I like to talk in this space about the "global war for talent" - that topic that keeps human resources executives up at night, wondering how to best attract and retain top talent within a company workforce. I like to talk about this issue, and human resources in general, because (as I've noted here before) I strongly believe H.R. is the most important, most strategic business function in the modern corporation.

Almost without fail, when the topic of competing for talent comes up, someone inevitably says "well, EVERYONE is replaceable," like that has something to do with the core topic of avoiding search costs, turnover costs, etc. associated with high turnover. Which it doesn't.

But let's address that statement for a minute:

IS EVERYONE REPLACEABLE?

The politically correct answer, of course, is yes. YES, of course everyone is replaceable. YES, no business is devastated by the loss of one key person. YES, any functional team in business (or any other area of life) can pick up the pieces when someone leaves, and move on.

But is it that simple?

My favorite example here is Michael Jordan, circa 1993, and his impact on the Chicago Bulls. NOW tell me that everyone is replaceable.

The rules of the NBA dictate you can only have five players on the court at once. So, while replacing Michael Jordan on an NBA roster might require two, three, or four individuals to fill those shoes and replace that production, you can't have that many extra people on the court.

In business, this isn't so much of an issue. If one person's loss can only be replaced by adding two people to fill the void, there's only the issue of cost.

There's still a problem, though: if losing a special person requires the hiring of more than one person to fill the void, there's still a FEELING of loss - a nasty pessimism / cynicism - that exists among those left behind within the organization. If that person left, and he/she is so good and so great at what they do, what am I missing by still being here? Those feelings are unavoidable in situations of high turnover, or even low turnover but among key performers. A shadow is cast upon the rest of the group from that point forward. A-level performers should never be put in a position to choose.

So, the business takeaway here is that while everyone is technically replaceable, in reality, this should never be a question that gets asked.

Retention of top talent requires constant paranoia, constant attention, constant asking of "how can we better serve our workforce and make them more productive?" If the question of "is this person actually replaceable?" is a way of life, then the organization has already lost.