Howdy,

One of our companies is a property management company. We do not currently college grads fresh out because we usually do not see some of the experience needed (P&L management, Project Management, etc), but I've been reconsidering this lately. Due to the non-specialized nature of the business, we do not require a college degree but do require this sort of experience mentioned above along with other traits. The low margin nature of our business offers a pay scale would be "ok" for a recent college grad, but not great - and the flat nature of our business structure doesn't offer massive advancement opportunities (read: it may take 2-3 years and competition against 20 others to get a promotion to the next level).

Despite having an amazing employee culture and employee satisfaction (many time over best places to work recipient), amazing PTO and everything else, we still seem to lose a lot of employees for "life happens" reasons or this job isn't for them, or there is another job that comes up that pays $20k more...On paper, it doesn't make sense.

When I think back to my internship and my previous employer, both company cultures were worse (although not terrible), both had lower benefits, both jobs were less enjoyable... but both retained employees. They both also do require a college degree, hire interns and hire new college grads for all professional-level jobs.

Is this what we are missing?
Will I get a higher-caliber, loyal employee by hiring a recent college grad and training them up?
Will they not just leave in 6 months cause "I could get a job at Exxon making twice as much"?
Am I exposing a huge risk by hiring someone with no P&L experience to manage multiple P&Ls? Someone that has no high-level project management? Someone with no true conflict resolution experience?

Knowing what I know now, I cannot think of a job that is better for a new business school grad to get into and actually learn about all facets of a business. I know I may just be a launch pad for some of them, but can I rely on them to be here for 3-5 years?

I'd love to hear some discussion points from any new college grads, or soon to be, and also from any hiring managers that hire new college grads that had some similar concerns and what their take is.

Thanks!

You can not rely on Millennials as today's recent college grads to last 3-5 years. They will leave for $5-10K increase in salary. They will leave to get a meaningless "Sr. Analyst" title instead of just an analyst title. They do not want to learn all facets of a business over the course of 5 years before taking a jump.

I hire a lot of new grads and light experienced folks. I like working with them and what they bring to the table. But if you aren't able to step up financially and someone else is, they'll be gone. Development with long term dividends isn't something that speaks to them.

As with everything in life, money talks. You could be the best place to work in the world but if someone feels severely underpaid, they will feel resentment and eventually leave for more money. When I first started my career I had to jump ship several times in order to get the salary I was looking for. It might be even worse with recent college grads these days because most want instant gratification.

I've always liked this quote: "If you pay peanuts, then you get monkeys."

In a previous role, I found it difficult to find new grads that could meet our criteria. Many time I would have much better candidates without a college degree. The company had a theory "first to be second". Finding candidates who are leaving their "out of college" job.

The problem at that company was the pay scale was not a large enough jump in pay to lure talent away. Growth opportunity was there in 2-3 years, but that was usually too long and we would lose talent to competitors offering significant salaries but minimal benefits/bonus opportunities.

It's the age old problem. You generally have to overpay young talent to retain them.

Quote:

---

The low margin nature of our business offers a pay scale would be "ok" for a recent college grad, but not great

---

Curious what the ballpark number is that you are offering? $40K? $50K?

Is there a way to create some sort of career progression such as making new grads associates handling very small/simple accounts with significant oversight, then giving pretty small "promotions" that come with some mix of title/larger accounts/more autonomy? You might be able to start them at lower salaries than usual, but mostly it gives incremental goals that look better on a resume than would chilling in their first role out of school for several years. I can think of quite a few benefits for everyone involved which I can type out unless that sounds like a complete non-starter.

20ag07 said:

---

You can not rely on Millennials as today's recent college grads to last 3-5 years. They will leave for $5-10K increase in salary. They will leave to get a meaningless "Sr. Analyst" title instead of just an analyst title. They do not want to learn all facets of a business over the course of 5 years before taking a jump.

I hire a lot of new grads and light experienced folks. I like working with them and what they bring to the table. But if you aren't able to step up financially and someone else is, they'll be gone. Development with long term dividends isn't something that speaks to them.

---

Why not be the first to offer the "meaningless title" and small $5k raise then?

