User talk:MGMT90018 Turnover/sandbox

Hi everyone, please use this page to discuss the Turnover page. MGMT90018 Turnover (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I found the talk page is a bit unorganized and not clear enough, so people may miss some information due to this format. I would like to change the format and divide the talk page into several main parts such as structure & format, references, models etc. I think it is clear and easy to read if you can post your questions and feedback in each main part and avoid establishing too many titles. 620811MGMT (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

-I didn't delete anyone's work but just rearrange it. Please tell me if I miss anyone's work by accident. Thanks620811MGMT (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with 620811. There are too many small points of TURNOVER,there is no structural integrity. It seems that just put all related information together. For people who searching for TURNOVER, may can not have a general concept what turnover exactly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 646495MGMT (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,620811MGMT, I think you really did a good job on the framwork restructuring. But one of the paragraph I posted before I think is not wholly appropriate for your subtitle---Techniques to reduce turnover( Enterprise culture and cultural atmosphere), so I think it need some adjustments for the first paragraph.What do you think ？Thank you for your correction.--642242mgmt (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Hi, thanks for your feedback. If the title is not appropriate to include your part, and just be free to add and modify it. 620811MGMT (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some major points for people to consider going forward with this page as of April 14th Abarsky1 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.The structure of this page still needs LOTS of work. There is tons of repetition as people have made contributions and not thought about what other people have written or how it fits together.

2. I would suggest thinking about a major integration across topics. For instance "Misconception around the Turnover", "Positive and negative effects of employee turnover" and "Causes and effects of high or low turnover", and "How to reduce turnover" all cover the same thing. There should be two major sections here - ANTECEDENTS of Turnover (which may be broken down into lots of different sub-sections) and CONSEQUENCES of Turnover. (Which may be broken down into lots of different subsections). If there are "Misconceptions" about either the causes or effects theses should be integrated into these sections.

3. There appear to be two sections on Turnover rate - "Evaluate the turnover rate" and "Calculations." These should be combined.

4. The different theoretical models generally speak to either antecedents or consequenses of turnover and should therefore be a guide for including variables in these sections.

5. This article is very poorly connected to other artices on Wikipeida - this needs a lot of work. For instance...what about the wikipedia article on Employee retention?

6. Remember - you are creating an encyclopedic entry NOT AN ESSAY. All content should be factual and verifiable. If it is not...it will be deleted and your contribution will suffer.Abarsky1 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible Structure for the Page??

I suggest that we can create two part: Positive effects of Turnover, Negative effects of Turnover. For positive effects, we can think about turnover can gain fresh ideas, avoid painful decisions, improve diversity... Fresh ideas: new staff can bring something new to the company if it replacing a veteran employee. Long-term employee who was simply going through the motions or had been biding her time until retirement may have contributed little to the business. New employees may give the company access to a mind filled with new ideas and an innovative way of thinking. Improving diversity: If the company is looking to improve diversity,a departure can pave the way to make changes. Company can also bring in an individual of a different ethnicity or nationality. The page needs some more structure. Does anyone have any suggestions for the appropriate headings?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGMT90018 Turnover (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  - Yeah...I think we should have the following topics:50167MGMT (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  -Why did not I see the following topics, where are they? Thanks!MGMT618373 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  -I think: definition, example, effects, causes, recommendation and a bit more model and data will be our structure  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 373855MGMT (talk • contribs) 07:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Based on what I observe from most of other wikipedia pages, it is quite normal to add one more section (simply introduce what is 'turnover') at the top before the "Contents". But at the same time, it should not overlap with the definition part. 631130MGMT (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can add several important issues related to turn over such as recruitment strategy and remuneration policy. these issues are quite relevant in discussing organisation's strategy in reducing turnover rate. So, we could add sub heading of recruitment strategy and turn over as well as remuneration policy and turn over. thanks. 649089MGMT (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• potential benefits from employee turnover

I think the part " potential benefits from employee turnover should be started as new section instead of written below the part "desirable vs undesirable turnover". 521686MGMT (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

- I actually think it indeed is a new section, and there is no need to start as a new section because they have different mearings. What do you reckon?MGMT618373 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are there anyone who consider the Investment as an inappropriate subheading?

I think the subheading of investment can make readers confused, do you think it will be better if we use side bets, which is more professional and clear?MGMT618373 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

- Yes I agree with you, and I think it is not necessary to be an individual part following the  subtitle "Effects of high and low turnover". It could be just included in the part of causes of low turnover.572279mgmt (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Redundant and unmatched problem

I think the second half of content subheading of new employees and new ideas under the "Potential benefits about employee turnover" has a problem, because the title is new employees and ideas, so it does not have relations with the old staff's constructive feedback. It is unmatched with the title of "new".How do others think?MGMT618373 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible structure of turnover

Hi I suggest we follow this structure: Definition, examples, effects, causes, preventions and add a bit of findings. What do you think? I also move the cost section under effect. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 373855MGMT (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Hi, I think if you want to follow your structure sequence, my opinion is changing the position of effects and causes because it should have causes firstly and then effects. Do you think so?MGMT618373 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that the section of “Current turnover situation in the US” is allocated between “Types of turnover” and “Causes of turnover”. Actually, this section is more about facts or history. Therefore, it makes more sense to follow by definition. Additionally, the linkage between types of turnover and different causes of them might be more strong, so it looks better if turnover situation can move upfront. 523789MGMT (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I suggest we follow what the lecturer said on LMS by putting ANTECEDENTS of Turnover to replace several repetitive sections. I have also combined and rearranged some parts that are repeated and deleted words. Please check if what i made make sense. 624473MGMT (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Using models to explain the reasons

Hello everyone! I think the structure of the page is not clear enough. The second part "Causes for turnover" and fourth part "Causes of high or low turnover" can be put together, under the same subheading. I am working on the model part and I think they are very useful and convincing to explain the reasons for turnover. So maybe we can put it under the "Causes", too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 565981MGMT (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 - I agree with you, part two and part four can be put together.572279mgmt (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 620811MGMT (talk • contribs) [reply] 

• The structure of 'how to prevent turnover'

