How to Avoid High Turnover

INTRODUCTION
‘Employee turnover is a ratio comparison of the number of employees a company must replace in a given time period to the average number of total employees.”
In the recent years Operation department of Caulfield Racecourse experienced problems associated with high turnover, which is a pervasive and serious issue resulting in high direct expenditure as well as intangible costs, low performance level and job dissatisfaction.
Operation department is looking after large numbers of employees: event managers and supervisors, administration and operation assistants, staff coordinators, caterers, set up teams, cleaners.
The problem is not the lack of job applicants: the company receives endless stream of applications. The problem is that the quality employees are hard to keep. The talented employees do not stay for long before they get employed somewhere else.
As an Operation Manager Executive Assistant the author has been asked to examine and analyse factors that may impact on staff turnover. Applying a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques (form of structured questionnaire) to determine the reasons why workers leave their jobs at Operation department, this research tries to identify the root causes of job dissatisfaction leading to turnover and provides managerial implications that may assist managers in dealing with labor-related risks. 1.1 Objectives
This report is identified to achieve the following objectives: 1. To identify general factors that may cause high turnover within Operation department. 2. To examine and analyse levels of staff job satisfaction. 3. To suggest some measures in order to improve overall job satisfaction, performance and reduce high turnover. 1.2 Methodology * Structured questionnaire (consist of multiple choices, ranking and descriptive questions).
The survey method was selected to gather primary data by administering the structured questionnaire among the employee in Operation department of Caulfield racecourse. The questionnaire is chosen because of its simplicity and reliability. We can expect a straight answer, which is directly related to the questions asked. Interpretation of data under this can also be done correctly.
The data will be presented and analysed with Excel tables (over the data collected) and charts. * Secondary data:
Publications, journals, internet surveys
AN OVERVIEW OF FACTORS WHICH MAY IMPACT HIGH TURNOVER
Factors causing staff turnover are diverse, have different sources, the strength of their influence is different, variable and often difficult to quantify. We will explore some of these factors in more detail below. 1. Low wages are the most common reasons for employees to quit their jobs. With the growing prices, employees are searching for better outcome. 2. The performance of the organisation. An organisation perceived to be in economic difficulty will also raise the specter of impending layoffs. Workers believe that it is rational to seek other employment. 3. The organisational culture. Much has been written about organisational culture. It is sufficient to note here that the reward system, the strength of leadership, the ability of the organisations to elicit a sense of commitment on the part of workers, and its development of a sense of shared goals, among other factors, will influence such indices of job satisfaction as turnover intentions and turnover rate. 4. The characteristics of the job. Some jobs are intrinsically more attractive than others. A job 's attractiveness will be affected by many characteristics, including its repetitiveness, challenge, danger, perceived importance, and capacity to elicit a sense of accomplishment. A job 's status is also important, as are many other factors. 5. Unrealistic expectations. Another factor is the unrealistic expectations and general lack of knowledge that many job applicants have about the job at the time that they receive an offer. When these unrealistic expectations are not realised, the worker becomes disillusioned and decides to quit. 6. Demographics. Empirical studies have demonstrated that turnover is associated in particular situations with demographic and biographical characteristics of workers. But to use lifestyle factors (e.g. smoking) or past employment history (e.g. many job changes) as an explicit basis for screening applicants, it is important for legality and fairness to job applicants to verify such biodata empirically. 7. The person. In addition to the factors listed above, there are also factors specific to the individual that can influence turnover rates. These include both personal and trait-based factors. Personal factors include things such as changes in family situation, a desire to learn a new skill or trade, or an unsolicited job offer. In addition to these personal factors, there are also trait-based or personality features that are associated with turnover. These traits are some of the same characteristics that predict job performance and counterproductive behaviors such as loafing, absenteeism, theft, substance abuse on the job, and sabotage of employer 's equipment or production. These traits can be measured and used in employee screening to identify individuals showing lower probability of turnover.
It is important to note that the factors we have listed above can be classified as being within or beyond the control of the employing organisation. In order to actively participate in reducing costs associated with turnover, organisations need to identify those factors over which they do have some control and initiate necessary changes to reduce turnover attributable to these "controllable" factors.
There is a large body of academic research supporting the intuitive contention that people who are satisfied with their jobs and committed to their employing organisation are more likely to stay than those who are not. 1. -------------------------------------------------
JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS
“Job satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job, an affective reaction to one’s job, and an attitude towards one’s job”.
For a detailed analysis of high turnover it is necessary to examine level of job satisfaction. For this purpose we have created a structured questionnaire which has been given to all levels of employees during operation and staff meetings. As a result we have collected 207 filled questionnaires. After long hours of sorting and word processing we have decided to divide available data in two main groups: general and detailed examination of data. 2.1 General Information Analysis 1. Age Distribution
These table and chart show age distribution in five employment groups under study. They allow us to determine age distribution and dominating age range for each of the five employment groups. Position level | Total | Age group | | | | 18-24 | 25-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-70 | Managerial/Supervisory | 37 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 15 | 6 | Administrative/Secretarial | 11 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | Caterers | 55 | 24 | 14 | 9 | 4 | 4 | Set up | 47 | 17 | 21 | 6 | 3 | 0 | Cleaners | 57 | 27 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 3 |
Table 1 Age Distribution