If you offer some sort of well defined management track I think you'll have success in keeping people 3-5 years and beyond. That offers security, steady raises, and the well outlined finish line goal.

Thank you all very much for your insight. I'd like to reply to a few of you guys to clarify the conversation. Keep in mind, I am c/o 2007, there for a "millennial" myself.

Astroag - I actually don't think 20ag07 is way off base. Maybe harsh, but sometimes true. Not all, but many people are this way. I don't think it is simply a millennial trait. I see these "millennial" traits in all ages.

Wife is an Aggie - Low to Mid 40s, depending on geography and experience. More with a lot of relevant experience.

Ulrich - We actually already have this. There are "tiered" levels within the property manager, but don't' necessarily elevate them to a level where people report to them. That is the next promotion level which may require some patience in the minors before you get called to the big leagues.

AtlAg05 - There is absolutely no problem with that, as long as they put a good faith effort into this job first. Give a couple of years of your best effort, then let us know you are ready for the next level. If we can't help you here, we will help you get where you need to be. I respect that 2-way street. But, when someone cuts and runs after 6 months for more money in a different industry, that means they were never really here, to begin with.

The Milkman - Meaningless purpose to titles is meaningless, but adding "senior" or "lead" or whatnot does give meaning to a higher level of responsibility. In our case, that comes with larger, more important properties. That and a "$5k raise" is not "small" by any means at an entry-level type of position. As said, we have a career track very well defined, but most these days seem to be just what they can get right now instead of what they will be in 5 years.

I believe you will earn your due way faster sticking around at a company until you hit that ceiling first. If you jump before you hit the ceiling, then you are really just starting over, even if the pay is higher.

Are you receiving any feedback from their exit interviews?

I'm a millennial as well, if someone cuts out after 6 months, I think you are better off if they didn't want to be there. Now the hiring side would not look well on that short stint but that's for someone else to decide if they want the risk.

I'm not a fan of the label with millennials being the first generation to ever job hop. There are more college graduates with more opportunities than previous generations it seems. I can't fault them for trying to find something they enjoy, but granted that will catch up to them eventually.

Back to your question around what can you do, I think it has to do with the work environment, outside of pay raises and promotions. If you can enjoy where you work and who you work with, that can trump "the grass is greener on the other side".

20ag07 said:

---

You can not rely on Millennials as today's recent college grads to last 3-5 years. They will leave for $5-10K increase in salary. They will leave to get a meaningless "Sr. Analyst" title instead of just an analyst title. They do not want to learn all facets of a business over the course of 5 years before taking a jump.

I hire a lot of new grads and light experienced folks. I like working with them and what they bring to the table. But if you aren't able to step up financially and someone else is, they'll be gone. Development with long term dividends isn't something that speaks to them.

---

How is this different than other generations? And the OP mentioned they were jumping for 20k increases when they are only making 40-45k.

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

I love when managers complain about not being able to retain talent, and put the blame on the employees for wanting to leave. Says far more about the manager than the employees, IMO.

People love to blame Millenials for not wanting to work for entry-level salaries, but ignore the impact of the recession on entry-level salaries.

For the OP, you say you're paying low 40's. To put that into perspective, that was pretty much exactly the average entry level salary for business degree grads in the year 2000. For many companies, that's still the entry level salary range, and it sounds like yours is one of them.

But $40k in 2000 is the equivalent of about $27,500 in today's dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. So while people love to bash Millenials for not wanting to "start at the bottom," the reality is that "the bottom" for Millenials is about 25%-30% lower salary-wise than it was for the previous generation.

Combine that with the much higher student loan debts that Millenials graduate with, and many simply can't make ends meet and stay on top of their student loans on today's entry level salaries.

Bottom line: you can bash Millenials all you want, but collectively they have been pretty severely underpaid as a generation so far, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they're leaving for pay increases now that the job market is healthier and payscales are increasing again. If you want to retain talent in a landscape of rising payscales and greater competition for talent, you're going to have to keep up, just every other generation of hiring managers has had to do in healthy job markets.

