Part 1

Retention strategies Understanding turnover The academic literature (Dalton et al cited in Abelson, 1987) suggests that differentiating avoidable and unavoidable turnover (from the organisations point of view) can help organisations to understand voluntary turnover more fully. Avoidable reasons include employees leaving to find better pay or working conditions elsewhere, problems with management or leaving for better career opportunities. Unavoidable reasons - which are beyond the organisation's control - include, for example, an employee having to move because of relocation by a spouse or leaving to fulfil family or caring responsibilities. If an organisation can identify that much of its voluntary turnover is unavoidable it may profit better from initiatives that seek to manage turnover after the event rather than expend resources on implementing preventative measures. On the other hand, if the bulk of turnover is avoidable this offers the potential for targeted intervention. However, if managers assume the turnover problem to be largely unavoidable, they may fail to recognise turnover as a symptom of underlying problems within the organisation. Labour market issues Another step towards understanding turnover within an organisation is to determine whether retention difficulties are caused by internal or external factors. While the role of labour market conditions in causing turnover may preclude the use of targeted

human resource strategies, this information may be useful in analysing to what extent turnover is due to outside factors. However, although tight labour markets affect an employers ability to attract and retain staff, looking outwards at the local labour market cannot be a substitute for understanding what is going on within the organisation (IDS, 2000) Measuring turnover Research suggests that to gain an accurate perspective of internal causes of turnover, it is useful to look at both quantitative and qualitative information (IDS, 2004). To identify underlying reasons for turnover, qualitative information on the reasons why employees have left is necessary. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) suggests that it is important employers have an understanding of their rates of labour turnover and how they affect the organisations effectiveness (CIPD, 2004). Depending on the size of the business, understanding the levels of turnover across occupations, locations and particular groups of employees (such as identified high performers) can help inform a comprehensive retention strategy. By understanding the nature of the turnover problem an organisation can decide whether to adopt targeted retention initiatives, for example at particular sites or groups of employees, or to manage overall levels so that there is sufficient labour. Wastage rates Typically, organisations use the crude wastage rate for measuring turnover. This calculates the number of leavers in a given period as a percentage of the average number of employees during the same period. To calculate the average number of employees during a given period, organisations often add together the number of employees at the beginning of the period with those employed at the end of the period and divide it by two (IDS, 2004).

Crude wastage rate The simplicity of this measure means there is less risk of different parts of the organisation supplying inconsistent data. However, the crude wastage rate has its limitations because it includes all types of leavers - involuntary leavers. A single measure of turnover that does not distinguish between cases where people left because they were dissatisfied and where people left because of ill health or retirement will be inadequate because it treats leavers as a homogeneous group (Morrell et al, 2004). Furthermore, when calculating replacement figures it may be misleading to base them on crude wastage rates which include employees that do not need replacing (IDS, 2004). The crude wastage rate also makes no distinction between functional (ie beneficial) and dysfunctional turnover (CIPD, 2004). Resignation rates Another way of measuring turnover is to base turnover rates on voluntary leavers or resignation rates only, thus excluding employees who have left for other reasons such as retirement, redundancy, dismissal or redeployment to another part of the organisation. However, basing turnover rates on voluntary leavers can also have its drawbacks because it does not indicate how many staff need recruiting to cover those employees who have left because of retirement or voluntary internal transfers. One solution is to record separate turnover rates for voluntary and involuntary leavers (IDS, 2004). Wastage rates can also be used for specific groups of employees or different business units, which allows an organisation to detect differences in turnover within different parts of the organisation. Overall figures tend to mask potentially significant differences in turnover within an organisation (IDS, 2004). For example, high turnover in one area of the business could produce the same overall rate as a small

number of leavers distributed evenly across the organisation, but the actions required to deal with these situations would be quite different. Examining turnover by department can identify any local issues or possible problems concerning particular line managers or to monitor turnover among groups of employees with scarce skills. Wastage rates can also be applied to employees with a certain length of service (eg less than one year) which can help pinpoint ineffective recruitment, selection or induction processes (IDS, 2004). Vacancy rate Another approach is to place a greater emphasis on the number of vacancies that need to be filled. The vacancy rate is based on the number of positions an organisation actively wishes to recruit to as a percentage of the number of overall employees. Stability index This measure gives an indication of the extent to which experienced employees are being retained. It can be used to calculate the stability of the whole organisation or of a particular group of employees. It is usually calculated as the number of employees with one years service or more as a percentage of the number of people employed a year ago. This formula can be varied according to particular circumstances (eg basing it on a longer period of service). A rise in the stability index indicates the company is improving retention of more experienced staff. Normally, a wastage rate would be expected alongside a low level of stability. If both percentages are high, this indicates the organisation is experiencing problems with a small number of high turnover jobs (IDS, 2004). Cohort analysis This technique enables an organisation to understand service-related leaving patterns by taking the leaving rates of a (usually homogeneous) group of employees who

joined at the same time. The resulting leaving rates can be plotted on a wastage or survival curve. Cohort analysis is a useful tool for organisations concerned about turnover costs due to high expenditure on recruitment, induction and training. Wastage and survival curves For wastage curves the number of leavers is plotted against their length of service on leaving. A characteristic turnover pattern shows a high level for new starters, which then decreases with length of service. Alternatively, survival curves represent the number of people who stay against length of service, providing a measure of retention instead of turnover. Exit interviews and surveys Organisations typically obtain qualitative information on turnover through exit interviews and surveys. However, it is important to appreciate that the reasons people give for their resignations are frequently untrue or only partially true (CIPD, 2004). The use of exit interviews is widespread yet they can be unreliable, particularly when conducted by someone who may later be asked to write a reference for the departing employee. Where exit interviews are used it is best to conduct them a short time after the employee hands in their notice. The interviewer should be someone who has not had direct responsibility for the individual (ie as their line manager) and who will not be involved in future reference writing. Confidentiality should be assured and the purpose of the interview explained (CIPD, 2004). Alternative approaches involve the use of confidential attitude surveys which include questions about intention to leave and questionnaires sent to former employees on a confidential basis about six months after their departure. Costing turnover The extent of the impact of turnover on an organisation cannot be fully understood if