Figure 1 Age Distribution Chart

From the data displayed in the above chart we may draw the following conclusions: * The Managerial/Supervisory group is clearly dominated by the representatives of 40-50 age range followed closely by 30-40. * The Administrative/Secretarial group is dominated by 25-30 age group, followed by 30-40. * The Caterers are dominated by the youngest range of 18-24, followed by 25-30. * The Set Up employment category is also dominated by the younger people: 25-30 coming first with the 18-25 range close second. * The Cleaners include the youngest range of 18-24 in the first place and the oldest (40-50) as the second.
On the whole these conclusions demonstrate that the Operation Department has a fairly young team of employees most of whom would be interested in growth and development.
2. Length of Service
Here we look at the length of service in the five employment groups under study. The data on the length of service is presented in the table and chart below: Position level | Total | Duration of employment | | | Less then 6 month | 6m-1 year | 1 - 3 years | 3 - 5 years | 5 - 10 years | Managerial/Supervisory | 37 | 0 | 8 | 16 | 10 | 3 | Administrative/Secretarial | 11 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Caterers | 55 | 39 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Set up | 47 | 18 | 20 | 6 | 3 | 0 | Cleaners | 57 | 43 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Table 2 Length of Service
Here our task is to determine predominating length of service for each of the five employment groups.

Figure 2 Length of Service Chart

According to the data presented we can establish that: * In the Managerial/Supervisory group the most prevalent length of service is 1-3years, followed by 3-5 years. This indicates that this group is not suffering from high staff turnover. * The Administrative/Secretarial group comprises mostly the people working between 6 months to 1 year, followed by 1-3 years. This indicates that there may be a higher exposure to staff turnover in this group than in the Managerial/Supervisory group. Further analysis may help us identify the factors influencing turnover in this group of employees. * The Caterers are very much dominated by the shortest serving people (up to 6months), with the 6 months to 1 year coming in the second place. This may be the cause for alarm, as it points to very high staff turnover in this employment group. We should closely examine job dissatisfaction among the members of this group. * The Set Up group comprises almost equal numbers of people serving for 6 to 12 months and serving for less than 6 months. Like the Caterers groups, the Set Up group may be experiencing high staff turnover, which warrants further look at the job dissatisfaction in this employment group. * The last group, the Cleaners, has the highest numbers of employees working for less than 6 months. We shall have to contemplate the reasons for the high turnover in this group further. .
Thus, we have established that the Cleaners and the Caterers have the highest turnover rates, followed by the Set Up group of employees. 3.2 Detailed Analysis
In this section we are analysing the reasons for job dissatisfaction in each employment group. At the end we shall collate our findings and draw conclusions about the underlying reasons for dissatisfaction and, as a result, staff turnover in each group. 1. Job security
With the help of the table below we shall juxtapose the level of job security satisfaction in each employment group. Position level | Very satisfied | Satisfied | Neither satisifed or dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Very dissatisfied | Managerial/Supervisory | 24 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Administrative/Secretarial | 0 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Caterers | 2 | 9 | 2 | 24 | 18 | Set up | 0 | 4 | 1 | 17 | 25 | Cleaners | 15 | 28 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
Table 3 Job Security