First of all, in my mind, how to prevent turnover is not an appropriate heading because in some situations, labor turnover is beneficial to the organizations. Extensive researches show that proper turnover rate enables the corporations to keep fresh and current. By the means of bringing in new ideas, attitudes and skills, new employees could improve corporate performance. Therefore, it would be better to use 'reduce' rather than 'prevent'. Secondly, the subheading 'Psychological contract and employee turnover' seems irrelevant to the ways of reducing employee turnover. This large paragraph should be modified and involved in the subheading of job involvement, which states the psychology identification of individual's job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 648475GMGT (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my opinion the sub-heading should be "Effective retention strategy" instead of "how to prevent turnover". An Effective retention strategy is represent management attempts that effectively control organizational turnover by diminishing dysfunctional turnover and managing functional turnover well. The strategy is not merely focus on preventing the exit of high performers employees, but also enhance new competence acquisition by employee replacement through functional turnover.```

From the section of “How to reduce turnover”, I found some repetition and inappropriate allocation of content. This section contains the statistics of employees’ absence periods and types of costs. I reallocate some of the content and make this section be more relevant to the heading of reducing turnover. Also I think that this section is not succinctly structured. I just modify the sub-headings, but the whole part still seems complex. Please feel free to discuss with me.523789MGMT (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effective retention strategy sounds a good title, but then the selection process of recruiting the right people may not suit into the section, "Effective retention strategy" would be specific to retention of employee yet some pre-employment/post-employment arrangement to lower turnover rate overall. I would recommend "techniques to lower turnover rate".624473MGMT (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional sub-heading about Misconception around the turnover

Due to a fact that there is a gap between research findings and management practice in turnover area, I thought it is interesting to discuss misconceptions around the turnover. Allen, Bryant and Vardaman (2010) believed that these misconceptions can be harmful to organizations since those will put the management retention strategy investment on the wrong place which possibly ineffective and also costly.635058MGMT (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- hi, everyone. i think the sub-heading about misconception is misleading. As far as i am concerned, the sub-heading should summarize the content in the corresponding paragraph, instead the first-setence. 598787MGMT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure of Point 4 and Point 5

Point 4 is about the "positive and negative effects of employee turnover". However, under point 5 (causes for high and low turnover), why do "effects on high and low turnover" show up again? Aren't they the same thing? Besides, is it better to move point 5 before point 4? I mean, we need to address the causes first, and then discuss their impacts. By the way, I changed the 3rd heading by myself. I renamed it to "Types of Turnover".631393MGMT (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a subheading as "Current Situation" of turnover rate

I separated one part of content of definition to the other subheading, called "Current Situation". Because I think the current turnover rate for different industries or countries is not included in the part of “Definition”, it is the history data or information collected by others and it should be relevant to the "current situation" of turnover rate for different industries or countries.594863MGMT (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this separation. I think this section should be moved to later in the page. For me, it makes more sense to introduce the definition, explain the different types of turnover, discuss some of the antecedents, then the consequences, and THEN discuss current trends. Thoughts?327069MGMT (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the separation is good work and quite necessary. The logic chain of “definition–existing models-consequences-techniques-cost-current situation” seems complete and reasonable. Since “current situation” is kind of like a summary and is necessarily relevant to the further development of theory.574690MGMT (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree current stats should not add to definition, we can add current situation into different sections to reinforce related argument or evidence. Solely add a section called current situation does not help in explaining theories or difficulties but just restating the problem which i think we have stated it clearly in the first view sections, it would be redundant to put all these data into one section.So maybe we can break the section and put them into different areas for better explanation.how do others think? 624933MGMT (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure of “Causes of high or low turnover”

I think the structure of the content under heading “Causes of high or low turnover” is not that good, so I improved structure by separating the content into 2 parts, which are “cause of high turnover” and “cause of low turnover”, in this way, the structure seems more clear and it’s more convenience for user to find the information they want quickly by scanning the heading and subheading. In addition, I added several specific reasons for the high and low turnover respectively, which present on newspapers(I also give the references), this can give more examples about the cause of high and low turnover. 594863MGMT (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with your separation of “cause of high turnover” and “cause of low turnover”. However, I found it really confused about the structure of causes section. It is good to classify causes and 8 forces at the beginning and the causes of high and low turnover following by that. What makes me confused is “Theoretical foundation of turnover” part, which separates 8 forces and high and low turnover. The whole section seems lack of coherence. What I have done is to add sub-headings to causes, in which the first part is eight forces of high turnover and the second part is comparison of high and low turnover. In this case, the theoretical foundation can still explain and support the following part of high and low turnover and the whole structure can be better from the table of content. Please feel free to discuss with me.523789MGMT (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually think causes for turnover would cover these and just put high and low turnover as a comparison within the causes for turnover section. Companies would only focus on reducing high turnover rate, it is not a problem for them having a low turnover rate, therefore, investigating into the causes of low turnover would not be necessary. 624473MGMT (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I think you've got a point here, as the majority companies will focus on the high turnover and try to control the high turnover, while they won’t care to much if there is a low turnover, thus, I do agree with you that it’s not necessary to separate the “Causes of High and Low Turnover” into two part. Besides, I checked the structure of this part already, it’s good to keep this structure. 594863MGMT (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the sub-headings of eight forces are remarkable. Without these sub-headings, this whole causes section is kind of messy and incoherent. Besides, the separation of causes of high turnover and those of low turnover is necessary. I don’t think companies don’t care much about the low turnover, as the appearance of low turnover may indicates that the industry is facing turndown, with low input of new blood. Therefore, the causes of low turnover is necessary to discuss.574690MGMT (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure modified and new content addded on "4.3 Voluntary versus involuntary"

Hi every one, I just modifyed the structure of 4.3, I separated two concept "Voluntary turnover" and "involuntary turnover" in two paragraphs to make it look better. And I add some more concepts in the part of Involuntary turnover.

However I think I added a reference that someone mentioned before, but I don't know how to use that one, so I cite another one. Also I found in the "Named references" part, there are some repeated references and also some with messy names. I suggested all the references could be given name as "Author's name + year" for further people use them conveniently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666681MGMT (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the separation of ‘voluntary turnover’ and ‘involuntary turnover’ is clearer than before.

I think the reference part is not standard and some of them are missing years, that’s why you cannot find which reference to use it again. I recommend we use the same Wikipedia format for the references. There is actually a Wikipedia page called ‘Wikipedia: Citing sources’, which is really helpful, and have a look on the part ‘what information to include’, it introduces what information should include in different types of the references. For instance, in terms of journal articles, it should include name of the authors, year, title of the article, name of the journal in italics, volume number, issue number, and page number et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 620811MGMT (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Format and Subheading

I have a couple of suggestions in terms of the formatting and structure of certain sections on the page.