there is no attempt to quantify the costs. The more complex approaches to costing turnover give a more accurate and higher estimate of the costs. Such approaches often take into account the costs associated with lost productivity (ie the productivity of a new employee during their first few weeks or months in the role and that of resignees during the notice period) and the effect on morale of the remaining workforce. One such framework is that proposed by Tziner and Birati (1996) which builds on the earlier Cascio model of separation costs, replacement costs and training costs. The authors demonstrate how their conceptual framework can be translated into a formula and applied in practice. The Tziner and Birati framework includes: direct costs incurred in the replacement process (recruiting, hiring, training and socialising new employees, including the extra effort by supervisors and coworkers to integrate them indirect costs and losses relating to interruptions in production, sales and the delivery of goods to customers financial value of the estimated effect on performance as a result of the drop in morale of the remaining workforce following dysfunctional turnover. While such approaches are arguably more accurate in that they cover all the costs associated with turnover, in practice these can prove too complex and time-consuming for many organisations. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) suggests that because of the difficulties involved in estimating and quantifying some of the indirect costs many organisations prefer to take a not less than approach in attempting to cost turnover. According to the CIPD (2004), it is possible to compute a not less than figure by working out what it costs on average to replace a leaver with a new starter in each major employment category. This figure can then be multiplied by the crude turnover rate for that employee group to calculate the total annual costs of turnover. The CIPD suggests that the major turnover costs

are: administration of the resignation (including exit interviews) recruitment costs (including advertising) selection costs costs of cover (temporary employees or overtime) during the vacancy period administration of recruitment and selection process induction training for new employees. Recruitment practices In high turnover industries in particular, a great deal of employee turnover consists of people resigning or being dismissed in the first few months of employment (CIPD, 2004). The costs of recruitment and turnover per individual become much greater when new staff leave after only a short period of time. Where new employees leave after a short period in the job, poor recruitment and selection decisions both on the part of the employer and employee are usually the cause, along with poorly designed or non-existent induction programs (CIPD, 2004). If expectations are raised too high during the recruitment process this can result in people accepting jobs for which they may be unsuited. Organisations often do this to ensure that they fill their vacancies with sufficient numbers of well-qualified people as quickly as possible. However, this can be counterproductive over the longer-term, as it can lead to costly avoidable turnover and to the development of a poor reputation in local labour markets. The CIPD (2004) suggests that employers give employees a realistic job preview at the recruitment stage and take care not to raise expectations. It may also be useful to invite applicants to work a shift before committing themselves. Retention strategies IDS (2004) suggests that where there is a general turnover problem within the

organisation, companies often take a holistic approach aimed at fully engaging with staff. This may encompass a wide range of measures such as: improving recruitment procedures to ensure candidates receive a realistic impression of the company and the job supporting new recruits during the critical first few weeks in the job providing clear career paths, interesting work and support for personal development considering work-life balance issues keeping pay in line with appropriate market rates offering an attractive employee benefits package creating a pleasant working environment communicating and consulting effectively with employees. Examples of such measures are illustrated in more detail in the industry and organisational studies below. Industry studies Clothing industry In Taplin et als (2003) study of the British clothing industry, employer initiatives to reduce turnover included a range of measures. Improving remuneration packages was the single most common initiative with changes to the payments systems made so that workers could increase their earnings. Also important were more rigorous screening procedures for new hires, and improved training programs designed to bring new workers up to speed so that they could maximise their piece rate earnings potential. Various quality of working life initiatives were introduced, such as flexible working hours and forms of employee participation (eg works councils). Accommodation industry

A recent study (Davies et al, 2001) examined the effect of three human resource strategies (performance appraisal, salary and benefit strategies), and training and development initiatives in the Western Australian accommodation industry. The authors concluded that only training and development indicated a reduced turnover of employees. Mining A study of turnover in Fly-In Fly-Out (FIFO) mining operations in Australia (Beach et al 2003) showed that turnover rates between mines operating within the same general labour market varied considerably, suggesting that the main drivers of turnover were often internal, rather than external to mine sites. In terms of managing turnover, sites which had lower turnover, was attributed to a combination of four factors: equitable remuneration; commitment to training and skills development; good management; and developing and maintaining a positive organisational culture. Managers at some sites indicated they tried to control turnover by recruiting for a good person-organisation fit. Case studies of organisations The retention strategies outlined here are based on organisational-specific initiatives. One of the problems with organisational-case studies is that their experience may not be generalisable, given that the causes of turnover and the resulting strategies are likely to be specific to a particular organisation, a site or even a particular group of employees. Another problem is that where a combination of measures are used (which is often the case) it is very difficult to attribute success to one particular element of the strategy. Nevertheless, some common practices can be drawn from these experiences that appear to be successful in helping to improve retention. The first two examples are academic studies while the following table summarises the

main features of the retention strategies adopted by a range of UK organisations to successfully improve retention. Hospital A Canadian study by Lum et al (1998) assessed the impact of certain pay policies upon the turnover intentions of paediatric nurses. Two types of salary supplements were introduced bonuses to intensive care nurses only and a 5 per cent salary differential for all staff nurses to reduce turnover. The supplements were structured in such a way as to have the most favourable influence on the senior staff nurses who were presumed to be the most experienced and those most valuable employees. Satisfaction with pay had both direct and indirect effects on turnover intent. They found that although pay satisfaction (unlike job satisfaction) was significantly associated with reducing intended turnover, its indirect effect upon turnover intent, mediated through job satisfaction and organisational commitment was weaker. In particular, nurses with greater experience were more satisfied with their pay and were less likely to leave, which was the anticipated effect of the salary supplements. The anecdotal evidence showed that the senior nurses perceived the pay supplements to be an important recognition of their contribution to the organisation. Department store In a study of retail salespeople (Firth et al, 2003) found that job stressors (eg work overload, job ambiguity) are the factors that trigger the chain of psychological states that lead to intention to quit. They suggested that supervisor support can reduce the impact of stressors on psychological states and intentions to quit. Monitoring workloads and supervisor-subordinate relationships by management may not only reduce stress but increase job satisfaction and commitment to the organisation. Causes of turnover and retention strategies adopted by UK

organisations Organisation/ industry Retention problem/ causes Retention initiatives Standard Life Healthcare1 Private medical insurance provider 750 employees High turnover in Guildford office Strategy based around prioritising sales Ineffectual leadership Reactive employee resourcing Lack of customer focus Low employee morale Streamlining recruitment and induction Providing access to learning resource centres Competitive salary and benefits

package Focusing performance management on employee development Improving communications Measuring employee engagement Encouraging employee health and well-being through targeted interventions Hillarys1 Blinds manufacturer 950 employees Retention of shopfloor employees at Nottingham site Dissatisfaction with working environment Dissatisfaction with communications High number of job vacancies for lower-skilled workers in one particular area New employee benefits program with a focus on family-friendly benefits and linking reward to length of service (eg

increasing annual leave for longer service) Improving communications Development of a new internal brand Improvements to the physical working environment (eg repainting and minor renovations) Engaging employees through social events and community activities First Choice National Sales Centre1 Travel call centre 450 employees High turnover, particularly among front-line sales staff Ad hoc employee resourcing Understaffing during operational peaks Below market pay Bonus scheme too focused on sales targets Poor communications Tight local call centre labour market

