Does training actually increase employee retentionFor assignment help please contact athelp@hndassignmenthelp.co.ukorhndassignmenthelp@gmail.comIN MORE WAYS THAN ONE, employee turnover is an important consideration for managers and employers alike. For starters, the monetary cost of hiring a new worker is significantly high. In an 1989 MLO article, I estimated that the cost of replacing an employee could average as much as 1 year's salary for that position.[1] My estimate may have been low. A pharmaceutical company recently put the cost of a single employee turnover at 1.5 times the person's annual salary.In addition to financial considerations, turnover takes its toll in other ways as well. It lowers staff morale, safety, Productivity, interdepartmental cooperation, and--most significantly--customer service.* Where training fits in. Many employers believe that training boosts morale, enhances motivation, and improves personnel retention. Marriott hotels found, for example, that effective training of its entry-level workers had a profound effect on keeping these employees.The Florida Power Corp. reduced its annual turnover rate from 48% to 9% using a unique combination of training and employment screening. After receiving instruction in 12 essential skills, job applicants were expected to successfully demonstrate these skills. A 1992 Southport Institute study of workplace education concluded that the longer an organization had an educational program in place for its personnel, the more likely it was to experience lower turnover, improved morale, and reduced hostility among its people.[2]* What else affects turnover? While there have been other reports of dramatic decreases in employee turnover due to effective training, most of these studies lack validity since during the periods studied there were concomitant changes that could have influenced turnover rates. For instance, Roma Lee Taunton attempted to measure the impact of management training on turnover among nurses. Although her findings suggested a positive cause-effect, results may have been skewed: At the time of her study, considerable downsizing of hospitals was taking place in her area.[2] It seems to follow that anything that increases unemployment may also increase worker retention.Employee selection procedures can also distort turnover studies (better selection often results in diminished turnover). Richard Wellins is quoted as saying, "If you have a turnover problem ... 8 of 10 times it may very well be due to selection of personnel rather than (lack of) training."(2)Leadership styles and major management innovations have a significant impact on turnover, too. Wellins found, for instance, that the turnover rate in work-team--oriented facilities was sometimes half that of similar institutions with traditional worker-management structures.[2]Almost anything that influences morale can affect turnover (salary and benefits, new policies or practices, changes in leadership, union organizing activities, to name just a few). If you believe employee attitude surveys truly reflect morale, and you accept the theory that morale is an important factor in personnel retention, then there is abundant evidence to support the fact that training positively affects holding onto employees. A study of chain-store employees showed a marked reduction in employee dissatisfaction after an interpersonal skills training program was implemented.[2] Jo Westfall claims that satisfaction surveys led to improved laboratory employee retention.[3]* Looking at both sides. Many industrial psychologists believe that failure to train staff members increases the likelihood that they will seek employment elsewhere. Consider these statements:* Failure to train new supervisors in the principles of management and leadership often results in worker dissatisfaction.* Flawed orientation-training programs cause new hires to feel frustrated and ill at ease on the job.* Lack of training to promote career development encourages ambitious employees to find new employers who will provide such educational opportunities.* Inadequate training for multicultural staff results not only in hostility and increased turnover of minority groups but also in fewer applications from members of these groups. The same holds true for women when their employers fail to provide training about sexual harassment.The following statements support the belief that training is, indeed, likely to improve worker retention.* Employees are trained to do things that are applicable only to jobs found in their own organizations. Someone, therefore, skilled in a highly specialized technique in forensic pathology, for instance, might have difficulty finding a similar job elsewhere (unless that skill were in short supply, in which case the worker would be highly sought after by other employers).* Effective, comprehensive training provides experiences that allow workers to realize success early on in their careers, resulting in increased morale and, as a result, improved employee retention. Note: The most successful training will be that which is given during the orientation of new employees since this is when workers are most receptive to learning new things.* Training in participative management, empowerment, and self-directed teams produces significantly increased job satisfaction. People who become members of semi-autonomous work teams are more resistant to turnover. (Keep in mind, however, that when such programs are first introduced, turnover may increase for a short time since some employees thrive only in paternalistic organizations and therefore will be unwilling or unable to accept more responsibility.)Now let's look at the other side of the coin, since some people would argue that training can actually work against employers, encouraging turnover.* Many employers discover--unfortunately, too late--that they have trained their people for other employers, often the competition. Case in point: Hospital A trains student nurses. Hospital B uses the money that it has saved by not supporting a training school to entice Hospital A graduates into joining B's staff.Bank managers are constantly complaining that they train their employees in computer operations, only to lose them as soon as they become proficient.* Many people accept positions in organizations that provide high quality education or highly specialized training, knowing full well they will leave as soon as they complete that training. This is especially true in the military. In fact, judging from the recruiting messages of the armed services, this practice is actually encouraged