First of all, I think the formatting of the section: Antecedent of Turnover could be better structured and presented. For instance, since the section is called Antecedent of turnover, the section should primarily focus on the issue of the main causes of turnover. So instead of starting the section with misconception around turnover, it will be more relevant to start with the causes of turnover, and finish the section with a subsection of misconception around turnover. Furthermore, the topic titles in the misconception around turnover part are quite confusing, I don't think the topics are clear enough to demonstrate what contents are about to be covered in the following paragraph. In regards to formatting, right now the topics of that section are in bold but are integrated into the contents/paragraph, that is also quite confusing for the readers to understand the passage. Hence I suggest other than renaming those topics, they also need to be clear subheadings rather than integrated into the paragraphs.

Leading onto the consequences of turnover section, I believe that the subsections of the effects of high turnover and the effects of low turnover can both be integrated into the subsections of Potential Benefits About Employee Turnover and Negative Outcomes of Employee Turnover, this is because the effects of high turnover and low turnover are either beneficial or damaging in its nature, therefore it is unnecessary to write four subsections when the contents can be covered and should be covered in two subsections.

If the original authors see this post and agree with my comments, I will start editing as soon as I have gotten your permissions. Cheers 531643MGMT (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)531643MGMT[reply]

Your suggestions are very useful but I think there has been a lack of communication as quiet a lot people are editing the page at the same time. It might be a bit hard to wait for a permission from the origianl editor and then start editing. I have been reclassifing all sections into two major ones based on Adam's suggestion that has been posted on LMS, and then focusing on the restructuring the sections about effects of turnover since yesterday. Sorry for missing your comments here because there are really a lot to read through. 622973MGMT (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Yeah, I just saw what Adam put forward on LMS and I am actually totally agreed with what you guys said and I have already adjust the order that put the messy and confused misconception part to the bottom of Antecedent of Turnover, and I still think the bold subheadings in misconception part is not brief and clear and it makes the whole page full and messy. And I hope anyone who can contribute in the end to make up and integrate the structure, subheading and contents. ThxMGMT618373 (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• structure of consequences of turnover

Hi everyone, I am concerned about the structure of the second part in the sandbox. It seems that it is too long and some of the points are not related to the heading. 1. "Potential benefits about employee turnover" is similar what is talked about in "Negative and positive outcomes of employee turnover", I think potential benefits can be added to the positive outcome. 2. the whole part is talking about the consequences, so "how to reduce turnover" and the calculation of turnover should not be in this part. I'm thinking maybe we can start a new heading for these parts rather than put them under the heading of "consequences". just want to hear you opinion and I will edit this part later today~thanks574302MGMT (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)574302MGMT[reply]

• Integration of “Misconception around turnover”

From the section “misconception around turnover”, I found some repetition and I have integrated this part of content into other major sections. For each sub-subsection:

- “All turnovers are the same and those are all bad” this part basically discussed about the types of turnovers including voluntary vs. involuntary, dysfunctional vs. functional, avoidable vs. unavoidable. This was a repetition of the section “types of turnover” above, so I removed this part.

- “People quit because of salary” this illustrated other tangible and intangible inducement of why people quit their jobs. It is a good explanation of cause under “Behavior forces” and has been allocated to the cause section.

- “People quit because of their dissatisfaction with their jobs” this part is more about people quit because they have high or other career expectations rather than dissatisfaction with their jobs. It is also a reason why people quit, so can be allocated under the sub-section “calculative forces”.

- “There is little manager can do to directly influence turnover decision” it suggests that managers can reduce high turnover by recruitment practices, selection criteria and improvement of internal environment. It has been covered by the section “How to reduce turnover” and can be removed.

- “A simple one-size-fit-all strategy is most effective” this part introduced a good point of how to reduce turnover, so I integrated it into cause and created a new sub-section “Systemic Strategies”.

- “No (Low) turnover is a good sign” it repeated the content of potential benefits and negative outcomes and all points can be found under the cause section.

- “Employee Turnover is on the rise” this misconception described current rate and trend of turnover. Therefore, it should belong to the section of current situation of turnover.523789MGMT (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure for Part 6.3

Hi, for the member who created the Part 6 - Techniques to reduce turnover , I just add one more paragraph in 'Part-6.3', which introduced exit survey in post-employment stage. By the way, do you think we can change a little bit content details in this topic; because I found what you wrote in exit-interview is very general, like sentence 'An exit interview is a useful instrument that can help employers identify the reasons why an employee left an organisation and provide a basis for building meaningful retention strategy ' . I believe we need to introduce more details about what exit interview is, which kind of questions can be used in the interview, something like that. 662220MGMT (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree with you. And for the Techniques to turnover, I would like explain more about the Hire the right employees. Company's interview process should not focus merely on finding the right skill sets. The company should screen applicants to see if they fit in to the company culture. If your company has a strict hierarchy, for example, you may want to avoid people who don't respond well to authority and prefer to work unsupervised. On the other hand, if the company prefer a casual work environment, avoid hiring people who need a lot of structure. Look for the work ethic, attitudes toward deadlines and self-motivation levels, not just specific job skills.

Besides, I think Providing Flexible Scheduling is also a good point to reduce turnover. The company can show it's employees that the company recognize they have lifestyle needs outside of work. Allow employees to telecommute or choose the hours they start and finish work each day. Flexible scheduling can give you a competitive edge when it comes to retaining employees. they may appreciate the flexibility of their days so much that they wouldn't consider working for another company.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 646495MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible structure of causes of turnover

Hey Guys, I noticed that the structure of causes of turnover is still messy and I'm trying to restructure it at the moment.

Besides, I think the models and theories discussed above should be combined to analyse the causes of turnover. "Maertz and Griffeth's 8 forces of turnover" is a good model to use to structure and I believe the following structure might be clear:

1. Affective forces (comfort of good feeling vs comfort of bad feelings)

2. Contractual forces (psychological contract)

3. Calculative forces (meet career expectation)

4. Alternative forces (occurrence of alternative jobs)

5. Behavioural forces

6. Normative forces (family or friends expectations)

7. Moral forces (values)

8. Constituent forces (leaders, friends, coworkers)

9. Other forces ( I also added another category named other forces incase that the 8 forces are not comprehensive for all the possible causes. )

I will try to integrate more existed models and theories into this part this afternoon and hope that works well!

Thanks!

