[IPAC-List] calculating turnover
Dennis Doverspike
dennisdoverspike at gmail.com
Tue Oct 10 11:00:00 EDT 2017
I know the US Federal Government tracks turnover (and we have not even
started on involuntary versus voluntary survey). Does anyone know of any
other standard turnover surveys or definitions.
Dennis Doverspike
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 8:47 PM, <mhammer at 295.ca> wrote:
> What is the particular measurement objective here? Is the desired index
> for the purposes of simply calculating annual organizational staffing
> needs? Is it to determine where there are retention issues?
>
> I would think that the manner of calculating both denominator AND
> numerator would depend somewhat on the purpose of the analysis. For
> instance,one may wish to consider something a departure ONLY if the
> incumbent leaves the organization entirely, but not if they simply move
> from one unit to another.
>
> Mark Hammer
> Ottawa
>
> > I'm exploring different ways of calculating turnover and I'm puzzled by
> the typical approaches to defining the denominator. I'm starting with
> the
> > assumption that turnover is about what proportion of employees have left
> the organization (or job, region, etc.). To arrive at that, it seems to
> me
> > that you need to know the number of employees that left the organization
> in a given period of time, which should then be compared to the number
> of
> > employees who could have left the organization in that same time period.
> Almost every recommendation or practice out there, however, includes a
> denominator that is a) some form of headcounts and b) for a point in
> time
> > or multiple points in time. The most common is to create an average of
> the
> > number of employees at the beginning of the period and the number of
> employees at the end of the period. I see two limitations to this
> typical
> > approach: 1) counting the number of employees only gets at the number of
> filled positions, regardless of who occupies them and b) data for a
> point
> > in time shouldn't substitute for data for a time period. Static
> headcounts
> > don't represent the total number of people that could have left in a
> time
> > period. If you have 100 employees at the beginning of the year and 100
> at
> > the end of the year, the typical formula says the denominator is 100. If
> 50 left, the turnover rate is 50%. But if 50 left and have been
> replaced,
> > then the total number that could have left is actually 150 (the 100 that
> started and the 50 more that were hired and are still there), which is
> really just a turnover rate of 30%. The only number that seems like a
> truly accurate denominator would be the number of employees at the
> beginning of the time period plus any new hires in the time period. The
> only challenge I see with this approach is that there is a ceiling of
> 100%, which makes sense on the one hand (you shouldn't have more people
> leaving than there are people) but can be misleading on the other, since
> an annual rate of 100% turnover could have been reached in the first
> quarter. To me, the solution is to qualify the number just like
> that--say
> > the time period within which 100% is reached.
> >
> > So, given the divide between the common practice and my logic, can folks
> help me bridge the gap? What am I missing?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Megan Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > Megan E. Paul, Ph.D.
> > Research Assistant Professor
> > University of Nebraska–Lincoln
> > Center on Children, Families, and the Law
> > 206 S. 13th Street, Suite 1000
> > Lincoln, NE 68588-0227
> >
> > (402) 472-9812 Office
> > (402) 472-8412 Fax
> > _______________________________________________________
> > IPAC-List
> > IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
--
Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
dennisdoverspike at gmail.com
The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product
for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message
in error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic
transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system
and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20171010/5e97f3a2/attachment.html>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list