Increasing base pay in line with local call centre market New pay progressions system based on achieving key competencies (with reduced emphasis on sales) Improving resource management (ie linking recruitment activity to peaks/troughs; introducing annual hours) Streamlining recruitment and induction procedures, linking them to the competency framework Happy1 Training company 37 staff Retain staff in IT market Work-life balance and flexible working arrangements Empowering employees to make key decisions Promoting an open culture Encouraging employee volunteering, which offers development opportunities Kent County Council1 5,246 staff

Location (East Kent isolated, West Kent proximity to London) High turnover of social workers Heavy workloads and high stress Limited opportunities for career progression New competency-based career grade structure More coordinated recruitment program (based on attracting newly qualified social workers) Scheme to recruit and train unqualified social workers Review workloads and reduce administrative burdens BAE Systems1 Aerospace c.45,000 (UK) UK graduate attrition Questions over effectiveness of graduate development program Conducted research into

effectiveness of graduate development program Realistic recruitment message to emphasise the defence-related manufacturing nature of its business Educating managers about their responsibilities in the graduate scheme Seeboard Energy2 Utility High turnover in customer contact centre Dissatisfaction with 3-week rolling shift system Move to fixed shift patterns Recruitment targeted at working mothers to improve the response Marina Developments3 Marina group 275 employees - Introduced on-site, internally delivered training course for yard staff Training linked to achievement of competency targets and salary increments

Makita Manufacturing Europe4 Power tools manufacturing 460 employees Local labour market shortages of unskilled and semi-skilled staff Culture of job-hopping in local area Ineffective induction Improved induction process by setting up a training scheme for new recruits with both off- and on-the-job training More targeted recruitment (ie employees that can demonstrate some stability, older workers) More stringent checking procedures during selection More aptitude testing during recruitment Rewarding long service Asda4 Retailer 100,000 employees

Local labour market issues Expansion highlighted greater need to retain staff Extended access to share schemes through an employee share option plan More promotion options for staff New management development program GlaxoSmithKline Research & Development (formerly Glaxo Wellcome) 4 4,600 staff Skilled staff not returning after maternity leave Returners bonus upon return from maternity leave Opportunities for more flexible working, including phased return to work and job-sharing Assistance in making childcare arrangements PricewaterhouseCoop ers Management

Consultancy Services4 3,400 staff Difficulties in balancing work and home life among consultants Introduced work-life balance initiatives (eg working one day a week at home) Work-life balance workshops Coaching scheme Improve graduate retention 1 Adapted from: IDS HR Studies 765, Improving staff retention, January 2004 2 Politt D. (2003) Shift-pattern switch improves staff turnover and recruitment at Seeboard Human Resource Management International Digest Vol. 11(1), pp12-14. 3 Politt D. (2004) Marina Developments staff get a lift from boatyard training Human Resource Management Vol. 12, No. 2, pp14-16. 4 Adapted from IDS Studies 692, Improving staff retention, July 2000.High performance work practices and turnover There have been a number of studies into the impact of high performance work practices on a number of organisational outcomes. In a large-scale survey of 885 US

firms, Huselid (1995) concluded that the use of such practices had a statistically significant impact on turnover concluding that high performance work practices lead to lower turnover. However, a later study of New Zealand firms came to a slightly different conclusion. Guthrie (2001) suggested that the use of high performance work practices may have implications for the effect of turnover on productivity. His explanation is that the use of such practices increases the value and importance of human capital (ie employees become more valuable to the organisation) and hence the cost of employee departures. A Canadian study (Statistics Canada, 2003) found that the use of such practices appeared to be related to lower quit rates in high-skill service industries. However, while there was some evidence of this link in lower skill services, it was not as great as for high-skill services. The authors also found very little evidence that such practices reduce quit rates in manufacturing. However, one particular practice self-directed work groups appeared to be associated with lower quit rates in manufacturing. Conclusions This review of turnover literature identifies a range of factors that have been shown to be consistently linked to turnover. These include organisational commitment, job satisfaction, alternative opportunities and intentions to quit. Evidence on the role of pay is still somewhat inconclusive, although keeping pay in line with market rates is certainly critical to retaining staff. Apart from age and tenure, personal characteristics of employees appear to have little relationship to turnover. While these factors can help employers understand the general nature of turnover and its likely causes, the retention strategies adopted within industries and organisations tend to cover a unique mix of measures and approaches specifically targeted at the particular problem they face. Understanding the problem is key to devising an

effective retention strategy. Access to both quantitative and qualitative data is necessary for understanding levels of turnover across occupations, sites and for particular groups of employees as well as for identifying the underlying causes of turnover. Further investigation of turnover in the meat processing industry could include an examination of turnover data to establish whether turnover is uniformly high across the industry or whether there are differences between establishments in the same local labour market. The collation of qualitative data through employee surveys either at industry level or within particular establishments may be useful for identifying sources of dissatisfaction, intentions to leave, and any underlying causes of turnover. Bibliography Abelson M. A. (1987), Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 72(3), pp. 382-386. Allen N. J. & Meyer J. P. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment on the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 63(1), pp.1-18. Beach R., Brereton D. & Cliff D. (2003), Workforce turnover in FIFO mining operations in Australia: An exploratory study, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland & Sustainable Minerals Institute. http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au. Accessed November 2004. Boxall P., Macky K. & Rasmussen E. (2003), Labour turnover and retention in New Zealand; the causes and consequences of leaving and staying with employers, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol.41(2), pp.196-214. Chang E. (1999), Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and turnover intention, Human Relations, vol. 52 (10), pp.1257 -

1278. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2004), Fact sheet on employee turnover and retention. Davies D., Taylor R. & Savery L. (2001), The role of appraisal, remuneration and training in improving staff relations in the Western Australian accommodation industry: a comparative study, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol.25(6/7), pp. 366-373. Elangovan A. R. (2001), Causal ordering of stress, satisfaction and commitment, and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol.22(4), pp.159-165. Firth L., Mellor D. J., Moore K. A. & Loquet C. (2004), How can managers reduce employee intention to quit?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol.19(2), pp.170-187. Griffeth R. W., Hom P. W. & Gaertner S. (2000), A Meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research Implications for the next millennium, Journal of Management vol. 26(3), pp.463-488. Guthrie J. P. (2001), High-involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand, Academy of Management Journal vol. 44(1), pp.180-190. Hegney D., Rogers-Clark C., Gorman D., Baker S. & McCarthy, A. (2001), Factors influencing the recruitment and retention of nurses in rural and remote areas in Queensland, Department of Nursing, University of Southern Queensland. Huselid M. A., (1995), The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance, Academy of

