One topic that really stood out to me from the readings is employee retention and talent management. In a traditional sense, HR would mainly respond to turnover by handling the administrative sideposting jobs, hiring replacements, or maybe offering small incentives to keep people from leaving. While that approach is quick and straightforward, it doesn't really address the bigger picture. Strategic HR, on the other hand, looks at retention as a way to build long-term organizational strength by aligning people practices with business goals (Stewart & Brown, 2020).

A real-world example could be seen in tech companies that struggle with software engineer turnover. A traditional approach might be to raise salaries or improve benefits packages. Those can work in the short run, but they often don't solve deeper issues like limited career growth or lack of engagement. A strategic approach would use workforce analytics and career development plans to better understand why employees are leaving and how to keep them aligned with organizational objectives. This connects with McElfresh's point in the Walden University (2011) video about using metricsnot just to measure HR activity, but to link those measurements directly to business performance.

The strength of traditional HR is that it's fast and relatively easy to implement, but its weakness is the short-term focus. Strategic HR's strength is its long-term alignment with organizational success, though it does require more resources and leadership buy-in (Wright & Ulrich, 2017). In the end, the strategic approach tends to build a healthier, more sustainable workplace.

Respond to two or more of your colleagues' postings in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question related to your colleague's chosen approach.

Share an insight from having read your colleague's posting.