569818MGNT (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT[reply]

I agree to some extent! There are a lot of models right now on the page which is good. But it did not provide us useful ideas of the implementation of these models. Therefore reclassifying these models,I mean, extracting factors from models and reclassifying them into causes part makes sense. But the thing is, reclassifying them into these 8 factors mainly based on one model seems to be too narrow because it only support the idea from one model. I think it need to be more comprehensive. 570542MGMT (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)570542MGMT[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you, but I found it hard to extract those factors at this stage, so I simply adopted the Maertz and Griffeth's 8 forces of turnover model since I believe that the classification is clear and comprehensive compared to other models. Besides, I also added another force incase that other factors might be neglected.

If you have better ideas, you are more than welcomed to change the structure. For others who can think of a better way to display all the factors, please don't be hesitate to contribute!

569818MGNT (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 569818 MGNT[reply]

Hi guys, just letting you know that I supplement some contents to “alternative forces” and “moral forces” as these two sub-headings seem a little bit insubstantial compared to other causes, without adequate extended explanation. If anything is not appropriate, don't hesitate to edit it.574690MGMT (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

Just letting you know that I have combined some of the theories and models discussed in the model Part with the causes Part:

• March and Simon's process model of turnover : Affective forces & Behavioural forces
• Porter and Steer's Met Expectation model: Calculative forces
• Mobley's intermediate Linkages model: Behavioural forces
• Lee at al's Job Embeddedness linkages model: Constituent forces
• Price's causal model of turnover: Affective forces (job satisfaction)
• Aquino et al.Referent Cognitions Model: Affective forces (organisational justice measures)

Besides, I also expanded the normative forces with a further explanation of work-family conflict and moved the psychological contract content under the contractual forces.

I didn't delete any content in part 3, but I'm wondering the meaning of listing all the models instead of using the models and theories to explain the causes and consequences.

Anyway, if you have any suggestions, plz feel free to contact me.

569818MGNT (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT[reply]

Hi guys,I come across the article and found a number of user profile as624933MGMT (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC) within the article, I do not understand why they are in the article but not the talk page, and i think we should remove them from the article. Is there specific importance for such insertion in the article or its just merely wrong section to put the user profile statement in? If they are totally redundant, why not remove them? What are your opinions? 624933MGMT (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I noticed that the whole page of turnover was somehow changed back to times ago and I don't understand the reason of doing that.

Especially for the causes of turnover part, the structure that I created previously was totally deleted. For the student who made the change, could you please explain the reason of doing so pls? Besides, the consequences of turnover is also changed.

218.185.233.46 (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT[reply]

Hi 569818 MGNT, I noticed the same thing, I couldn't understand how the causes section seemed to go backwards, I thought the structure of the section was much better before (when the plagiarism test was done), although maybe a little long, but now it is now looks a bit more unstructured and seems to be a bit repetitive in the two sections it has been put in. Does anyone know why it had changed so much or what the reason was for that change? (I have also made comments to this section in the "Causes" section on this talk page) 389235MGMT (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

Hi 389235MGMT,

I suppose an accident happened, which converted the page to an ealier version. I think we should try to get the correct version back. Besides, I also noticed that the change was mainly due to the edit of: "(cur | prev) 13:42, 2 May 2014‎ 624933MGMT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,077 bytes) (-70,091)‎ . . (undo | thank)" I believe if we undo this edit, we could get the right version back. But currently I couldn't do it since other students are editing the page. If you find out how to correct it, please let me know. Thanks. 569818MGNT (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT[reply]

Hi,569818MGNT and 389235MGMT. I think we noticed the same problem that someone has did an improper work. I have check the "view History", I think the change was did on 2 May (about 20000 words and 70000 words changed respectively) and it returned the whole page to an early revision. The structure and contents have a lot of flaws now, thus, I agree with you two for undo this edit. 594863MGMT (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure for current turnover statistics

Hi,guys The second section current turnover statistics is an indispensable and essential part of the turnover page, however there is may some problems in this section. For example, the structure is messy and unclear. First, it is obviously that the first paragraph is irrelevant to the rest content. What the first paragraph focuses on is more likely about the advantages and disadvantages about high turnover, it specifies new employee can bring fresh blood, but the cost of hiring and training them is too high. However, the rest content tend to explain different industries have different employee turnover rates and take American as an example to describe the changes of employee turnover rates. In my opinion, the two parts have no connection with each other, to clarify the structure, it is necessary to put two sub-title, like industry effect.

Secondly, we can see that the author provide a large amount of numbers and data to figure out how industry influences employee turnover rate. I think it is not a good way to present. Readers cannot find it quickly and clearly, so I suggest that we may use chat or frame to express. I n this way, the data can be found and compared easily and clearly. Also, the only thing that been presented is data, it is necessary to make some analysis and evaluation. For example, though the data, retail/wholesale trade owns the lower employee turnover rate while accommodation, food and drinking places have a higher turnover rate. For cost for hire, the high-tech industry is almost 3 times of that of service industry. I suggest that more conclusion need to be concluded and written rather than data display.568708MGMT (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Plagiarism and reference issues about the skilled and unskilled employees

I investigate this part then I found it did not have the reference and I also found the source of where the information came from, what is more, it is almost the same information with little paraphrase. Is there anybody find these problems? Otherwise I will do more research and put my result in this part firstly without changing the previous part.MGMT618373 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi student 618373! I agree with you about the skilled and unskilled employees part. I think we should not copy directly and need paraphrase and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 565981MGMT (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I already got the reliable reference and improved the paraphrase issues.MGMT618373 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've had a crack at editing the skilled v unskilled paragraph and also linked the reference to a publication. I think it reads a bit better but would you mind checking over it to make sure it conveys the right meaning and that I haven't deleted anything that should be in there. I've left the bit about the reputations of tertiary institutions cos I wasn't game to delete it but I wonder if it is relevant? If it is, could you please join it into the rest of the paragraph. Thanx 51894MGMT (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)MNGMT51894[reply]

-Hi,MGMT51894, I have checked over my part and I thought it should be fine and could you please explain more specific and provide your advice and how to change in the talk page so that I can check it again. I appreciate!MGMT618373 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, reading skilled vs unskilled section for the first time, I'm confused about the last paragraph. It's discussing how absenteeism reflects on educational institutions.... not really releavant to this section. Should be in the consequences part? 327069MGMT (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC) --Hi， 327069MGMT, thx for yr opinion firstly and I indeed felt it is somewaht irrelevant and confused so I removed the last paragraph and I do appreciate if there is any further question and advice for this part.[reply]

