Is any employee really replaceable?
There is no shortage of memes and articles supporting or contradicting the statement, “Everyone is replaceable” [or the converse, “No one is irreplaceable”].
Within the context of the workplace, this statement has been debated at length, and quite frankly, there are reasonable points on each side. The problem with this statement (and with most memes!) is an oversimplification of an issue that is complex and nuanced. A person’s philosophy about human resources should certainly be more than three or four words.
One of the more popular response memes reminds people “they are replaceable at work, but they are not replaceable at home.” The heart of this message is encouraging employees to have a healthy view of the role of work – to have the right priorities – and to seek work that allows them the time and energy to be that “irreplaceable” person at home. This is a healthy viewpoint, but it does not necessarily follow that “everyone is replaceable.”
I have to admit the “everyone is replaceable” mantra simply hits me wrong. I have a deep, faith-based belief that every life is valuable, sacred, and unique. To simply act as though the loss of a person (and I mean “loss” in a variety of contexts here) has no impact on the others around them denies the amazing and God-given ability for humans to form meaningful connections. In the broadest sense, the idea that “everyone is replaceable” is, in my opinion, false.
Within the context of an organization, this phrase is generally used in a narrower sense. It is frequently uttered when an employee chooses (or is asked or forced) to leave an organization. This may be because the person was not a stellar employee, and so the loss is not considered significant. Or it may reflect a broader value of the leadership or organizational culture.
I would like to suggest that we place this overly used phrase in the garbage bin and take some time to examine our own views on the “replaceability” of employees.
First, viewing people as replaceable may lead to unhealthy practices or an unhealthy culture. If a leader truly views people as replaceable – as if they are simply “parts” in the overall “machine” of the organization – then there could be some very negative outcomes. These include:
The organization does not demonstrate value for the employees nor express appreciation for their work and contribution to the company’s mission.
The organization does not invest in the development of their employees. Setting goals, providing feedback, ensuring opportunities for professional development – these may not be seen as necessary when they organization could simply find someone who already demonstrates a higher level of development. (At least the organization thinks they can find someone!)
The feelings related to the loss of an employee are left unacknowledged, which compounds the impact of the loss (and compounds the negative impact on the remaining employees and company culture).
When employees are not valued, appreciated, and invested in, the organization suffers, as demonstrated by higher turnover rates, lower performance, and poor reputations. (See prior blog on the measurements of a healthy culture.)
Even if a leader holds the “everyone is replaceable” viewpoint, they cannot deny the inherent cost of employee turnover. The search for new employees, followed by the onboarding and training of new employees, has a dollar value attached to it. Losing an employee can cost 1.5-2 times the employee’s salary (with significant variation depending on industry and type of worker).
In reality, most companies do not hold the “everyone is replaceable” viewpoint, even though that phrase may be uttered when an employee leaves. If people were easily replaceable, organizations would not spend significant time and money searching for the “right person” to fill the position. Organizations would not honor longevity or provide incentives for staying. They would not offer compensation packages that are competitive within the industry and geographic location.
Yet, most companies do most or all of these things – or at least try.
I think the more accurate statement is, “Consistently poor performing employees should be replaced” - or phrased more positively, “It is hard to fill the shoes of a great employee.”
As Amy Rees Anderson states in Great Employees are Not Replaceable, “In today’s market, the world is ripe with candidates who are eager and willing to take the job. But putting a behind in a seat doesn’t replace a great employee. It simply puts a new behind in a seat.” The idea of “replaceability” implies finding something or someone who can simply take the place of the prior thing or person with no change in efficiency or effectiveness. There is an implication of interchangeability. As Anderson describes, great employees provide a unique value to the organization and replacing them is costly:
“They have extensive product, systems, and process knowledge. They carry tremendous experience on what has worked and what hasn’t worked for the company in the past. And great employees have camaraderie and influence with their coworkers, which when lost, has an impact on the corporate culture...To try and hire a replacement for a great employee will inevitably cost the organization significantly more money when they take into account the starting wage required in their attempt to 'hire up,’ not including the cost in time and money to train a replacement and get them up to full production, as well as the opportunity cost of having created a gap in the institutional knowledge of the business.”
Great employees aren’t replaceable. People are not interchangeable parts like widgets on a machine. As leaders, let’s clearly articulate our viewpoints, including our philosophy on the value of people in our organizations. Put aside the memes, and lead.
