失。这些制度包括一加强沟通，同高级管理人员进行畅所欲言的对话，了解他们的需求和不满，解决工作中出现的问题，避免员工的流失。同离职员工进行沟通，请他们指出企业存在的不足加以改正。二是定期评估。每隔一个季度或一年，对高级管理人员的现状进行评估，根据评估结果，完善各种管理制度。三是注重知识产权和商业秘密的
10
保护。企业通过与高级管理人员签订“商业秘密保密协议”和“就业竞止协议”防止高级管理人员的流失造成商业机密的泄露。四是适当分权，避免少数高级管理人员在长时期内控制企业的核心资源。五是做好人才梯队建设，在人力资源规划中对重要岗位要有储备计划，防止高级管理人员的突然离开造成混乱。六是增加高级管理人员的离职成本。包括约定高违约费用和培训损失费，使员工不得不考虑离职的高成本，
结束语
随着我国市场经济的进一步发展，企业之间的竞争日益激烈，人才的重要性越来越显现出来。企业间对人才的争夺也日益激烈。高级管理人员在很大程度上掌握着企业前进的方向，对于企业的生存和发展具有举足轻重的作用。如何吸引和留住优秀的高级管理人员成为企业人力资源管理部门不得不面对的重要课题。
本文首先分析了引起企业高级管理人员流失的各种因素，其次指出了高级管理人员的过度流失对企业所造成的损失，最后提出了应对高级管理人员流失的具体措施。希望这篇文章能够对企业人力资源工作有所帮助。
11
附录
英文文献
SIMPLY RECRUIT FROM THE RANKS TO WIN THE WAR FOR TALENT
The so-called ―war for talent‖ has a few things in common with the so-called ―war on terror‖. Both involve an anxious, extended search for something that is hard to pin down. Both are expensive. And both allow leaders to indulge their weakness for hyperbole.
Failing to hire and retain the most able staff is sometimes made to sound as dangerous as waving al-Qaeda operatives through passport control without adequate security checks. But bosses who talk in this way betray poor judgment as well as a poor grasp of English. (The really risky thing to do is to declare war on an abstract noun. Wars generally involve death and destruction, and unless that is what you are looking for it would be better to avoid the word altogether and stick to more peaceful pursuits.)
The debate on talent has become horribly overblown. As Lucy Kellaway pointed out in these pages a few weeks ago, the word has been devalued by being used as a synonym for ―people‖. Orson Welles – now, he had talent. John Lennon. Michelangelo. But 350 of your senior managers marked out for possible future leadership positions – how talented are they?
Still, you can see why everyone gets so worked up about talent, real or imagined. We can all now proclaim in our sleep that ―our people are our biggest asset‖. And as far as some of ―our people‖ are concerned, that can sometimes be true. In a knowledge economy you need to attract and hold on to people who know a lot.
A couple of recent flurries at the top end of the labour market show how worried leadership teams can get when star performers appear to be on the verge of leaving. Anthony Thompson, retail director at the reinvigorated Marks and Spencer, was rumoured to be about to quit until Stuart Rose, chief executive, managed to persuade him to stay, for the time being at least. Perhaps Mr Thompson has been offered the chance to run J. Sainsbury, should Mr Rose's half-suppressed dreams of acquiring the supermarket chain be realised.
In the City of London, Goldman Sachs's star media banker Sebastian Grigg did decide to jump ship, heading off to start work with Credit Suisse this June. These moves (or, in the case of Mr Thompson, a non-move) were the subject of much media coverage and quite intense public scrutiny.
Why all the attention? Because here were two pretty rare examples of light being let in on the usually murky business of ―talent retention‖ and ―acquisition‖. Although journalists like nothing more than being rung up to be told about the latest comings and goings at executive level, it does not happen nearly often enough.
On this occasion, though, we had weekly updates on Mr Thompson's frame of mind and possible imminent departure. Mr Grigg's defection was also trailed (in this newspaper) before finally becoming fact. Employers hate seeing their internal affairs being analysed publicly in this way. But then, if you really believe we are in a ―war for talent‖, you should expect the odd bit of war reporting.
Speculation around Mr Thompson's very public wavering was accompanied by the strong hint that he had been ―in talks with headhunters‖. And here we get to the heart of the matter. When business leaders think ―talent‖ they often think ―headhunters‖. But this still rather mysterious trade seems to be part of the problem as much as it is part of the solution.
According to industry experts, one in three search assignments, on average, is never filled. That is a lot of unsatisfied customers. And there is a glaring paradox here, of course. This is supposed to be an age of measurable performance, of results. Businesses need good people to achieve those results. But the
12
intermediaries who exist to help find those people find it difficult to do that.
Critics of conventional headhunting point to one or two serious flaws in the process. They say that the industry is full of ―second careerists‖ – people who may (or may not) have succeeded in one area, but who may also have no particular aptitude or discipline for spotting talented individuals. They have their own personal network of contacts, but perhaps not a lot else.
Worse, the truth of ―search‖ is that the best people are rarely available to fill your vacancy. ―Good people are always well looked after,‖ says Martin Armstrong, head of AMG, a new ―agency model‖ business, which keeps senior executives on its books as its clients, rather than corporations.