• Repeat of contents and no reliable reference

Each company has its own unique turnover drivers so companies must continually work to identify the issues that cause turnover in their company. Further, the causes of attrition vary within a company such that causes for turnover in one department might be very different from those in another department. Companies can use exit interviews to find out why employees are leaving and the problems they encountered in the workplace. This is the last paragraph of causes of low turnover, and it firstly does not have a reliable reference and I have checked that it indeed does not have one. In addition, the contents are also referred in the part of "How to reduce turnover" which also have "exit interviews" definition more specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGMT618373 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Downsizing and Voluntary Turnover Rate

THIS NEEDS A REFERENCE---The study of the relationship between downsizing and voluntary turnover rate suggests that they had positive relationship, in other words, voluntary turnover rate is positively related to downsizing 327069MGMT (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nigerian Brewery Study

Could the person who wrote the Nigerian brewery case into the article please provide a reference? "In one study conducted in the Brewery industry in Nigeria, it was found that employee turnover rate reduced production volumes, increased the costs associated with rehiring and training and development." 327069MGMT (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems with reference sources in "How to reduce turnover"

Hi all, I am organising all the references we have used and creating a list of integrated and consistent reference. I found that this reference "Allard N, Krystles Q, Herrick J, etc. How to Reduce Employee Turnover from http://www.wikihow.com/Reduce-Employee-Turnover" has been used for five times but the source of the reference which is called "Wikihow" might be unreliable.

In addition, I highlighted the reference items that I thought are incomplete or inappropriate to use. Please original editors take a look and correct them if necessary. Cheers, 622973MGMT (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the heading of point 3

When I read the content under the third heading "causes for turnover", it sounds more like "different types of turnover". Is that more appropriate? Or does the distinguishing line between "causes" and "types" for turnover overlap with each other? I feel a little bit confused about these two concepts.631393MGMT (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-In my opinion, the types of turnover can be seen as classification of turnover on different views. While causes are the reasons why employee leave the organization. In the subheading voluntary versus involuntary, it indeed simply explains some factors may contribute to voluntary turnover, then some detailed reasons why people resigning are included in the heading of causes, thus I don't think causes overlap types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 620811MGMT (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-As the other wikipedian said, "since turnover is complex occurrence, there are different types of turnover that varies across three dimensions which are voluntary versus involuntary, dysfunctional versus functional, avoidable versus unavoidable". It is a classification of turnover on different views. Apparently, different turnover dimensions have different experiences and implications for organization. Causes are much more specific and detailed issues, which maybe included in the dimensions or types.MGMT618373 (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- There are tooooo many causes. And it is noticeable that some factors can cover another one. Reduplication and repetition are definitely problematic.567009MGMT (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 567009MGMT[reply]

• Potential benefits of employee turnover

I am concerned about the benefits of employee turnover section. I was warned by Adam that the stuff written under this section are just opinions. There is not enough data and evidence to support this section. Anyone can think about one possible solution. I can hardly find any resources to back up this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 373855MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• review on sub heading comparison of high and low turn over

Hi all, I think that the content of this section can be labelled under different sub heading. The Employment value Proposition and Employer Branding can be under 'turnover and recruitment' since it was all about recruitment. by this sub heading we can link this turnover page to recruitment page of wikipedia. thanks. 649089MGMT (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems under 'effects of lower turnover'

1. I think the third paragraph under this point is overlapping with the first two and I'd like to make some arrangements and delete some of the repetitive parts given the following reasons:

a. This whole point tends to say by recruiting new employees, the problem of lower turnover can be solved. However, I think if new employees are recruited, the turnover rate would even increase because you are increasing the denominator as showed in the Calculation Formula. Also, in regard to "Without proper development and training, the employees will get lazy and less innovative.", I think proper training can still be instilled in the case of having low turnover, so it should not be included in the 'effects of lower turnover'. So I think these points may not stand out.

b. It may be irrelevant to mention what is the benefit of external recruitment instead of effects of lower turnover. 631130MGMT (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems under section 4.4

Hi, everyone. I think the sub section 4.4” High VS low turnover” has some overlap with section 4.1 and 5. In section 4.4, the general descriptive paragraph start with “High turnover often means…”can be moved to section 5.1 under the leading of high employee turnover before subheading 5.1.1. The reason listed under section 4.4 high VS low turnover can combine with the 9 factors in section 4.1 correspondingly. For an example, the reason “a bad matching of employee skills with job” has already listed under the affective force (section 4.1.1), thus it is redundant in this part. The last paragraph explains the relationship between turnover and general economic condition, which can be an independent force under 4.1.9 other forces.571902MGMT (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I think the 5.5 High vs Low turnover should be moved to 6 Consequences. I will try to figure it now. 567009MGMT (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)567009MGMT[reply]

• Changes I made for the Definition part

Hey you guys! First, I rewrote the first paragraph of the definition part and added a reference. Second, I just deleted the paragraph “The impact of employee turnover is usually assessed by focusing on its effects on an organization's end performance. Typically, the evaluation of costs associated with employee turnover considers the following: advertising fees, recruitment fees, management's time for decision making, human resource's recruiting time, selection, training, overtime expenses from other employees needed to pick up slack, lost productivity and sales, decreased employee morale, and disgruntled customers”. Because the content is not about the definition of turnover, it is about the consequence. I also think has some similarity with the part “Current turnover statistics”.

• Confusion with the following sentences(Under Current turnover statistics)

“…including paperwork, unemployment; vacancy costs, including overtime or temporary employees” I just wonder are overtime and temporary employees are part of the vacancy cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 565981MGMT (talk • contribs) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Supplementary explanation for prior changes

Based on the lecturer's suggestion, I reclassified the whole page into two major sections - Antecedants and Consequences. This makes the whole page more clear and easy to follow.

I also deleted "It is generally believed that employee turnover creates problems for the organizations. Historical studies and empirical evidence do prove this belief. Respondents of Brewery industries in Nigeria in one study conducted to address the most ferocious problem of employee turnover rate reduced production volume and increased cost of rehiring, training and development as two major pressing problems." under "decreased organisational performance" of "Negative outcomes of employee turnover" because this argument was not supported by any reference. Under the same section, I also deleted "In a healthcare context, staff turnover has been associated with worse patient outcomes. Group membership and staff turnover affect outcomes in group CBT for persistent pain." because I do not think this evidence is supportive enough to the main idea of decreased organisational performance. Also, the second sentence seemed a bit confusing.

