Most businesses define a certain level of turnover that is normal and
acceptable if not even desirable. In many instances, a healthy exit of
employees presents opportunities for phasing out unnecessary positions,
hiring less expensive replacements and infusing innovation by obtaining
employees with more current training and education. And, often the
organization can consider more attractive staffing options such as
outsourcing, the use of temporary employees and overtime that provide the
ability to more cost efficiently accommodate cyclical labor demand caused
by economic conditions, seasonality, etc. than do full-time workers.
On the other hand, undesirable rates of attrition or the exit of
needed employees can be extraordinarily expensive and unproductive. First,
the cost of the exit can be expensive both in terms of separation and
vacancy costs. There are administrative costs to process the employee's
exit and productivity losses for the interval is takes to hire and train a
replacement. Further, recruitment costs such as advertising, fees for job
search agencies, time and money spent on interviews, sign-on bonuses and re-
location fees easily add up to considerable sums of money. Highly
specialized job functions may be difficult to acquire and a business may
have to pay a higher salary for the replacement employee. Training is
expensive and it may take some time for the new employee to acquire the
company-specific intellectual capital that the previous employee learned
after years of service with the company. Last, but not least, large
amounts of unwanted turnover may negatively impact employee morale, causing
a viscous cycle of even more turnover.
In summary, a 100-percent retention policy is not beneficial to most
organizations. Instead, businesses must make all efforts to retain the
right employees while recognizing that the attrition of other employees is
...