Management Journal, vol. 38(3), pp.635-672. IDS (2000), Improving staff retention, IDS Studies No. 692, July 2000. IDS (2004), Improving staff retention, IDS HR Studies No. 765, Jan 2004. IDS (2004), Improving staff retention, IDS HR Studies No. 765, Jan 2004. Kirschenbaum A. & Mano-Negrin R. (1999), Underlying labor market dimensions of opportunities: The case of employee turnover, Human Relations, vol. 52(10), pp.1233-1255. Kirschenbaum A. & Weisberg J. (2002), Employees turnover intentions and job destination choices, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 23(1), pp.109-125. Lee T. W. & Mitchell T. R. (1994), An Alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover, Academy of Management Review vol.19(1), pp.51-89. Lum L., Kervin J., Clark K., Reid F. & Sirola W. (1998), Explaining nursing turnover intent: job satisfaction, pay satisfaction or organizational commitment?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol.19(3), pp.305-320. Martin C. (2003) Explaining labour turnover: Empirical evidence from UK establishments, Labour, vol.17(3), pp.391-412. Mobley W. H., Griffeth R. W., Hand, H. H. & Meglino, B. M. (1979)Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process, Psychological Bulletin vol. 86 (3), pp.493-522. Morrell K.M., Loan-Clarke J. & Wilkinson J (2004), Organisational change and employee turnover, Personnel Review, vol. 33(2), pp.161-173. Politt D. (2003) Shift-pattern switch improves staff turnover and recruitment at Seeboard, Human Resource Management International Digest , vol.11(1),

pp.12-14. Politt D. (2004) Marina Developments staff get a lift from boatyard training Human Resource Management, vol.12(2), pp.14-16. Shah C. & Burke G. (2003), Labour mobility: demographic, labour force and education effects and implications for VET, Report to ANTA, Centre for the Economics of Education and Training, Monash. Statistics Canada (2003), Innovative work practices and labour turnover in Canada The Evolving Workplace Series. Tang T. L. P., Kim J. W. & Tang D. S. H (2000), Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, vol. 53(2), pp.213-245. Taplin I. M., Winterton J. & Winterton R. (2003), Understanding labour turnover in a labour intensive industry: Evidence from the British clothing industry Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40 (4),pp.1021-1046. Tziner A. & Birati B. (1996), Assessing employee turnover costs: A revised approach Human Resource Management Review, vol. 6(2), pp.113-122.

Part 2 Employee Retention

Introduction ICT Group, Inc. is currently experiencing the effects of increased employee turnover rates. Rather than being an isolated issue, employee turnover faces the nation as a whole. This issue costs companies millions in the expenses needed to recruit and train new employees. Employee turnover rates are linked to corporate structure and environment and can therefore be modified through changes in policy. Increasing Turnover Rates Employee turnover rates have, within the last several years, become a nationwide epidemic. Employees no longer feel the sense of company loyalty that once existed. Increasing numbers of corporate mergers and acquisitions have left employees feeling detached from the companies that they serve and haunted by concerns of overall job security. As a result, workers are now making strategic career moves to ensure employment that meets their need for security. This fact is clearly represented by growing employee turnover rates. In a recent article, the Employment Policy Foundation (EPF) (2004) highlights that for the twelve months ending August 2004, average employee turnover costs reached $13, 355, up 6.8 percent from its December 2002 level (p. 2). The voluntary employee turnover rates released by the U. S. Department of Labor in November, 2004 paint a similar picture.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was an overall average increase in employee turnover in the U. S. from 19.2% in 2003 to 20.2% in 2004. Weinberg (1997) reports that too many service companies face employee turnover rates of 50 percent t o 100 percent per year or even higher (p. 4). Employee Turnover is Expensive In addition to elevated employee turnover rates being a frustration for employers, they can become a financial concern as well. The EPF believes average turnover costs to be 25 percent of an employees annual salary (2004). Other studies have proposed that the cost of replacing lost talent is even higher, as much as 70 to 200 percent of that employees annual salary (Kaye, 2000). Expanding on these thoughts, the EPF (2004) stated that for a firm with 40,000 full-time employees, the difference between a 15percent turnover rate and a 25-percent turnover rate is over $50 million annually. The difference between a 15-percent turnover rate and a 40-percent turnover rate is over $130 million annually (p. 2). Kay (2000) justifies such costs in advertising and recruiting expenses, orientation and training of the new employee, decreased productivity until the new employee is up to speed, and loss of customers who were loyal to the departing employee (p. 9). The costs mentioned above touch upon another area of concern: productivity. When a high rate of employee turnover exists, most of the workforce is at an entry level stage of production. A very high cost is associated with large numbers of employees who have not reached full productivity. This cycle continues with very few employees performing at maximum productivity. Environments that Bred Turnover While employee turnover rates have been proven to be a nationwide problem, there are certain factors that contribute to the situation. The EPF (2004) notes the

following: It turns out that a number of organizations have high employee turnover in operations such as customer contact centers, back-office processing and inventory management positions. Health care, communications, banking, and insurance are more prone to these high turnover characteristics than other industries. The reasons are multifold, but in general, the environment in which these organizations perform forces them into these employee patterns (p. 3). The environments producing such employee patterns can be seen extensively in fields such as healthcare, retail, and factory work (Bureau or Labor Statistics, 2004). The commonalities in these environments include, low to moderate employee compensation, lack of upward mobility, high-turnover due to hiring characteristics and competitive job markets, complex training processes, and a wide range of customer issues to be learned (EPF, 2004). As can be seen, a combination of factors may exist, decreasing employee job satisfaction and thereby increasing turnover. Fostering Employee Commitment Today, changes in technology, global economics, trade agreements, and the like are directly affecting employee/employer relationships. Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised job security and a steady progression up the hierarchy in return for the employees fitting in, performing in prescribed ways and sticking aroundNone of these assumptions apply today: (Moravec, 1994). Restructuring and layoffs occurring today are expected to continue far into the future. Employees are now finding that previous job skills are no longer valuable. They must now create new job growth possibilities, rather than waiting on promotions to be handed out.