Apart from these, I combined section "Effects of high turnover" into "Potential benefits about employee turnover" and "Negative outcomes of employee turnover" because the benefits and outcomes section are more inclusion subsection names. Therefore I think it is not necessary to separate effects of high turnover. 622973MGMT (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused by the causes

After reading the causes, I was so confused about the structure and content. For example, in the first cause, there should be three sub-factors, however, there are only two. And the second, I think, could be classified under the first factor. Too much content and is hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 567009MGMT (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are too much "research and theories" appeared in every part. I am wondering whether it is proper to delete some and combined them. For example, the paragraph about prior research of "met expectation": This model has been substantiated by several prior researches. Katzell and Dunnette, Arvey and Banas investigated employee’s career experience and turnover in relation to their initial expectation when they were hired. At first, no obvious expectation differences could be proved between those who remained and who left. Later on, the researchers gradually found significant difference between the two groups of employees. Those who left described a large boundary between their expectations and real working conditions; while those who decided to remain realized their initial expectations for work were substantially met as time went by. ^[1] Weitz, Youngberg and Macedonia did field experiments that had close relationship to the role of met expectations. In those experiments, potential employees were given realistic descriptions of their future job conditions, including not only working environments but also possible hardships. This later was proved to successfully pull down the employees’ expectation and different levels of Disillusionments were avoided. This resulted in reduced turnover because of the new levels of expectations that were easier to meet.^[2]567009MGMT (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 567009MGMT[reply]

• Suggestion for title "Models", and general advise for this page

In the subtitle “How to reduce turnover”, I think sentences “Employees are vital to the running of a business and its success. … according to the 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics.” should be eliminated because in the reference it is said it is “a case of Sony Sugar Company limited”, so I think it is not convincing enough.

Secondly,the following sentence “However, the Employment Policy Foundation states that it costs a company an average of $15,000 per employee… interview time, relocation, training, and decreased productivity when colleagues depart” should give a reference since it mentions a Foundation and a data. For the part “Hire the right employees”, there is no reference in this paragraph, people may ask origin of these sentences.

As for the title “Models”, I suggest we should change it into “Models of turnover” to make it clearer. In “March and Simon (1958) Process Model of Turnover” I don’t think it is essential to introduce the background of this theory, so I suggest to eliminate the first sentence “Many studies of voluntary turnover are based on March and Simon framework….in which they stated the importance of balancing employee and organisation contribution and inducements[69].” In the subtitle “Porter & Steers (1973) Met Expectations Model”, the entire second paragraph is introducing a pre-experiment for the porter & steers Model, as I mentioned above, I think there is no necessary to introduce the back ground of these models, so I think we could delete this paragraph as well.

Also, there are four models(Whitmore Inverse Gaussian Model for Labour Turnover,Steers and Mowday Turnover Model, Hom and Griffeth Alternative Linkages Model of Turnover, Aquino Referent Cognitions Model) have no details below the title, if no one could fulfill them, I think we can simply delete them to avoid confusion from readers.

For the last model, I think we spend too many words explaining it. We should modify this part in order to reduce the words. I suggest the person who wrote it down to do it, or I can finish it if I am allowed.

Actually we already collect and write most of the useful information of this page. It is easy to find those materials, but I think the difficult part is how we can make it shorter but keep all information we preferred at the same time. If there are some parts still remain unclear, we could try to fulfil them, otherwise we should consider to delete and reduce the passage as short as we can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666681MGMT (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some ideas about models

Hi guys, I just saw some suggestions about Models. I wrote the last model and putting down a bit more details is just because I reckon these could be helpful to better understand this model. However, considering it dose a bit longer than other models and to be concise, I will make some modifications and shorten it. Thank you for bringing that up. I am also thinking about making subheadings under title 'Model', listing all models, since this part is fairly long and that could be easy to find a specific model by using subheading links. In addition, I have a confusion about models we have been writing about. I think besides theories and contents of a model, some applications might be added to show why this model is useful in practice. But I am not sure what kind of information I should search for. If anyone has any thoughts or suggestions, please talk to me. Thanks.620857MGMT (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree with you about putting some practical use in these models. Maybe we can look at whether the model founder had done some experiments or apply the model on an employee in a workforce situation. Besides, I would recommend to add more references in the model 'Whitmore (1979) Inverse Gaussian Model for Labour Turnover', because it seems no evidence to support the parameters. 620811MGMT (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey good work so far everyone, just finding this section very confusing... more explanation please. "The second characteristic is the presence of a hysteresis zone of behavior for some values of the control factors, which is being illustrated as the fold in the behavior surface. On the control surface, the trace of the fold is described as a bifurcation plane, representing a state of disequilibrium for employees that are the changes from retention to termination^[3]. Finally, the divergence of behavior occurs on opposite sides of the bifurcation plane. When employees approach the fold region, a large amount of changes from retention to termination can be caused by even small changes in the control variables^[4]. http://amj.aom.org/content/26/3/418/F1.large.jpg" 327069MGMT (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_Thanks for your feedback. I just changed this part and explained more on the second and third characteristics. This model is complicated, so it is better to look at the figure when you read it. 620811MGMT (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i suggest that for those models, we'd better to include some diagram to briefly explain the model. That would be more understandable than just describe the model by words.Also we need to explain the relationship between the model and psychology of human resource. in this way, it will more related to our subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 646495MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes, I agree with you that it can explain more clear with a diagram but I think there is a copy right issue of the diagram. It seems we may not use the most of online source of image. Anyone knows about it?620811MGMT (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey i find 624933MGMT deleted a lot of models. Could you pls give the reasons why doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 397740MGMT (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I just found someone undo the model parts and my part is not the same with my latest version. Please check your work and make sure it is same with your final one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 620811MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is very weird, I did not make that changes and i do not know what happened on wikipedia page. There is no way I could make such a major change. i suspect there is system error or intruder of my account to make such changes for unknown reason.My apologies. I have already contacted the lecturer about the issue. At this time,Please feel free to undo any changes.624933MGMT (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, there is a big problem that in the definition part, it does not have a reliable reference and citation for the definition of the first paragraph, I do some research online but have not found any reliable citation, so if anyone who get ideas about improving this part by adding citations to relable sources, please leave your message on talk page or edit it directly. MGMT618373 (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd like to remove the last paragraph of the definition. I don't find it particularly clear and am not sure what it's trying to communicate. It's important that the definition section is very clear and reader-friendly. Alternatively could the author elaborate about these ideas of 'dynamic' and 'membership boundaries' . 327069MGMT (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, under the definition, I think voluntary turnover and involuntary are two different concepts. But what's expressed on the page sounds refer to the some idea and they are should not be linked with "or".571650MGMT (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I think the calculations section really needs some work, there is no referencing so there is no real credibility to it. I am going to try and find some evidence of this calculation in primary sources, but if anyone else has any luck doing so please let us know here on the talk page or adjust the section itself. Otherwise if we can't find any evidence of this being true or find a true calculation I think we may need to leave this section out. Does anyone disagree? 389235MGMT (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

