Home | www.bchrma.org

Career Postings

View People Portal job postings (updated daily)

Post a Job with BC HRMA


CAN Profiles

Career Advancement Network


Member Profile

Member Referral Program - April Prize Winners

Karen Merritt - CKF Inc.

Beverley Patwell - Patwell Consulting

Elena Romero - HR Professional


Member Services

Volunteers

Blogs

Fireside HR

BC HRMA Online Community


POLL QUESTION
Previous Poll Results
At this time of year, some people refer to a slower pace at work. But with co-workers on vacation, and your own well-earned time off, is this really the case: How would you describe your workload this summer?

Lighter:
43%


Heavier:
35%


About the same:
22%


Other:
0%

Issue:17 Vol:5  Aug 20, 2009

« Home

» Research Voice

The Mystery of the Ideal Turnover Rate

Post a Comment | Read Comments (5)
Share |

Helen Luketic, CHRP

Most of us believe that some amount of voluntary turnover is ideal.  After all, if a poorly performing employee chooses to leave on their own accord, it avoids the cost and pain of documentation, perhaps severance pay or other legal costs, and of course the actual act of firing someone is completely avoided.  Then there is the other logic that when employees leave, it provides the opportunity to bring in fresh talent.  Practically speaking, staff come and go to live out their own lives, be it that they are returning to school, spending time with family, or travelling.

 

HR folks know instinctively that turnover shouldn’t be 0%.  So, what is the ideal amount of voluntary turnover?  The April 2009 issue of the Academy of Management Journal featured the article “Searching for the Optimal Level of Employee Turnover”.  The paper states that the optimal level of turnover maximizes the difference between its benefits and costs - perhaps not as simple of an answer as we had hoped!

 

While there are undoubtedly costs to turnover, the total cost depends on the job and the performance level of the individual doing the job.  The benefits of turnover vary, too.  For example, if we consider a poorly performing employee, the benefits of them leaving may be higher than the cost. On the other hand, when you lose a star performer the costs outweigh the benefits.  When you lose a valuable employee, this is considered “dysfunctional turnover”.  This type of turnover is the one that management wants to prevent the most.

 

Benefits of Turnover > Costs of Turnover
= functional turnover

Costs of Turnover > Benefits of Turnover
= dysfunctional turnover

 

In this particular study, the researchers discovered that there is no optimal level of turnover for full-time employees.  In fact, they found that 0% was the ideal voluntary turnover rate simply because the loss of productivity was too great when any employee left, regardless of whether or not they were a performing employee.

 

Feel free to disagree with the results.  When calculating the cost of turnover, researchers only included the cost of losing knowledge, the resources spent on training and on lost productivity.  The research did not account for costs such as loss in morale, loss in sales and customers due to poor performance, and legal costs associated with terminating an employee.  In other words, when determining if benefits to terminating were greater than costs, they didn’t paint a complete and realistic picture.

 

Research also shows that part-time staff tend to have a higher rate of voluntary turnover than full-time staff.  Part-time staff tend to be more transient and less committed to the organization.  In turn, less resources are spent on recruitment and selection, so the chances of hiring a non-performer are greater.  In this case, it’s reasonable to have a higher turnover rate for part-time staff.  However, while part-timers have a higher rate of voluntary turnover, their cost of turnover is less.  Often, part-timers tend to receive less training and as mentioned, there is less investment in the recruitment and selection process than for their full-time counterparts.

 

Here are offer some real world recommendations based on this research to discover your own organization’s “ideal” voluntary turnover rate:

  • Spend a year collecting the voluntary turnover figures for your organization to get a sense of how turnover fluctuates throughout the year (internal benchmarking).  Track turnover either on a monthly or quarterly basis.  Where possible, collect this data from previous years to get a sense of the trend (internal benchmarking).
  • Benchmark with competitors to learn the industry/sector norm (external benchmarking).
  • Once you have the internal and external benchmark, decide what is your own acceptable range of voluntary turnover, perhaps one range for full-timers and another higher one for part-timers.
  • Segment your workforce so you can focus on the numbers that really matter.  Calculate voluntary turnover for high performers as this is considered the most dysfunctional type of turnover.  Ideally, you want to use your resources towards minimizing turnover for high performance employees.
  • Calculate turnover by different cuts:  job level, department, location, age group, gender, length of service.  Determine where the voluntary turnover rate spikes and if the turnover is acceptable or dysfunctional.
  • Keep tabs on your local unemployment rate under the theory that as jobs become more available, you can expect your turnover rate to increase. 