* If training is involuntary or must be paid for by the trainee, morale may plummet. If training programs cause hardship, for example, by being offered only after work hours or at another inconvenient time, employees may not be able to synchronize their participation with personal obligations. Any of these instances spur workers to look for a new job.* Employees become upset when they believe that their training agenda is inappropriate or that the quality of the training sessions leaves much to be desired. Technologists will surely become frustrated if they are taught things contrary to what they have learned in the laboratory, or if they are unable to apply what they were taught in the classroom to their work back at the bench. Hence, employee retention is once again threatened.* A bigger question. Perhaps rather than pondering over whether training helps to retain employees, we should ask ourselves this question: "Does training improve service?" The answer is a resounding YES! The right kind of training, given to the right employees, by the light trainers, at the right time, and reinforced by their managers back on the job can have a significantly beneficial effect on customer service, productivity, safety, turnaround time, and morale.Still, it would be nice if one of MLO's readers would design a statistically valid study to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that training alone is a potent factor in reducing turnover. Maybe one day someone will. In the meantime, let us continue to provide our workers with the training and experiences that we feel will best advance their careers, while at the same time enhance the quality of our laboratories.Public Sector issues\Recruitment pressures have increased by more than 20 per cent during the past twelve months, despite the economic slowdown and wave of redundancies.According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), the problem exists across all sectors and regions with more than nine out of ten of the 557 organisations surveyed experiencing difficulties.The CIPD's survey confirms the trend of the '3Rs effect', where mass redundancy co-exists alongside recruitment and retention difficulties.The three main causes of the problem include a lack of specialist skills, poor quality applicants and pay inflexibility, all of which are particularly acute in the public sector. The cost of living is also cited as a major reason - in London and the South East in particular.Meanwhile, the number of organisations reporting retention difficulties has jumped even more markedly in the past year from half in 2002 to more than seven out of ten this year.The problem is even more acute in the public sector, where more than eight out of ten report problems. Retaining administrative staff is also proving difficult. And more organisations in London report retention difficulties than in any other UK region.Angela Baron, CIPD Adviser on Employee Resourcing and the survey's co-ordinator comments, "Recruiting and retaining staff remains HR's biggest challenge in spite of the economic downturn. While some may see this as surprising, a combination of low unemployment and a massive expansion in public sector recruitment has meant that staff at all levels, in all sectors and in all regions are difficult to recruit and retain."The problems are particularly acute in the public sector where the demand for trained specialist staff currently exceeds supply. However, this should even itself out over time as more trained staff come on stream."One result of these recruitment and retention problems is that employers are now more prepared to train new recruits and lower the level of experience required. Seven out of ten organisations now say that they will appoint people with potential who do not currently meet the job requirements, while the use of coaching and mentoring has also increased sharply.Although more than a third of organisations have improved their starting salaries to recruit staff, the number that have increased pay to retain staff has dropped, a reflection of difficult economic conditions.But this pay inflexibility has led to almost a half of organisations losing candidates, with the public sector the biggest loser. More than six out of ten public sector organisations see pay as a major issue.On the flip side, however, a greater emphasis on work-life balance has become the public sector's key retention weapon. Half of public sector organisations offer flexible working hours compared with just a quarter of manufacturing and production organisations. Half of not-for-profit and public service organisations also offer both family-friendly and work-life balance provisions beyond the legal minimum.When staff do decide to leave, three-quarters of organisations monitor the findings from exit interviews and six out of ten use staff attitude surveys. But less than a third monitor the financial cost of replacing leavers. population . IT people in public sector /technical people / engineers effects on employee turnover . Calculate turn over ratios in various organizations reasons of turn over . Training and employee motivation .