To update this section, I was unable to find a basic calculation in a journal article, but I found similar ones in books. The calculations I found are essentially the same as the previous ones, but I am going to try to write it out a bit clearer than what was initially there (and add in the reference). Please adjust, add on or reply here if you don't like what I've done with the section. thanks! 389235MGMT (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

Does anyone know how to add "Turnover rate = " into the equations? I've tried several times but I can't seem to get the code right. 389235MGMT (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

I say we just keep it simple, there is not really a need for a complex calculation on turnover rate for an organization, it is merely the number of employees leaving the company. 624473MGMT (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 624473, calculation should be used as a facilitating tool to assist the theories and turnover implications but not a scientific prove of a math formula or something, we should stick to the practical stuff instead of elaborating on how to calcuate accurately or different calcuations methods, as long as we have these calcucation for illustrative purposes, we just need to reference it properly and put the figures into the calcuations but we do not have to describe how and why it is calculated. any opinions ? 624933MGMT (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i just figure out that for labor stability part and everything following this part are exactly the same with the source word by word. are we allowed to just copy paste from the original source? this is the link of the source http://www.duncanwil.co.uk/labstab.html . should we maintain this section? 614732MGMT (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• possible structure of Calculation section

The calculation section consists of quite a lot contents and formulas, which looks kind of messy. I think some sub-headings may be needed to make the structure looks logical and clear. The suggested structure can be 10.1 Labour Turnover (10.1.1 Voluntary Turnover Rate 10.1.2 Involuntary Turnover Rate), 10.2 Labour Stability, 10.3 Comparison of Two Methods.574690MGMT (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Desirable versus undesirable

I noticed that only two sentences under this subheading were cited which makes the contents less reliable. And also I don't think it is necessary to put the negative effect of undesirable turnover here since we will talk about the consequences in detail in the next section. Moreover, the structure of this paragraph looks quite messy and unclear. I think I should rewrite the paragraph.673640MGMT (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

【The second method allows for the often subjective determination between the ‘desired turnover' of desirable employees. This approach treats the resulting statistic as the undesired turnover statistic. The calculation is performed as follows:

[(number of separations - Desired separations)/Average number of employees during the period]x100 = undesired turnover rate

This calculation appropirately takes the average number of employees during the period (as shown in the denominator). In essence, however, this method is useful only for managers who wish to justify some elements of turnover problem. The truth is that turnover of any knd is undesirable. Although poor hiring decisions are occasionally made, resulting in so-called ‘desired seperations,'but nonetheless, even though such turnover may rid the restaurant of undesirable employees, it reflects problems in the human resource management process.】

I just found the whole above paragraph in a book called: International Encyclopedia of Hospitality Management. I am not sure if I should quote it. Any idea? or maybe add how to calculate undesired turnover rate under the Calculation section?673640MGMT (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, avoid quoting entire paragraphs. Instead take the main points and describe them in your own words and then reference. 327069MGMT (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've removed this section of the desireable/undesirable section...'"The negative effects of undesirable turnover can also bring a economic downturn to the employees from other companies who have a connection with their business. Desirable turnover especially due to employee's incompetence and unprofessional may not cause any harm to clients, other employees, or the company. But certain undesirable turnover is a necessary issue to an organization. Examples of undesirable turnover include competent and qualified employees leave from the work due to organizational issues such as poor supervision, lack of appropriate support, and conflicts between collages. These issues need to be concerned because they directly affect client service quality and work efficiency. Employee's undesirable turnover negatively influences remaining employees, clients, and the organization itself. The study indicates that employee's undesirable turnover might be drop if organizational culture and environment changed positively.^[5] "

I've removed this part because this section is purely concerned with the distinction between desireable/undesirable, not the causes of effects or how it could be prevented. This is all covered later in the page. 327069MGMT (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like this part of article because it helps me be familiar with different types of turnover and further understand what turnover is. I have added some physical contents of collective turnover including the definition of individual turnover corresponding to collective turnover, the close relation between collective and individual leaving and difference between them. I found detailed information about collective turnover in this part but not equal knowledge about individual leaving. I believe there must be links between them and they should be classified and dealt with entirely differently according to different causes of the two problems. Besides, why collective turnover is different from individual turnover and should be put more attention to should be cited more clearly. 597345MGMT (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the skilled and unskilled employees can be a criterion to classify the types of turnover. The skilled and unskilled workers should be mentioned when talking about reasons, consequence or costs of turnover but not this classification part. It is not reasonable and looks unprofessional. unskilled workers are more likely to leave their positions compared with skilled ones. This is a good point to discuss reasons for employees to leave. Moreover, skilled and unskilled workers' turnover bring different damages for organizations, which can be deeply discussed in the following part. So I recommend delete this part and put it in the reason discussion and consequence analysis.

The classification of desired and undesired, voluntary and involuntary looks very professional. desired and undesired analysis is standing on the side of organization while the voluntary and involuntary is standing on the position of employees. This kind of classification is rationale and comprehensive. I strongly agree with it!597345MGMT (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Visual edit problems

Hi guys, did anyone find that all subtopics after 'Desirable versus undesirable' such as calculation and models cannot be edited in Visualedit, I am so confused that why they all went to the reference part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 620811MGMT (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

-I just found the same thing, I tried to edit the calculation section and it all went to references in one big template. I'm going to attempt the normal editor. 389235MGMT (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT

-I also found edit beta problem in many parts that means I can only edit beta for some part but the whole page, is it the system problem or mine? MGMT618373 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

-It happens. You can try to use the 'edit source' if the visual edit is not working. 620811MGMT (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

-This function is unstable, it has been recommended to use "edit" instead.631130MGMT (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking

Hi everyone,

I was reading the

- I have started to remove unnecessary links throughout that article, going with the rule from the page I previously stated above. I am still going through and removing repeats, as well as adding in some that had yet to be linked, but if anyone sees any repeats that I have missed can you please also remove the link? this will make the article look a bit neater so it's not crowded with links. thanks 389235MGMT (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

• Word Accordant

HI, just a small recommendation for the member who wrote the 'Part-4'; do you mind changing the title words structure. Using capital word may cause discordant. 662220MGMT (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Table of Content