Fostering employee commitment can have a great impact on decreasing turnover rates. Research shows commitment has a positive effect on productivity, turnover and employees willingness to help co-workers (Bishop, 1997, p. 4). In fact, increased employee commitment has been shown to improve team performance and productivity and decrease absenteeism, turnover, and intention to quit. However, companies can take action to ensure that these increasing trends are minimized within their own individual cultures. Therefore, strong retention strategy must be implemented. Byrnes (2002) notes that there are five essential steps for a company to develop an effective retention strategy. First, a corporate values system must be defined based upon the organizations values and vision. These values must guide the company and identify those employees desiring to move in the same direction. Next, trust must be established within all parts of the business. Security comes from trust and trust comes from honesty and communication. The bottom line is that employees want to know their employer will be straightforward with themEstablish a process for sharing important information related to your business with your employees (Byrnes, 2002, P. 4). Third, assess employee priorities through surveying. The answers will allow an organization to structure effective reward programs, thus increasing employee satisfaction. Fourth, Byrnes recommends doing industry homework. Companies need to understand competitors compensation and benefit programs. A clearer understanding of what is expected by employees within the industry provides the company the opportunity to increase satisfaction. Finally, the creation of a compensation and benefit package, supportive of company values and employee needs, is essential. Increasing Employee Motivation

Contrary to modern belief, monetary compensation is not the highest employee motivator. According to the Harvard Management Update (June, 1988), nine of ten managers think people stay or go because of money. We know thats not the case. Money and perks matter, but employees tell us again and again that what they want most are challenging, meaningful work, good bosses, and opportunities for learning and development (as cited in Kaye, 2000, p. 9). Modern corporate structure has become so multi-layered that often employees do not ever see the fruit of their labors. Newstrom and Pierce (2002) agree: Companies are being stymiedoften by their own structure. McKinsey studied one company where the new product process required 223 separate committees to approve an idea before it could be put into production (p. 113). Another area contributing to decreased employee satisfaction is that of a companys motivational style. For example, Weinberg (1997) states that: Most companies relied in the past on two traditional strategies fo r managing turnover. First, they raised wages until the situation stabilized. If that didnt work, they increased training budgets for new hires and first-level supervisors. These solutions dont work anymore. Especially misleading is the myth that paying low-wage service workers and extra $.25 or $.50 per hour will dramatically reduce turnover rates. Even if higher pay rates were economically feasible-the extra few dollars has little influence on workers. Investments in training dont always pay off either. Training course content tends to assume that todays low-wage service workers live in stable homes, meet minimal educational standards, and share the employers behavioral expectations. This is often not the case (p. 2). Additionally, the assumption that todays employees live in stable homes, have sufficient

educational backgrounds, and share company behavioral standards falls short. Management is not trained to deal with the modern social patterns affecting the workplace. Companies Affecting Change in the Workplace For example, The Marriot Corporation, a Bethesda, MD-based hotel chain, has found a way to reduce turnover through social development. The Marriot has implemented a Pathways to Independence Program in which training is provided for welfare recipients to prepare them for the work force. Pathways graduates in some areas are fifty percent less likely to quit than the average employee. The program allows Marriott supervisors to assist employees to develop themselves professionally, while aid is given for personal life issues as well. By acknowledging the interdependence of these issues, professional life and home life, the Marriott Corporation has become a leader in reducing turnover rates and thereby increasing profitability (Weinberg, 1997). Another area in need of attention in the corporate world is that of individual employee needs. The single-income, male-provider household is no longer representative of the majority in the American workforce. Todays workforce is made up of a diverse group of men and women, such as single parent households and household where both parents must work to make ends meet. The change in employee labor requires a change in employer provisions in order to create employee satisfaction. Several companies recognize and continue to attempt to meet these evolving needs. Rock Bottom Restaurants is one of such companies. This Boulder, Coloradobased restaurant chain allows employees to participate in the hiring process. In this way, new hires understand the demands and expectations of the work environment from others directly involved in the work themselves. Rock Bottom also allows employees to help in

setting work schedules. This type of environment contributes to employees who enjoy their work and provide exceptional service as a result (Weinberg, 1997). Nashvilles Opryland Hotel has also implemented programs designed to increase employee retention. On-site day care, subsidized housing for employees in need, free meals for all staff, and flexible schedules for working parents are all a part of the hote ls success in maintaining satisfied employees (Weinberg, 1997). Involving employees in even the smallest decisions can have tremendous results on a corporate level. When employees are given choices and input into the very policies and procedures that they adhere to each day, it creates a sense of importance. Employees begin to feel that they are critical to the success of the company. This sense of contribution fosters employee loyalty and increases accountability. As noted by Weinberg (1997), an employee survey covering topics such as compensation, benefits, safety, work rules, manager behavior, and teamwork can have a dramatic affect in minimizing employee turnover. These types of surveys provide employees an outlet for concerns and serve as a means for employers to identify areas in need of change before they become a problem of greater proportions. He notes that exit interviews given to employees upon resignation can also give companies insight into the concerns of workers. Even a simple acknowledgement of an employees good work can be quite a motivator. In a survey conducted by Office Team, 60% of executives polled believed that companies do a somewhat effective job of acknowledging top performers, while 33% believe that staff recognition efforts are inadequate (Clarke, 2001). Clarke highlights that a pat on the back or a word of praise after they have worked hard to deliver for the

company goes a long way toward building individual and group morale (p. 1). Paris (2002) agrees, stating that incentives provide the golden handcuffs that keep employees from getting away (p. 52). Training and Orientation The training and orientation process is a new hires first impression of the organizational environment, and therefore a critical period. In fact, a study at Corning Glass found new employees who went through a positive orientation were 69% more likely to be with the company three years later than those who did not. A similar study at Texas Instruments concluded that employees who were carefully oriented to the company, and their jobs, reached full productivity two months sooner than those who werent (Klienman, 2000, p. 2). The most successful orientation programs make new employees feel welcomed and a part of the team. They highlight the individuals role in the employers mission. They assure new employees that adequate and patient training will be provided. Most importantly, successful orientation programs show the new employee what he or she stands to gain from employment with the company. Wal-Mart conducted research on new hire attitudes in 1999, aiming to reduce employee turnover by 50%. The critical link between orientation and employee turnover was highlighted in this research. According to the Wal-Mart VP of people services, the question becomes how well are you inviting new people into your home, how welcome are you making them feel and how well are you preparing them for the things you are going to ask them to do? (as cited in Klienman, 2000, p. 2) As highlighted previously, most new employee turnover occurs within the first few weeks, and you can trace that back to the way they were-or were not-oriented (Tyler, 1998, p. 6). One way to determine the effectiveness of an existing orientation

program is to implement a posttest. Questions missed indicate areas in need of revamping. In addition, surveys can be administered two to four weeks after the employee has started to determine whether or not the orientation and training process was sufficient in meeting employee needs. The timing of orientation is a subject not to be overlooked. Although waiting for a large group of new employees may seem a better use of training time, waiting this long makes these employees no longer new to the company. Southwest Airlines sets an example by holding orientation once a week (Tyler, 1998). The size of the orientation class is also important. Class size should be limited to twenty or less participants to ensure individual attention. Personal attention during orientation is crucial (Tyler, 1998, p. 6). Projects to complete as a team during orientation can break up the monotony of reading a manual and encourage new hire interaction. Tyler (2004) highlights that the end of the first day is just as important as the beginning. Make employees feel you want them to come back for a day two (p. 6). The warm reception should not end with the end of orientation. Experienced employees can be provided as mentors for new hires to turn to as a resource. The training team can also check in on a new employee periodically to address any concerns that may arise. Summary Employee turnover rates continue to be on the rise. This chapter presented the support of literature sources on this issue. In addition, the stage was set for the formulation of an intervention plan to address ICT Groups problem. In the f ollowing chapter this plan of action will be discussed in further detail.

