Comments on: Turnover (Not Apple or Cherry, Unfortunately)

By: Kerouac

Kerouac — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:58:32 +0000

The “cut-raises-to-increase-attrition” is a bad strategy because the first people to go will be the ones who can get the money they’re looking for elsewhere. Anyone who’s underworked and overpaid is likely to ride it out awhile.

By: -

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:13:24 +0000

Training of the last 2 employees in my departments was done totally by me, so I don’t agree with the it-is-expensive-to-train rationale to not let someone go (that may hold in a call center, for example). The cost was a personal one for me, longer hours, stress, and having to make decisions for them until they had enough information to make them themselves. I work with someone who lets so much money slip through their hands, but it is $ that the company never earned, so corporate does not see it. At our level, not pursuing all of that easy-to-get extra revenue should be considered a mistake worthy of some sort of sanction. Even if it cost alot to replace him, I would like to see him go.

By: Figure 8

Figure 8 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:57:00 +0000

So was the typo “Circut City” a Freudian slip?

By: pawnking

pawnking — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:40:00 +0000

An excellent post, EHRL.

By: Evil HRISguy

Evil HRISguy — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:19:00 +0000

One of the problems with turnover statistics/rates/etc is that management will often focus on the overall percent change from one period to another , and not on the fact that a portion of that percent might be a good thing.

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:05:00 +0000

lea–but their lack of good products comes from having the wrong people on board. They were so good at retention that many people, unlike your father, knew they’d have a job for life so they didn’t change with the market.

With the right people, they’d have different products.

By: HR Wench

HR Wench — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:54:00 +0000

Promoting good turn over by decreasing annual raises in targeted departments is a weak strategy in my opinion.

Of course how to tackle the project depends upon the company culture, the “legacy” of former leaders, size, current policies, etc. Not knowing anything about the organization…I am inclined to think HR should work with the managers of the targeted depts to identify employees that need to be managed out of the company via performance management/progressive discipline or layoff. Of course those situations cost money – but so does waiting for Bobby Joe in AR who has worked there 20 years to get fed up enough to quit on you. Low morale leads to more workers comp claims, performance issues, higher healthcare experience ratings, FMLA use/abuse and so on and so forth. Plus, I just like the idea of a more direct, laser like approach.

By: Founder: Lea Setegn

Founder: Lea Setegn — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:31:00 +0000

Evil, you've struck a topic close to MY heart -- Kodak. I'm from Rochester and I grew up in Kodak Park. My Dad worked at Kodak for 30+ years; he took the early retirement buyout in 2004.

My Dad is from Ethoipia, and when he came here in 1973, everyone in Rochester told him to get a job with Kodak and he'd be set for life. Then came the layoffs. From 1983 through 2004, my Mom worried that Dad would be the next to get laid off, which was not a fun way to live. Dad kept his skills updated and changed areas of the company every 5 to 8 years or so, eventually becoming a computer specialist. He stayed viable even while Kodak did not.

The destruction of the neighborhood where I grew up breaks my heart, because it's also the destruction of Rochester. The city is dying -- there are few jobs available, tons of houses are for sale, and businesses everywhere that relied on Kodak employees are closing.

From my perspective, it wasn't Kodak's attitude toward wages and benefits that was the problem -- it was the company's inability to change its products for the times. Kodak made its money from film, not cameras, and digital technology has made film all but obsolete. Could you make the argument that new blood in Kodak might have helped execs see the handwriting on the wall sooner? Perhaps. But Kodak also had something like four CEOs in a decade -- now that's some bad turnover. There was no consistent leadership at the top, no vision. Perhaps another problem was that Kodak failed to grow its own CEO.

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:12:00 +0000

dean dad–I knew I should have asked your opinion.

By: Dean Dad

Dean Dad — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:54:00 +0000

Anybody who thinks turnover is always a bad thing is invited to manage tenured faculty for a while.

"But we've always done it that way" is almost a religion.