Turnover report

Leslie · August 2004

For the first time I am being asked to create one of these for the year 2003. Any help out there?

Don D · August 2004

Are you asking how to come up with a turnover RATE? Keep a running report by month. The spreadsheet should show average available number of employee positions (slots, staffing pattern, etc) and the number filled by month, and accessions and departures. The number of total job slots in the staffing pattern/allocation divided into the number of departures that month equals the turnover rate. Decide what you want to discount from the calculation, like retirements, deaths, whatever, to get your true turnover percentage. This report, like most, has about as much relevance as the guy being called average who has his head in a 400 degree oven and his feet in a pan of ice water. The people looking at and judging this information usually are 'conclusion jumpers' and have little understanding about what you do and how you do it. Typically they are accountant types and VPs of things like marketing and customer service.

Leslie · August 2004

Does that also pertain to operational auditors? Because that's who asked for this stupid thing.

System · August 2004

The calculation that Don provided is the standard accepted method. I eliminate deaths, terminations for violation of company policy, people who resign for relocation, those not returning from maternity leave, and retiree from the number used for separated employees. But, as Don said, the rate is virtually useless without a narrative that follows the numbers. It's easy to produce the report monthly. I do a monthly report that is broken down by department and one that incorporates the entire staff. Then I sit in an hour-long meeting and read it to the head hanchos anyway.

You can set up a spreadsheet in Excel and simply enter different numbers each month.

ray a · August 2004

I also eliminate those still the 90 day Introductory Period who leave for whatever reason.

Don D · August 2004

My God! Who's left? Turnover rates should certainly include, maybe most importantly, those who don't make it through probation. That may be the one most significant place to take a look at your turnover. Those leaving for all other reasons can easily be explained away. The introductory period should be microscopically examined if that's where the ship is leaking.

System · August 2004

Our particular leadership is interested in who we are losing to competition. Funny, huh? So my report also gets to define 'competition.' Each month my narrative gets longer and longer and long. . . . . (sigh).

ray a · August 2004

Nope, when measuring turnover, we exclude the 90-Day Wonders but include everyone else. The Introductory Period is a time to weed out those who just aren't going to cut it, so it is expected most of our losses will come from that catagory, especially during hiring modes. But, many of those losses may be a blessing in disguise. We are more interested in the turnover rate of our "full time" ee's - those who have successfully completed their probation and have established a track record. Those are the one's we have the most invested in - there is minimal investment in an ee who has been here less than 90 days. Guess it all depends on why you take the measurement.

Leslie · August 2004

What I did was include the 90 dayers but then showed the percentage of terms that they were...last year a whopping 40.97 percent. We're doing much better this year, down to 31.17 percent.

Don D · August 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-05-04 AT 02:30PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Right on Leslie! Carefully examining what Ray calls the 90 day wonders will also red flag a bad hiring process. Maybe Ray has steered the report away from that level of scrutiny. Good thinking Ray. x:-)

Examining the initial employment period, in my judgement, is critical. It shows poor hiring practices, bad selections, vague recruitment ads, perhaps a need for beefed up training for the large number who couldn't grasp it, perhaps a need to look at an accelerated pay scale early on, a need to better define job descriptions, supervisors who have little patience with greenies and a multitude of other things. You lose 30-40-50% of your new hires and somebody better be purchasing some microscopes.

(edit) another related, and even more challenging, thing to look closely at is what percentage of your comp accidents are occuring during the initial employment period. This is typically equally as alarming.

Leslie · August 2004

Last year, I believe (and hope) was an anomoly. The state compact gave casinos a new table game (black jack) and experienced dealers didn't exist in Arizona. We had our own school and some people got it. A bunch didn't. Another bunch got highjacked by other casinos because of their "experience" (three or less months - some experience!). Thus, almost 41%.

I know our current rate seems high, but working on a casino floor is a different animal - the vast majority of our customers are losing money, and not particularly happy about it either. Either someone is cut out for it or not. Either we realize it or the employee does, and usually quite quickly.

TN HR · August 2004

I agree that you need to look at your "within probationary period" attrition. This is perhaps the most critical.

In Scott's defense, however, I would say that it really does depend on what you are trying to gain from the report. If the bulk of your new hires includes low-level un-skilled positions and your recruiting strategy involves throwing s&^%$ against the wall and hoping it sticks, then, by all means, <90 day attrition is irrelevant.

Gene

Don D · August 2004

I'm not sure I follow the 'unskilled, low-level positions' and 'throwing money at the wall'. Maybe I missed something. I even missed Scott's post.

Tish · August 2004

Up until I moved into HR no one knew what our turn over rate was. I was amazed at the revolving door, especially in some departments. After my first year I produced numbers for each department/supervisor. I put together "cute" little comparison charts between the departments and for this location as a whole. Once everyone saw the numbers they were blown away.

That was 5 years ago and the department with the worst turnover is now the second best! It took the supervisor seeing it in black and white to "see" that he had a problem.

In that sense it was certainly worth my time compiling and presenting the information on a yearly basis.

TN HR · August 2004

>I agree that you need to look at your "within
>probationary period" attrition. This is perhaps
>the most critical.
>
>In Scott's defense, however, I would say that it
>really does depend on what you are trying to
>gain from the report. If the bulk of your new
>hires includes low-level un-skilled positions
>and your recruiting strategy involves throwing
>s&^%$ against the wall and hoping it sticks,
>then, by all means, <90 day attrition is
>irrelevant.
>
>Gene

Whew! Must've been rough yeterday. I can't believe what I typed! I was actually referring to Ray's post on the <90 day attrition. What I meant is that depending on the position and other relevant information, this type of early turn-over may be irrelevant. There are certain positions which, again, depending on your business, objectives, etc, could have a pre-determined level of turn-over early on in which case looking at it other than on a top-line basis is irrelevant.

Sorry for my confusing first post.

ray a · August 2004

That's OK TN HR, Don confuses me with Scott also. I attribute that to his advanced age.

Turnover report

Comments