The results for job security satisfaction are visualised in the chart below:

Figure 3 Job Security Chart
We may draw the following conclusions: * The Managerial/Supervisory group is very satisfied with the job security they have. This means that job security concerns do not cause staff turnover in this group. * The Administrative/Secretarial group also does not show signs of concern for job security. * The Caterers are obviously worried about their job security. This may be a factor contributing to staff turnover in this group. * The Set Up employees are extremely worried about the job security. This makes people to look for alternative jobs causing high turnover rates. * Conversely, the Cleaners are by and large contented with the job security they have.
Clearly the Set Up group has the highest concern for their job security, followed by the Caterers. For the other three groups job security is not an important factor contributing to staff turnover. 2. Workload
With the help of the table below we shall juxtapose the workload perceptions for each of the five employment groups. Position level | Workload | | | To high | To low | Just right | Managerial/Supervisory | 31 | 0 | 6 | Administrative/Secretarial | 6 | 0 | 5 | Caterers | 4 | 39 | 12 | Set up | 0 | 41 | 6 | Cleaners | 8 | 7 | 43 |
Table 4 Workload

Figure 4 Workload Chart
The above table and chart allows us to make the following observations: * The Managerial/Supervisory group is obviously unhappy about the high workload and long working hours, as the answer “Workload is to high” clearly dominates. This reason, therefore, may be a cause for staff turnover in this group. * The Administrative/Secretarial group is on average happier about their workload. * The Caterers and Set Up groups largely answered that their workload is too low. This may reflect the sporadic nature of their work at the racecourse. Low workload perception may also cause staff turnover. * Finally, the Cleaners are generally happy with their workload.
We may conclude that the Managerial/Supervisory group is dissatisfied with their high workload, while the Caterers and Set Up groups think that they do not have enough work. Both situations need improvement in order to lower staff turnover. 3. Remuneration Perceptions
In this section we examine the pay level satisfaction among the employees.
The table below reflects the questionnaire results for the five groups under study. Position level | Remuneration | | Fair | Not fair | Managerial/Supervisory | 31 | 6 | Administrative/Secretarial | 8 | 3 | Caterers | 47 | 8 | Set up | 40 | 7 | Cleaners | 47 | 10 |
Table 5 Remuneration Perceptions
The results are visualised in the following chart:

Figure 5 Remuneration Perceptions Chart
Clearly the vast majority of the employees in each of the five groups are satisfied with their remuneration. Therefore, this should not cause staff turnover in any of the groups. 4. Job characteristic
The following table and chart show how many of the employees agree that their job is challenging and stimulating. This illustrates the staff attitude towards their work. Position level | 1 | 2 | 3 | | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Managerial/Supervisory | 12 | 13 | 12 | Administrative/Secretarial | 2 | 5 | 4 | Caterers | 36 | 18 | 1 | Set up | 27 | 15 | 5 | Cleaners | 14 | 32 | 11 |
Table 6 Job Characteristic

Figure 6 Job Characteristic Chart
The chart shows that the Caterers and Set Up groups mostly agree that the job they are doing is challenging and stimulating. At the same time the other groups demonstrate more neutral average attitude. It is hard to say, how important this attitude in the staff turnover problem. 5. Management Cooperation The following table and chart show staff attitude towards higher management cooperation (question: The management of Operation department is always open to ideas and suggestions offered by the employees) Position level | Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Managerial/Supervisory | 26 | 9 | 2 | 0 | Administrative/Secretarial | 2 | 8 | 1 | 0 | Caterers | 17 | 31 | 6 | 1 | Set up | 13 | 29 | 5 | 0 | Cleaners | 16 | 14 | 17 | 10 |
Table 7 Management Cooperation