Part 3 Leadership Retention

1 Leadership Retention Literature Review Executive Summary This paper reviews the literature on top executive turnover and retention. A number of opinion leaders in HR have called for a better understanding of how to retain CEOs and other top executives, due to concern about churn in the executive suite impairing organizational effectiveness. At the same time, investors, legislators and citizens have expressed reservations about extraordinary efforts to retain top leaders, particularly those involving financial incentives. This report summarizes the sparse literature in the management/HR, finance, and accounting disciplines on top management team turnover, and more specifically retention programs, and makes a number of recommendations for both research and practice. The report begins by questioning the assumption that executive turnover is a problem that requires the development of retention programs. A literature review provides a number of reasons to question this assumption: Turnover rates of executives are relatively low, compared both to other employees and to what one might expect given the inherent imperfections in recruitment and development of executives The majority of executive turnover is likely unavoidable, due particularly to normal (sometimes contractually mandated) retirements, and thus not likely to be influenced by retention efforts Much of the remaining executive turnover is involuntary, generally due to

declining organizational performance for which the chief executive (and possibly the whole top management team) is held responsible. Retention programs make no sense in this context. Generally speaking, lower-performing employees are more likely than more successful employees to voluntarily quit. Moreover, organizational performance generally improves following a leaders succession, at least when the succession is due to poor performance. Both findings suggest that turnover may be functional, at least when poor performers are the ones leaving, and more suitable replacements are recruited. 2 At the same time, it is evident from a review of the literature that turnover of top leaders can be very costly, not only in terms of direct costs, but particularly in terms of disruptions of the status quo. The costs of executive turnover are particularly evident in the context of acquisitions, where the impact may be long-term (up to nine years following the acquisition), widespread (potentially affecting the composition of the whole executive team), and critical to whether the acquisition succeeds or fails. One foundational conclusion is that concerns about leadership succession should be addressed in terms of an overall talent management program rather than in more narrow terms of executive retention. Organizations need to be very clear about which leaders should be retained and when, and under what circumstances turnover of a leader should be allowedor even encouraged. Decisions should be based on performance, not on a simplistic goal of retention. A second key conclusion is that when retention is the right solution, there is very little research-based evidence to guide organizations about how to do so most effectively. The only aspect of retention programming that has received significant

research with executives involves compensation as golden handcuffs. This research suggests that indirect compensation is more effective than direct pay, and also that equity-based compensation is the most effective form of indirect compensation. However, this conclusion must be tempered by the considerable challenges posed by fluctuating economic conditions; during recessionary periods, equity-based compensation can actually result in increased turnover. The third conclusion is that research on executive retention/turnover needs to be more extensive and inclusive. While there are literally thousands of studies of turnover, vanishingly few of these directly pertain to management personnel. And of those studies that do include management positions, the majority pertain to the CEO exclusively. Particularly high priority should be given to research on: Retention bonuses Basic research on sources of satisfaction, commitment and engagement among senior managers Managing the effects of top management team diversity Onboarding, and other mentoring and socialization programs f or senior managers The effectiveness of counter-offers as a retention strategy 3 4 Leadership Retention Literature Review Our charge in authoring this review was to determine was is known about how to retain organizational leaders. That chargeand particularly the focus on retention immediately raises a number of critical questions. Who are we referring to when we say leaders, and why should they be a particular focus of attention? Are there fundamental differences between this group and other employee groups who have more frequently been included in studies of employee turnover? And perhaps most fundamentally, why

frame the review in terms of retention rather than turnover? Before proceeding to discuss what factors may result in increased executive retention, we first want to discuss each of these questions in more detail. Who do we include as leaders? There is little to be gained from entering the morass that is the debate over how to define a leader. For our purposes, we are interested in turnover and retention of senior executives, those described in academic literature as the upper echelons or the top management team, and more colloquially referred to as members of the C-suite (e.g., president, CEO, COO, CFO, CHRO, CIO and similar titles). As a practical matter, our literature review found surprisingly few studies that targeted this group, and the majority of those focused solely on CEOs. In many cases, the only available literature dealt with non-management employees. Thus, a portion of our discussion will involve extrapolationor speculation about the extent to which extrapolation is possible to the top management team. In many cases this extrapolation will apply as well to leaders at the second tier (e.g, vice presidents), middle management and possibly even supervisory level. In taking this approach, a fundamental question is whether the processes that have been studied in non-managerial populations are likely to be similar in managerial, and particularly executive, populations. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to assume that basic the basic psychology that underpins decision-makingin this case, decisions about whether to quit or stayshould be common. On the other hand, there are very clear differences in contextual variables that are also important to those decisions. As Dunford and colleagues note, one of the most obvious of these is the substantially greater pay and prestige that CEOs enjoy (Dunford, Oler, & Boudreau,

2008). As we will describe in more detail, at these levels of remuneration, compensation 5 plays a qualitatively as well as quantitatively different role in executives career decisions. Another significant difference between CEOs and other members of the top management team (not to mention non-managerial employees) is the responsibility that goes with the rewards. CEOs are held ultimately accountable for the performance of the firms they lead, to an extent that is often disproportionate to their actual influence, as well as disproportionate to that of other senior managers. This accountabilityalong with the continual threat of dismissal if firm performance declinesis likely to have a significant effect on the psychology of CEOs turnover decision process. A case in point is performance-based pay, for which the link between the executives actions and performance-based rewards is much more tenuous than for most managers, who are likely to be evaluated more in terms of their own actions or the performance of their own division rather than in terms of overall organization performance. Ultimately, it is clear that our understanding of executive retention would be greatly enhanced by more research that focuses specifically on executives, and preferably that allows contrasts between executives at different levels. We hope that this review will encourage more research of this nature. Realistically, however, there are limits to this recommendation, as executives are particularly challenging to study, and the modest rates of voluntary resignations may further limit the viability of this sort of research. In the meantime, we feel comfortable that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from existing research, including research on non-managers, as long as heed is given to the caveats we will provide in doing so. Why study retention among leaders? Writers on executive retention, as a group, exhibit an interesting ambivalence