Mr Armstrong describes a process whereby a corporate client ends up having to make do with the fifth or sixth best candidate, because that is the person they can get. ―If companies went about targeting acquisitions in this way, they would not achieve a great return, yet this is precisely how companies set about finding people,‖ he says.
Some of us dream of getting headhunted. But, if that call ever comes, we should not be so naive as to think that the headhunters are working for us: they are working for their corporate clients. As John Purkiss explains in his useful book How to be Headhunted: ―To put it bluntly, if search consultants spent all their time helping people with their job searches, they would not be in business for very long.‖
In the long run, growing your own talent, and then holding on to it, is always going to be a cheaper and more effective approach than stepping outside to find it in a noisy and uncertain marketplace. Remember that helpful gardening tip about the foolproof way to produce perfect asparagus: ―First dig a trench, three years ago.‖
WHY MANAGERS NEED TO ENGAGE WITH GRUMPY EMPLOYEES
Here is a statement you are unlikely to find in any staff newsletter or company annual report: \engagement is announced between Mr Timothy Cruickshank, son of the late Mr Reginald and Mrs Elsie Cruickshank, and the Engulf and Devour Corporation. No time limit has been set on this engagement but seasoned observers are not expecting an extended stay. No flowers.\
Management has a genius for doing violence to the English language, taking half-decent ideas and ruining them. \was strangled at birth. Next in line for this sort of treatment is \
This is not to say that managers should not be concerned about how committed and excited people are about working for their business. It is just that, many years after academics and gurus started talking about the need for engagement, evidence suggests that a lot of organisations are no nearer to creating any of the stuff, no matter how much they may go on about it nor how energetically they \
New research into the UK workforce, to be published this week, reveals that the British malaise is as serious as any. The online market research group, YouGov, has surveyed 40,000 employees working at all levels in all sections of the economy. Only half (51 per cent) feel fully engaged by the company they work for. Less than two-thirds (63 per cent) say they feel loyal to their employer and an even smaller proportion (51 per cent) believes their employer deserves any loyalty.
What explains this lack of connection? Andy Brown, who led the research work for YouGov, says that, even where there is adequate recognition and reward for good work, larger problems ensure that staff remain resolutely disengaged. Unsurprisingly, poor leadership fails to capture the imagination of a hard-stretched workforce; it is pointless to engage with leaders who are making little positive impact on the organisation's consciousness. But a second problem is less obvious: the lack of rigorous performance management.
When employees see managers failing to deal with poor performers and displaying blatant favouritism towards a select few, you can forget about their developing any kind of meaningful engagement - except, perhaps, with the select few. The \
13
the bottom 10 per cent could be pushed out in any year - but at least they help to concentrate people's minds. Paradoxically, a clumsy attempt to deal with underperformance will be just as bad for morale as not dealing with it at all.
The bigger question here is: since everyone agrees that engagement is important, why have so many managers failed to deliver it? It is hardly a new idea. More than 10 years ago Messrs Sasser, Haskett and Schlesinger of Harvard Business School introduced the concept of the \businesses need motivated and engaged employees to compete. Not long after, Bain's Fred Reichheld described a similar phenomenon in The Loyalty Effect.
In the March issue of the Harvard Business Review, Tammy Erickson and Lynda Gratton came up with some practical ideas that might help even the most unengaging of managers. An important insight is that there is no such thing as an easily transferable \practice\as far as boosting engagement is concerned. Employees have different motivations and interests, so need to be managed differently. \care deeply about the social connections formed in the workplace,\as much flexibility and as little commitment as possible. Some have an appetite for risk.\
The best marketing professionals understand what segments their customers fall into. Managers need to know their current and future employees as well as most companies know their current and future customers.
Companies with higher levels of engagement usually have \element of an organisation's overall employee experience\process. At the US organic food retailer, Whole Foods Market, teams decide whether a new recruit should be allowed to join the company permanently after a four-week probation period.
Or it could be a way of conducting meetings. The Royal Bank of Scotland sets deadlines for internal projects in days rather than weeks. Speed has become its signature experience. That may not suit everybody, so it is vital to spot the right sort of candidate early on in the selection process.
Higher productivity is achieved through \employees. Managers who fail to understand this - or who fail to do something about it - are doomed to be burdened with a workforce that religiously observes the less widely known 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Bother
中文附录
人才大战的打法
所谓的―人才大战‖(war for talent)与所谓的―反恐战争‖有一些共同之处。两者都需要对一些难以固定的东西进行大面积地、令人焦虑地搜索；两者都耗资不菲，而且两者都允许领导人夸大其辞。
有时候，不能雇佣和留住最有能干的员工，听上去就像没有经过充分安检便让―基地组织‖(al-Qaeda)成员通过出境关卡一样危险。但是，这样说话的老板无意中既暴露了他们可怜的判断力，也暴露出他们拙劣的英语掌握能力。（真正危险的事是向抽象名词宣―战‖。―战争‖一词往往伴随着死亡和破坏，除非这正是你所期望的，否则最好别用这个词，并坚持更―和平‖的追求。）
关于人才问题的争论已过分到可怕的地步。正如露西?凯拉韦(Lucy Kellaway)几周前在
14