Figure 7 Management Cooperation Chart
It is clear that the only group that shows some dissatisfaction with their management is the Cleaners. However, this dissatisfaction is not very significant. The other groups are largely happy with their management responsiveness and cooperation. 6. Job promotion
The last aspect dealt within this study is the staff satisfaction with their promotion and growth opportunities. These data are reflected in the table and chart below. Position level | Satisfied | Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Managerial/Supervisory | 6 | 9 | 22 | Administrative/Secretarial | 7 | 3 | 1 | Caterers | 39 | 6 | 10 | Set up | 28 | 14 | 5 | Cleaners | 17 | 34 | 6 |
Table 8 Job Promotion

Figure 8 Job Promotion Chart
The chart illustrates the following: * The Managerial/Supervisory group (as was also the case with the workload question) is the only one showing significant dissatisfaction with promotion opportunities. This may increase staff turnover in this group. * The Cleaners remain largely indifferent, while the remaining employees are satisfied with their promotion opportunities.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the study reported in the previous chapter we may conclude the following: a) The Managerial/Supervisory group is not satisfied with their workload and growth/promotion opportunities. These are the two causes of elevated staff turnover in the Managerial/Supervisory group In addition, many in this group do not consider their job challenging, stimulating and rewarding. b) The Administrative/Secretarial group shows satisfaction in all aspects of their job. Perhaps some representatives of this group, like the managers, do not consider their job challenging, stimulating and rewarding. c) The Caterers: this group is unhappy about their job security, and they consider their workload insufficient. d) The same applies to the Set Up group: this group is unhappy about their job security, and they consider their workload insufficient. e) The Cleaners are unhappy about their management cooperation. This may be the cause for staff turnover in this group of employees.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above conclusions we may offer the following recommendations:
The staff survey should be conducted on a regular basis. This will help to follow staff grievances and uncover the causes for staff turnover and to lower it. In addition: 1. The workload and operating schedules must be reviewed. The workload should be alleviated for the Managerial/Supervisory group, while the Caterers and Set Up groups should be given adequate and more regular higher workload. The latter may require casual staff reduction. 2. The Managerial/Supervisory group should be given better growth/promotion opportunities and, perhaps, additional job training. 3. The Caterers, Set Up groups should be given better job security. This also may be achieved through casual staff reduction. 4. The managerial responsiveness and cooperation with the Cleaners should be improved.

5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

* Mobley, W. H. 1982, Employee turnover: causes, consequences, and control,
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. * Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. 2003, Strategy and Human Resource Management, 2nd edn, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. * Moon, P. 2002, Appraising Your Staff, 2nd edn, London: Kogan Page. 52-79. * Abelson, M. A. 1987, ‘Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,pp. 382-386. * Mueller, C.W., Price, J.L., 1990, ‘Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of voluntary turnover’, Journal of Behavioral Economics 19, pp.321–335. * Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P.S., & Gaertner, S. 2000, ‘A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover. Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium’, Journal of Management, 26, pp.463-488. * Reducing Employee Turnover, viewed on 24th April 2011, <http://www.missouribusiness.net/cq/2002/reducing_employee_turnover.asp> * Job satisfaction survey, viewed on 2nd May 2011,
<http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/employee-satisfaction-survey-form>

-------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

* Locke, 1976 cited in Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2001, ‘Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace’, Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307, p. 282 * Cranny, Smith & Stone, 1992 cited in Weiss, H. M. 2002, ‘Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experience’, Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194, p.174 * Brief, 1998 cited in Weiss, H. M. 2002, ‘Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences’. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194, p. 174.

-------------------------------------------------

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Structured Questionnaire (sample)
Appendix B: Structured Questionnaire Answers
Appendix C: Brief Plan

-------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-employee-turnover.htm
[ 2 ]. ‘Biodata is a commonly used term in industrial and organizational psychology for biographical data’- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodata

References: * Locke, 1976 cited in Brief, A. P., &amp; Weiss, H. M. 2001, ‘Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace’, Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307, p. 282 * Cranny, Smith &amp; Stone, 1992 cited in Weiss, H * Brief, 1998 cited in Weiss, H. M. 2002, ‘Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences’. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194, p. 174.