---

Hey John,
Awesome assessment. I appreciate the in-depth feedback. First of all, I know this problem is on us, not them. That's why I'm here asking for feedback on a change. I'm not really here to complain about the talent themselves, but a little bit of a rant about society as a whole. Regardless, rant-over. I know I can't change society, sorry for getting my own thread off track

I'll appreciate it if others focus on my original question, should we try to hire new grads? Can I retain someone from Mays? Probably not. Can I afford and retain someone with SPMT (like me) or RPTS, or look at UTSA or TX State? Maybe... But will they be too green? Yes, we can train them up. Which is why this intrigues me.

I don't disagree with your salary stat from 2000, but it would vary wildly based on industry. Many industries could pay that then, and now pay $60k+ for the same role. We're not a conglomerate, we are a small-medium sized business that works manages NPOs. Many of our successful hires come from retail, restaurant and hospitality management where they have P&L experience and were only paid $40-50k. Honestly, our industry's pay scale is why we have to hire mostly non-degreed professionals. I cannot be mad at someone leaving to make $20k more. What, I've got to figure out is if we move to hiring a farm system of college grads if they will buy into the career we can give them, or are we better off continuing to hire experienced management from other industries at a similar price range.

Sorry, it seems there are some personal feelings attached to this thread. I'd really like to hear more from leaders that have gone through the same dilemma. fresh-out college grad or experienced non-grad?

Either way, thanks for making this an engaging conversation!

If you decide to begin hiring recent grads, I would be very interested in speaking with you.

Sure, a $5,000 increase on a $40,000 base salary is a big increase when you look at it percentage wise, but in the grand scheme of things, thats not a hell of a lot of additional money in their pocket each month.

When I talk to students who are getting ready to graduate, their biggest concern is money. They want to be able to not have roomates, pay their bills, and pay their student loans. $40,000 doesnt go a long way to do that, especially if you are in an area with high rent.

For a new grad from A&M coming out of Mays with a Bachelors, the lowest average salary is Management at just over $50,000, with an additional $5,000 signing bonus.

Unless you can quantify the additional $10-20k difference with an exceptional benefits package, you will have people jump ship early and often, IMO.

the best thing to do is try to recruit them during their jr/sr year to work part time. Then when they graduate. Pay them fairly, treat them well, and they will stay.
I have had offers in competing industries that paid far more than I make now but I choose to stay at my organization because they paid me 60k right out of college and have invested significant time and effort into making me a better professional. I will gladly accept my raise once I've earned it.

I would also guess that any younger folks you have hired/would hire would feel the need to be challenged frequently. You mentioned a well-defined career track, but my experience is that (1) money is important and (2) titles are important, but (3) feeling rewarded and appreciated is often a function of the personal interactions they have with their direct manager and the types of opportunities they are given to learn new things and demonstrate that the trust you have placed in them is deserved. Obviously no amount of (3) is going to make up for large deficiencies in (1) and (2) compared to the industry average, but it's definitely where I'd focus.

To the folks who think millennials are all about money, my experience has been that some are (and I didn't stress at all when they left) while most care about feeling trusted and given opportunities. When I hired co-ops and interns for my team, the first thing I did was start treating them like I treated the rest of my team (obviously with expectations commensurate with a new person's knowledge) and gave them real tasks to go work. Once they demonstrated they could handle that, I kept pushing and giving them more... and rarely was I disappointed. None of that was part of a "career path" and none of it was formal/any kind of a promotion; it's a mindset and philosophy on how to interact with people.

Do you already have your key value driving employees laser focused in their day to day activities on just those activities that drive value?

If not, you could hire kind of an assistant level of employee to take the routine daily tasks off of their plates completely to allow then to focus on value-added activities. Then you could have fewer of them overall manage the same amount of properties because with the extra time they have and afford to pay each of them more money.

I'll weigh in. Graduated in December 2009. I'm on my 4th company since graduating. Every switch involved a promotion in title and a significant pay raise. I wasn't going to wait for a current employer to offer me something in four years that a new company is/was willing to offer me now. I might look like a job hopper to some, but when they see and hear my comp differences with each move, it's a non-starter and no one can objectively sit across from me in an interview and blame me. Want to keep me happy and with the company long term, pay me today what someone else is willing to pay me tomorrow. It's free agency and if I feel there is a good fit for me, I'm going to the highest bidder.

