Today I had a very nice discussion with a very old lawyer, and during, we start talking about people leaving companies and how much this has an effect on the organizations itself specially that in his set of mind, people leave companies all the time and still companies are surviving and making more profit every year, I will in this entry write both arguments, I will let you decide :)
The man point of view, turnover means having new blood, young people will have the possibility to advance in their career and receive more responsibilities which will motivate them more, new blood can be introduced into the organization which will allow for new ideas and improved practices, knowledge will be transferred and then enhanced with different prospective.
My point of view, turnover leads to loss in morals (usually), recruiting talents will cost money either for using recruiters, or for the interviewing and hiring expenses, replacement will need time to manager all responsibilities and this is a salary paid that can be saved if turnover did not occur, company needs always to build a team of loyal employees which has the culture embedded within them, new blood will need time to fit into the new culture and they might never fit in, finally, knowledge history cannot be transferred ever, people doing the work learn a history (learning curve) that can never be transferred to any replacement. basically, companies might not be losing money in the books, yet definitely it is losing efficiency which is a potential revenue (opportunity cost).
As i said, I will let you decide yet honestly, I believe both arguments are valid and it is always depending on the case itself :)
The man point of view, turnover means having new blood, young people will have the possibility to advance in their career and receive more responsibilities which will motivate them more, new blood can be introduced into the organization which will allow for new ideas and improved practices, knowledge will be transferred and then enhanced with different prospective.
My point of view, turnover leads to loss in morals (usually), recruiting talents will cost money either for using recruiters, or for the interviewing and hiring expenses, replacement will need time to manager all responsibilities and this is a salary paid that can be saved if turnover did not occur, company needs always to build a team of loyal employees which has the culture embedded within them, new blood will need time to fit into the new culture and they might never fit in, finally, knowledge history cannot be transferred ever, people doing the work learn a history (learning curve) that can never be transferred to any replacement. basically, companies might not be losing money in the books, yet definitely it is losing efficiency which is a potential revenue (opportunity cost).
As i said, I will let you decide yet honestly, I believe both arguments are valid and it is always depending on the case itself :)
1 comment:
Thank you Alaa another usefull article
I read in "Software Engineering" book by "Ian Sommerville" that overlapping in the work between employees helps to avoid the risk of an employee leaving.Now about loyalty you know and I know the classic statement for the loyal employees "I do not care about company problems I just want my salary" , and some employee leaves for better position in smaller company or for 50 JDs in another company ! overlapping in works can reduce the impact of leaving of such loyal employees ! Now replacements of employees can add new and different skills and qualifications and this good and in same time you can not avoid it since not all the employees can work for the same employer for 30 or 40 years or can keep working in the same position even in the same company all the time , you know the senior become lead and lead become manager and so on.Replacement some thing has advantages companies can not avoid it .
Post a Comment