about the topic. Many reportsparticularly those written by consultantsdiscuss executive attrition in apocalyptic terms. A book on assimilation of leaders opens by stating that there is only a 50/50 chance that a new leader will still be with the company in two years (Downey, March, & Berkman, 2001). (Paradoxically, on the opposite page they say that only about a fifth of newly-hired senior leaders remain after two years.) Other reports indicate that one-third of Fortune 100 companies replaced their CEOs in the latter half of the 1990s, and that CEOs hired after 1985 are three times as likely to be fired as those hired prior to that time.(Bennis & OToole, 2000). However, times may be changing, whether due to the current economic collapse or to evolving philosophies. A 2009 report indicates that CEO tenure is the longest it has 6 been since 2000 (Karlsson & Neilson, 2009). A report by the Aberdeen group found that mid-level manager turnover was only 1.5% in North America and Europe (Aberdeen Group, 2005). Recent studies of executive turnover found voluntary turnover rates of 3.4% (Balsam & Miharjo, 2007) to as little as 2.2% (Dunford et al., 2008). Executive turnover in the US slowed considerably during the recession of 2008-2009, leading some observers to conclude that in difficult economic times firms want a battle tested captain at the helm (Karlsson & Neilson, 2009). Then again, the situation may never have been as bad as the doomsayers suggest; a long-term study of CEO turnover between 1970 and 2000 found that attrition increased only very slightly during that 30 year period (Billiger & Hallock, 2005). This ambivalence continues when executives themselves are asked if retention of leaders is an issue. A SHRM report concluded that senior management was mostly concerned about turnover among rank and file workers, with some concern about retention of middle managers, but nearly no concern about retention of senior executives

(Frincke, 2006). Yet a survey of senior HR executives at about the same time found that 79% reported their firms were greatly concerned about continuity of leadership (Aberdeen Group, 2005), a conclusion also reached in recent interviews with senior management (Schiemann, 2009). Part of the reason for this ambivalenceperhaps confusion is a better descriptionis the difficulty of obtaining reliable information about executive turnover. Reasonably sound studies seem to indicate turnover rates of about 13% for CEOs (Billiger et al., 2005; Karlsson et al., 2009; Khaliq, Thompson, & Walston, 2006). Others describe retention in terms of years in office rather than rates of turnover; by this metric, CEOs seem to have a longevity of 6 8 years, although removing a group of outlier CEOs who have been entrenched for more than 30 years brings that figure down to a more concerning 3.9 years in office (Ginsberg, 1997; Karlsson et al., 2009). Other senior executives fall in similar ranges: CFOs having average tenures of 5 7 years (Lee & Milne, 1988; Nash, 2009); CHROs and heads of Manufacturing and Sales averaging about 6.5 years (Nash, 2009) ; and CIOs lagging a bit at 4-6 years (Gaertner & Nollen, 1992; Nash, 2007, 2009). One of the limitations with these figuresand a major problem in understanding executive retentionis that many studies fail to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary turnover. In fact, most writers agree that 60-70% of executive turnover is due to normal, planned retirements, with another 10 17% due to dismissals either for 7 cause or due to restructuring (Comte & Mihal, 1990; DeFond & Park, 1999; Vancil, 1987); Karlsson and Neilson (2009) indicate the rate of forced departures may be as high as 35%. Voluntary turnover, which is the only turnover directly relevant to this review, has been reported to be as low as 2-4% in those studies in which the authors

went to the trouble to make this distinction (Balsam et al., 2007; Dunford et al., 2008). One conclusion from these data might be that the issue of executive retention is over-blown. Indeed, as we will describe in a subsequent section of this review, some might even suggest that the rate of CEO turnover is too low, a criticism not limited to those who raise concerns about highly paid CEOs receiving bonuses for running underperforming firms. Yet, as we will describe more fully later in this review, it is evident that when a senior leader quits, the effects on the organization can be dramatic. Thus, even if voluntary turnover is not at epidemic proportions, effective stewardship can benefit from retaining top talent. Retention of top executives may be particularly relevant in cases of acquisitions or other major changes in ownership or structure of a firm. This topic has received considerable attention by management researchers, and there is consensus that acquisitions are challenging, often traumatic, and frequently less successful than anticipated. A number of studies suggest that these challenges are exacerbated by the departure of executives from the acquired firm (Bergh, 2001; Cannella & Hambrick, 1993; Krishnan, Miller, & Judge, 1997). Losing experienced leaders often disrupts personal relationships that had been formed with key customers and suppliers, interferes with decision making processes, and may spell the end of strategic initiatives that had been underway. On the other hand, mergers and acquisitions provide the opportunity (if not the necessity) to prune executive ranks, and some theory suggests that the replacement of old guard managers with new leaders may provide the impetus for innovation and success in the new firm. Thus, even in the context of acquisitions, it is not clear that retention of executives is always the right goal. Retention versus Turnover

In the turnover literature, a conceptual distinction is drawn between voluntary and involuntary separations, although this partitioning is often fiendishly difficult to make in practice. It is common for executives who have fallen from favor to be given the opportunity to resign gracefully; divining the true motive is difficult except in cases where the CEO retires on a predetermined date. With that caveat, we have focused primarily 8 on studies of executive turnover that is not explicitly involuntary. Readers interested in involuntary turnover are directed to the model of CEO dismissal proposed by Frederickson, Hambrick, and Baumrin (1988). Only more recently has the focus somewhat subtly changed to employee retention rather than turnover. Obviously, what is being studied in either case is the movement (or lack thereof) of individuals from an organizational role or job, usually through leaving the organization, although in some cases it may involve movement within the same organization. So what might be the significance of the difference in labels? From a methodological point of view, there may be advantages to studying retention because it avoids certain statistical problems. Because turnover is generally a relatively infrequent event, the assumptions underlying standard statistical procedures may not be met. This may lead to inaccurate analyses, and in general makes data interpretation difficult. This is particularly problematic for studying executives, not necessarily because their frequency of leaving is different than for other employees, but because the usual means of measuring turnover doesnt necessarily apply well. Turnover is normally measured as the rate of departures in an employee group; obviously, this statistic will be much more stable if the group is relatively large (such as all employees in a particular job or job family, division or department, or even in the