Jan '10- X (Tech)
June '13- 1.6X (Tech Sales/Marketing Manager)
July '16- 3.5X (Regional Sales/Marketing Manager)
June '17- 5.2X (Division Director)

When's the last time HR took a look at the market rate for those positions? Honestly 40k sounds pretty low even for a HS grad with that kind of experience.

Someone above alluded to basically rethinking the way the position is defined by asking if some of the work could be reassigned to a lower level assistant type position. I'd wager this type of restructuring would be possible if you put your thinking cap on, and may help you justify higher pay for more sophisticated work out of the folks in this particular role. Would even be an excellent opportunity for employee engagement in seeking their input for how things could be set up. What is it you want these people spending their time on and what are they actually spending their time on? What can be reallocated? etc

Got a little story for ya, Ags. When I joined my company 3.5 yrs ago I was by far the most expensive but also most qualified person they had ever hired for that role. I was an experiment for them. The market rate suggested I should be making about what I was asking for but their other folks were making no more than 60% of that. They didn't think their other folks were worth it, but gambled on me partly out of desperation because they couldn't find anyone with my skill set (and I of course used that as leverage to ask for more than I had planned to). They made it pretty clear they had very high expectations due to salary. They quickly realized that while I cost more, I was doing more work and at a higher quality than their other folks and so maybe it was worth it to pay top $$$ for top talent. Ten months later my boss was ousted and I took over the team, and today that team looks nothing like it did 3.5 years ago thanks to 100% turnover (mostly due to previous regime, I inherited a few vacancies and folks irreparably 3/4 out the door over the previous manager). Everyone in the company can see the massive increase in quality and quantity of output and creative critical thinking. And professionalism and team cohesiveness. That hasn't come cheap. Our collective budget for those positions doubled.

Now, I get that most companies cannot double their budget for a group of salaries (we also experienced a lot of growth that allowed that to happen), and I am in a completely different line of work, but my point is that if you pony up the $$$ to hire higher quality people, it's very likely you'll need fewer people to do the same amount of work. And with higher quality employees you get what I call first world employee problems vs the third world problems you are dealing with.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Op, I think property management is just one of these industries that is always going to have high turnover. I've lived in 4 different apartments with different property management companies over the past 6 years, and there is a new face every 6 months or so that is replacing someone. I think it's more indicative of a relatively low skill, low paying industry than it is of you.

Let me ask you, the people you are losing, are they going to other property management companies, or are they leaving the industry entirely? Because if they are leaving for other PM companies, then you probably have an issue to fix within your company. If they are leaving the industry entirely however, employee turnover may just be something you need to budget for in the future.

---

Thank you for 'getting it'. Yes, property management (every type of it) usually comes with higher turnover than other industries. We are very aware of this, budget for it, hire ahead for it, proactively seek indicators, etc. Generally speaking, we have lower turnover and offer higher pay than many others in our industry.

Most leave for other industries, rarely ever to a competitor.

I think this whole conversation has diverted to people wishing to fix our business. Thank you, but that's not what I'm asking. I think I've heard from many grads, but are there any more managers, owners, execs that can share their experience with this dilemma.

I'm simply asking that if we hire fresh-out college grads with no real professional experience, will I get a better investment than if I hire someone with no college degree or an online degree that has had a few years or management experience in a different industry?

Thanks for those that have brought their perspective

Sorry for being a little late to the party but I fit the profile of the employees and the situation at hand. I'll apologize in advance for the long post.

I had an internship my last 2 semesters in school ('16) and upon graduation was converted/promoted to a full time position. I remained in that position for nearly a year after I graduated before I decided to accept a new position elsewhere.

Here is my recommendation for trying to resolve this issue you're having....

