Turnover is a word I often find to be defined incorrectly and consequently underutilized. It could help our labor market if employers tried to understand this word better. They just choose not to. Far too many times have I seen and hear about companies putting profits before people. Shift coverage before personal lives. The most frequently used definition, in my opinion, is #1. Because of this, a disconnect between employers and subordinates continues to grow.
-
Turnover-(a)The rate at which employees quit or get fired. (b)The rate at which the subordinates fail the employer.
-
Turnover-(a)The rate at which employees keep their jobs.(b)The rate at which an employer fails each individual subordinate.
Leadership is not only important at this stage, it's paramount. I'm well aware turnover can happen for a vast array of reasons. Which definition do we see more of? Evidence of leadership isn't found in the success of the leader. It's found in the success of their subordinates. That level of leadership just seems to be shrinking by the day now. Nobody is willing to be a leader(go the distance). Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem at all. It just makes it grow.
Truth is, Actions speak louder than Words. You're one type of leader or you're the other. You train your staff thoroughly and pay them well or you don't. You put People first or you put profits first. You make excuses or your staff appreciate you and(gasp) maybe choose to pick up slack all on their own?! It's just absurd that the disconnect is so obvious to the poor and the wealthy owners remain oblivious. It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care.
Nobody wants to work because the wealthy don't want to lead. Thanks for reading!