Hi, everyone! just have a small suggestion about our table of content. 6.1.1 and 6.1.5 seem too long to be subheadings. Subheadings should be key words but they are more like sentences. I went through these paragraphs and I suggest that they might be changed to 'enterprise culture and culture atmosphere' and 'mechanism of competition and personnel training'. Since the detailed explanation is given below in paragraphs, the subheading could be a bit more concise. 620857MGMT (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• JPG Links*

Hi everyone, I have noticed that there are a couple of links to .jpg pictures in the article, will these links come up in the article as pictures? or will it only be links? Just want to make sure that it is set up right to come up in the final article as pictures, not just links. 389235MGMT (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

Hi all, after looking at the page, I think that we should put a section of how to manage a turnover. I have found an article by Allen C. Bluedorn on that issue and will upload it later today. if anyone have the similar thinking and may find other articles to collaboratively work on that issue. this section could be very interesting since what have been explained throughout the page has led the reader to perceive turnover as having a negative impact on the organization. By giving an explanation on how to manage turnover will make this page more valuable for those who are looking for a holistic information about turnover. thank you. 649089MGMT (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this part is necessary in the article. As a matter of fact, we define turnover rate, built models to get a better understanding, distinguish different types of turnover, analyze advantages and disadvantages of high employee turn over rate and low employee turnover rate, the ultimate goal is to use it properly to help set up structure and organization of an enterprise to get a higher profit with lower cost as well as attract and hold right employee to serve the company. However, I just think that the article is too long, it cost me a long time to figure out what is the meaning of the paragraph. So, the sentences and paragraphs were supposed to shorten and clearly identified. Also, providing details about referring concept. What we should do is not only to state the fact, but to collect effective information, analyze the whole process, and try to present conclusion rather than coming around. For example, turnover may not always a bad thing. There are 3 reasons, firstly, turnover may help lowing labor cost. As we known, the more year the employer work for the company, the more salary company need to pay. That is to say, if one enterprise get high turnover rate, they may pay less salary so that labor cost is less.

Secondly, high turnover help enterprise keep youthful and creative. That means new fresh blood keep pouring into different departments of enterprise, so that new ideas can be come up with.

Thirdly, not any enterprise can survive from the highly competitive market if it refuses to change and make innovation. Turnover may make contribution to providing major breakthrough and quantum leap. 568708MGMT (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have find out there may be repeated and similar content mentioned in the advantages and disadvantages of the employee turnover section. As most of our work have done here, I have made several adjustments and supplement information to these segments. cheers. 612967MGMT (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I have checked the note lists and I found out that the 7th note is missing. If you need some help, you can tell me the reference which you want to applied and then I can help you to add it or you can add it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 648464MGMT (talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These two sectoins are already mentioned on the previous sections. 8 Managing Turnover is the same as Techniques to reduce turnover 7 The cost of turnover is the same as disadvantages of turnover Don't add things that were aleady there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 373855MGMT (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right in some sense that the title seems to be of similar content but the idea of managing turnover is quite different with the idea of reducing turnover. in managing turnover as proposed by Bluerdon (1982), turnover is not always bad for organization where strategic managerial approach is necessary in dealing with turnover. an organization should assess whether turnover is good or bad for the organization and then implement best alternative policy which results in the favor of organization's benefit. thanks 649089MGMT (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have noticed that there are a couple of occasions in the article that someone has signed their contributions so it has their login and time/date etc. I am just communicating that I will just be deleting these signings so they don't come in the final article. Thanks. 389235MGMT (talk)389235MGMT — Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i saw that too.624473MGMT (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this session quite hard to understand as follows: 1. In ‘Timeliness’, the example of turnover usually occurs around Spring Festival is under assumption that employee may leave after bonus distribution without any proofs. Situations should be more complicated in China instead of a solely high frequency of turnover only after bonus distribution.

2. In ‘Profit’, I wonder is this part trying to illustrate the reasons of voluntary termination or the profit of any other kinds.

This session seems like it can be well introduced and deepen the understanding of readers. 631130MGMT (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, After reading over the causes of turnover section I noticed that the first list of causes and the "High vs. low turnover" section says very similar things, just in other words (and the high vs. low section being more condensed). Does anyone agree? I'm not sure if there is a need for both lists of causes, and suggest removing the "high vs. low turnover" section and merging it with the information in the part above. Any thoughts? or was there a specific reason both sections were left after revising the causes section? (this comment of mine is updated since I recently realized that the causes section had already been significantly revised and reduced.) Thanks 389235MGMT (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

Also, Does anyone think it would be beneficial to condense the information in the causes section a bit more? I think it is very detailed but some sections may still be a bit too long and complicated to read. Does anyone agree? 389235MGMT (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

To add to this section again, looking back at how this section was organised at the time of the plagiarism check, I feel like the structure of this section was much better then, even though each point was long and could have been condensed, It seems like this section has been reduced so much that it has lost the good structure it had before and seems more disorganized. Does anyone agree/disagree? 389235MGMT (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

Hi everyone,

I think they may be a bit of an issue of some people making huge changes to the article but not stating on the talk page why those changes were made. I have read a couple of contributions on the talk page about this from today and some people are confused about why some parts were changed so much. I think everyone just have to be mindful of communicating the work done on here so we have an avenue to discuss these changes. Thanks 389235MGMT (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT[reply]

Adam here- I agree completely. You must discuss major changes on the site. There was a major edit that occurred on May 2 by one editor. Please take a look at this edit and see if you agree. This seems to have made a major different to the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MGMT90018_Turnover/sandbox&diff=606768791&oldid=606763440. If people believe that this change should be undone...than it can be changed back. However, if the current structure/content is better than it should stand.Abarsky1 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the link shown above (in Adam’s talk), I found this is not a "modify" work but just revise the whole page to the original version (about on April 11th). As I am very familiar with what I have contributed, I found that part has returned to the original structure and improper content, so I am very sure this is not a modify work. Thus, I think this big change is improper, and we should undo this work. Anyone agree with me?? 594863MGMT (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, totally agree!!!!!

The current issue is how can we undo the edit? I tried but the system didn't allow me to do that since some other students are editting the page.

569818MGNT (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT[reply]

Hi everyone,

I just tried my best to get the right version back. However, I'm not sure whether the edits made after 2, May are effective anymore. Please check your work again and make sure that this version is the best and newest version. Thanks! 569818MGNT (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT[reply]

Hi, 569818MGNT. Thanks a lot for your work to get the right version back, the contents and structure are presented in a better way. I have checked my part, it is presented in the newest version. By the way, I recommend others who contributed on this page before 2 May should check their work and make sure their work is presented properly. 594863MGMT (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]