Ultimately, each organization needs to decide for itself what voluntary turnover targets are acceptable to them.  One number certainly doesn’t fit all and most importantly, it’s now clear that you cannot have just one target range for your entire workforce. 

 

About the Author:
Helen Luketic, CHRP, is the manager of HR Metrics & Research at BC HRMA. She is the winner of the 2007/2008 Rising Star award for her significant contribution to the developing field of HR measurement. Helen is focused on sharing this knowledge with BC HRMA members through workshops, articles and the HR Metrics Service.  Check out her blog at  http://hrblogatresearchvoice.wordpress.com

Contact: Helen Luketic, HR knowledge & research associate, 604.694.6945
 
 

Post a Comment | Read Comments (5)
Print this story
Email this story
RSS Feeds
 
SOHO
Northern Symposium

No part of the HRVoice.org may be copied or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of the British Columbia Human Resources Management Association (BC HRMA®).

If you are interested in reprinting an article from HRVoice.org please contact hrvoice@bchrma.org.


Story Comments (5)

 
Hughe Wilkinson wrote:

tracking tuirnover may be useful if done thoughtfully as suggested in the article. But with limited resorces in a company and HR dept., might it be more effective to track why staff stay. internal reasons to stay want to don't want to external have to stay stay reasons to stay don't have to stay leave Each stay group of employees has its own characteristics and needs.

Posted Aug 20, 2009 at 09:06:42 AM PDT
Hughe Wilkinson wrote:

My first post does not display the way I intended so its confusing. Sorry about that. Each employee has internal reasons to stay - want to or don't want to - and external reasons to stay - have to or don't have to. This creates roughly 4 groups. 1) want to stay and have to stay - stay (like my job and need a job). 2) Don't want to stay but have to stay - stay (hate my job but need this job). 3) Want to stay but don't have to stay - stay (like my job but can go elsewhere). 4) Don't want to stay and don't have to stay - leave ( hate my job and can go elsewhere). Each type of "stay" group has different needs and characteristics. And indiviual abilities to realistically assess their own situation varies. But if we can address the needs of each "stay" group we might be able to acheive a better turnover rate.

Posted Aug 20, 2009 at 09:23:18 AM PDT
Helen Luketic wrote:

Good point, Hughe. Ideally, we would have lots of budget and time to measure and act on everything! This research suggests that no amount of voluntary turnover is good and that losing even one employee will have a negative effect on productivity. In other words, losing an employee costs more than keeping even a poor performing and disengaged employee. So, given a limited budget and resources, the conclusion from the research is to first focus on stemming dysfunctional turnover and then focus on boosting productivity/engagement second. To stem turnover, do you measure why people stay or do you measure why people leave? Research on job embeddness shows that if you measure this form of employee job satisfaction with current employees, it will predict turnover. I've contacted the academics that have researched job embededdness and have been told that they haven't yet seen an employee survey that uses this exact methodology. Perhaps the easiest way to start then is to simply ask employees why they left. It's proven methodology that's been around for years, it can be made efficient with few resources. Outsourcing exit interviews can typically be less expensive than retention surveys. Those are my thoughts but would love to hear others.

Posted Aug 20, 2009 at 10:03:46 AM PDT
Kellie wrote:

Hello Helen I am surprised that the research indicates keeping a poor performing and disengaged employee costs less than turnover in the long run. I think that exit interviews are valuable only if they are actually used to improve on the way an organization manages its people and changes what needs to be changed to discourage turnover. I've seen exit interviews used at nearly every place I have been and yet I have never seen the information put to good use. Doing internal surveys would be the measurement for why people stay I suppose; but again, what to do with the information...

Posted Aug 21, 2009 at 09:05:25 PM PDT
Helen Luketic wrote:

Hi Kellie. Your comment is spot on! Everyone talks about lack of resources, which is likely why no one actually does anything with exit/engagement results. On the flipside, you're wasting further resources by collecting data and metrics and not doing anything with them. Plus, you're doing damage by asking employees for input and then not actioning on it.

Posted Aug 24, 2009 at 12:38:00 PM PDT

Post a Comment

Name
Email

Comment

Please note comments will be moderated or deleted if offensive.
Copyright 2008 BC HRMA. All Rights reserved.   Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Subscribe | Unsubscribe