Some Thoughts on Boomerang Employees

Written By Brad Harris

Media mentions of boomerang employees—people that leave an employer only to return later—are hot right now. LinkedIn posted some recent data suggesting boomerang hires ticked up as a % of overall hiring, and a separate survey by UKG reported that 43% of people that quit their job during the pandemic may be less-than-thrilled about their move. But what should we make of boomerangs, both from the employee and employer side? Is it a good idea to return to an old employer? Is trying to recruit/hire old employees a good (or even just viable) talent strategy?

If it were possible to be famous for not having hot takes, that would probably be my claim. As someone who has been on research teams that have investigated boomerangs, and as someone that has peer reviewed other academic work in this space, my answer to all of the questions above is “it depends.” For example, one recent study of a large professional services firm suggested that boomerang employees may realize some personal benefits (higher pay and satisfaction) by returning, but their actual job performance may not be all that different from other similar employees in the organization. Separately, my work on NBA players and other scholars’ examination of a large healthcare corporation show that only in certain circumstances do boomerangs yield additional value for organizations. Alas, to my knowledge none of the current academic research so far addresses whether (or how) boomerangs can realize personal value or create meaningful organizational value in a still-tight labor market after an incredible pandemic that led to unprecedented turnover levels. So, we’ll see?

Before I link to some recent articles on this topic, I want to put a few things into perspective. First, one spin you could put on the LinkedIn hiring data I mentioned above is that boomerangs accounted for 15% more hiring in 2021 than they did in 2019! Holy cow! Alas, % change data can be deceptive...this figure is based on boomerangs making up 4.5% of hires in 2021 versus 3.9% in 2019. So, we're still talking about a very modest overall percentage of hiring and less than a 1% increase in total hires accounted for in a 2 year period. Point: We still have a lot to learn!

Second, and this is something you can pull out for your next HR department trivia night, the term boomerang employee is newer than the phenomenon itself. Military re-enlistment programs, for instance, are an example of a boomerang employment strategy that has been around for many decades. Same goes for programs that bring teachers or nurses back after retirements or leaves. So, if you really wanted to chew into some historical lessons of what works and what doesn’t, there might be more to draw from than we typically think!

A final and more substantive issue I worry we’re missing in popular press discussions is that for many companies, especially some of those that are in rapid growth/scale-up mode, there simply aren’t enough potential boomerangs to warrant a dedicated “strategy.” Moreover, if you assume that a lot of people leave organizations because there was some substantial misfit, that pool gets even smaller. So, if you’re trying to double your headcount, should you really be scouring LinkedIn for people that left versus “fishing where the fish are?” I guess “it depends” wins again, but I wouldn’t count on easy shortcuts over other tried-and-true (but still challenging) talent acquisition strategies.

So, my conclusion is that when it comes to boomerangs, victory will go to the critical thinkers rather than those looking to follow buzzy trends. Now, hypocritically, here are some of my thoughts and citations featured in buzzy media pieces (I kid…many of these are actually quite thoughtful!):

Brad Harris
Previous

Layoffs stink, but there’s right (and wrong) ways to execute them.
Next

Enjoy your seat at the table, HR, but don’t take it for granted…