Step 1: As someone mentioned earlier you've got to attract before they graduate (So./Jr.) level kids and provide them with an internship or something similiar. Why? Your able to slowly develop them by assigning them specific assignments or projects, this will make them feel some satisfaction about the work they're doing. Additionally, they might be able to recieve credit hours, and be eligible for earlier course registration (doesn't sound like a lot but it is for students).

Step 2: As they approach senior year and they have increased their responsibilities within the company, even though it sounds weird you will want to hire a second intern. Why? The older more experienced intern will be responsible for training and "managing" the newer intern, thus expanding their skill set and reestablishing a sense of accomplishment and importance. The older intern will realize that a full time position is available upon graduation, with more money, coupled with the more responsibilities and the sense of growth potential is critical. Most students that I graduated with or apart of this internship program with me had a deer in the headlights look when May and graduation happen because they didn't know what to do next or couldn't find a job. Thus the older intern will see the opportunity of converting to a full time position as a solid safety net or back up plan until they figure out their next step. Either way you'll have a second intern that has been watching from the bench and is game day ready whenever needed.

In my personal experience I was responsible for a lot of tedious task while an intern but the company's flexibility with my schedule and decent pay made the internship worth it. While trying to sort out my next step, I took the opportunity to move into that full time role. In this position, I was now responsible for managing 5-6 different interns and leading a company wide project with them, good for my skill set and working experience. I had a good relationship with most of these interns and they were able to enjoy the project because it provided a class group project atmosphere for them to work in. Ultimately, my decision to leave was because I knew that job stagnation and limiting factors were awaiting me upon the completion of the project. I left for a small small pay raise simply because the job offered more long term growth for my career. I actually spoke to my former boss this week and she mentioned that several of those interns that worked under me are still on board and they have since finished school.


A family member of mine works high up in a PM corporation and I know from her experiences when she was more involved with entry level positions turnover is simply the nature of the business. I do think there are a lot of opportunities to establish some development program for students/recent grads that ranges from sales, marketing, public relations, legal, finance, management etc. within most PM companies.

This post of yours was more relevant to the conversation than all those words.

OldSoully said:

---

2. I'm a recent grad, the position I'm in is a completely new role within the organization. I've exceeded the "intended" job description, taken on several other roles to assist in anyway possible, and significantly reduced the work load of each VP. Several of these VP's are retiring in the near future, some positions will be replaced completely, other positions will be split between two current employees. I'm concerned that if I hesitate on salary negotiation too long that I'll be overlooked with respects to compensation because of all the senior position shakes up that are coming down the road. I don't want to sound selfish but I'm afraid I'll be stuck with all the responsibilities of a VP, just without the compensation of a VP. In other words, I want my seat at the table lol.

---

Good find!

IrishTxAggie said:

---

I'll weigh in. Graduated in December 2009. I'm on my 4th company since graduating. Every switch involved a promotion in title and a significant pay raise. I wasn't going to wait for a current employer to offer me something in four years that a new company is/was willing to offer me now. I might look like a job hopper to some, but when they see and hear my comp differences with each move, it's a non-starter and no one can objectively sit across from me in an interview and blame me. Want to keep me happy and with the company long term, pay me today what someone else is willing to pay me tomorrow. It's free agency and if I feel there is a good fit for me, I'm going to the highest bidder.

Jan '10- X (Tech)
June '13- 1.6X (Tech Sales/Marketing Manager)
July '16- 3.5X (Regional Sales/Marketing Manager)
June '17- 5.2X (Division Director)

---

Irish I don't see a 'job hopper' career progression here. Looks like you got three years of entry level experience then moved jobs to a role with more responsibilities. Stayed three years at your new role and then jumped again to get more responsibility. Now you're six years in and it looks like a company took your experience seriously and decided to compensate you for your knowledge.

That just looks like an ambitious career path where you did your time learning early on. I've seen some career hoppers. Those guys are moving every year on the dot to a new software development job. No three year stops anywhere.

Anyways, congrats on the career progression.

Thanks. Appreciate the words. I generally don't worry about it or let it bother me, but it has been brought up before and even told an old manager said I wasn't ready after I left and I needed more time. Think it was used as a "CYA" method when asked why I left.