organization overall). For executives, the group is small even with inclusive definitions of executive; as noted earlier, many studies of executive turnover include only the CEO, in which case its impossible to compute a rate of turnover, unless its done by aggregating CEO turnover over years (presumably many years) within an organization, or across firms within an industry. That kind of aggregation creates its own very serious problems, as it makes the research more challenging to conduct, and also creates potential biases due to history (i.e., factors that change over time in a longitudinal study) as well differences across organizations. As a result of these considerations, studies of executives often measure length of time in office, essentially a measure of retention rather than of turnover per se. As important as these methodological considerations are, an arguably more important reason for the shift to retention is the focus on solving a perceived problem. As we will discuss in more detail in the next section, turnover generally has a negative connotation: a problem to be avoided or solved. Retention, on the other hand, is presumed to be positive: a focus on solutions, rather than problems (and how many 9 times have employees been given the advice to bring solutions, not problems, to their bosses?) While there may be advantages to this solution-focus, there can be unintended negative consequences. One of these can be a preoccupation on fixing a problem, possibly to the detriment of understanding the problem. This criticism can also be made of the turnover literature: why study turnover other than because its a problem from the point of view of management? That said, the focus of turnover research has generally been on understanding the process employees go through in making a decision to leave. While this could apply equally to studies of retention, to the extent that they are driven by a desire to solve a problem as expeditiously as possible, there is a risk that the understanding component may be sacrificed at the altar of presumed

efficiency. Why should we care about that? The most significant reason goes back to the working assumption that turnover is a problem, or put differently, that retention of executives (or any other class of employees) is a good thing. This issue is of such fundamental importance that we devote the next section in its entirety to a discussion of it. There has been substantial debate about the consequences of employee turnover for organizational performance, both in the general turnover literature and more specifically with regard to the effects of executive succession. We will begin with a discussion of the more general turnover literature, and then turn our attention to studies dealing with executive succession and of executive turnover in acquisitions. Does Retention Matter: The Turnover Literature Perspective The traditional assumption has been that turnover is an undesirable outcome to be avoided. This view is based on the significant costs associated with an employee quitting, costs that include lost productivity on the part of the departing employee (reduced productivity while his or her attention is diverted to searching for a job, lost labor during the period between the time the individual quits and a replacement is hired, and reduced productivity of the new hire while learning the job), recruiting costs involved in finding a replacement, and likely reduced productivity of co-workers who need to fill in for the departing individual as well as spend time mentoring his or her replacement. Estimates of these direct costs range from 90% to 200% of the departing employees salary (Cascio & Boudreau, 2008). These direct costs are likely to be significant higher for the departure of a CEO, or for other members of the top management team (Bennis et al., 2000; Gibelman & 10 Gelman, 2002); estimates range as high as a rather incredible estimate of 40 times base

salary for executives earning $100,000 - $250,000 (Downey et al., 2001). Lost productivity of the top executive is likely to be much harder to cover with organizational slack; indeed, the departure of a CEO may be perceived by competitors as a period of vulnerability to be exploited aggressively (Khaliq et al., 2006). Salaries of replacement executivesparticularly if they come from outside the organizationare often significantly higher than that of the departing leader. Recruitment costsoften involving search firms and an extensive time commitment of remaining members of the executive teamare likely to be orders of magnitude higher than for lower level employees, and the time required to find a replacement may be significant. And in many cases the departure of an executive, especially if it is involuntary, involves golden parachute packages that can dwarf the direct costs of replacing the individual. Human Capital Perspective More recent theory and research have focused less on the direct costs of replacement, directing their attention instead to the loss of human capital caused by turnover. This includes both general human capital that can readily be transferred across jobs or organizations and specific human capital, which includes formal training as well as tacit knowledge that is more or less unique to a particular setting. Specific human capital implies an investmentby both the employee and the organizationin learning the practices of the employing organization. Executives are likely to be particularly high in general human capital value relative to others in the organization (and relative to those included in most studies of turnover); depending on their tenure with the organization or industry, this may or may not be true of their specific human capital. For example, retaining longer-tenured executives (with greater specific human capital) in acquired firms may increase the likelihood that the acquisition will be successful (Bergh,

2001) because of the tacit knowledge that the experienced executives bring to bear. Dess and Shaw (2001), among others, have also addressed the social capital costs of turnover. Organizations are characterized by rich social networks, in which who you know is as important as what you know, and in which the departure of key players may have a crippling effect on a wide range of interdependent groups. Executives often play a linking-pin role in a wide array of such groups, so that their leaving can result in significant gaps in a series of networks. Compounding this factor is a phenomenon of cluster, or social network, turnover. Krackhardt and Porter (1986) first referred to this 11 phenomenon as a snowball effect in their discovery that communication networks among fast-food employees predicted clusters of employee movement from one employer to another. This snowball effect is at least as applicable in the executive suite, as a number of studies have shown that departure of a CEO influences turnover of other members of the top management team (Fee & Hadlock, 2004; Hayes, Oyer, & Schaefer, 2006; Khaliq et al., 2006). In some cases this may be a matter of the other executives finding it an opportune time to explore their own options, particularly if they feel they were overlooked in the choice of a successor or dont feel comfortable with the direction or personality of the new leader. This effect may be enhanced by competing organizations seeing the loss of a CEO as an opportunity to raid key executives (Khaliq et al., 2006). In other cases, the collateral turnover may be more direct, when the departing executive brings along a number of trusted lieutenants to the new employer. In either case, the loss of a key executive may represent the loss of a whole executive team; under these circumstances, retention efforts directed at those likely to leave with the targeted executive may be as importantand more likely to pay offas attempts to keep the

executive. The Benefits of Turnover: A Contrarian View As significant as these costs are likely to be, a number of researchers have made the case that turnover is not necessarily dysfunctional for the employing organization. Dan Dalton and his colleagues (Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981; Dalton & Todor, 1979; Dalton, Todor, & Krackhardt, 1982) suggested that turnover can be beneficial to the extent that it results in the departure of unproductive employees. This functional turnover can occur with both voluntary and involuntary turnover, whereas dysfunctional turnover (the departure of valued or hard to replace employees) presumably occurs only through voluntary turnover. This functional/dysfunctional distinction was later modified by adding a consideration of whether the turnover is avoidable or uncontrollable (Dalton et al., 1981). In many casessuch as when employees quit because of health issues, family commitments, or to pursue educational opportunitiesthe employer has limited ability to control the voluntary turnover. There is no reason to try to reduce functional turnover, and little ability to reduce uncontrollable turnover, so in evaluating retention programs, they argued that the focus should be on avoidable, dysfunctional turnover. 12 Dalton and his colleagues followed up their theoretical articles with an empirical study of bank employees that found that 71% of the turnover was actually functional, and that 52% was unavoidable (Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981). While their study was not of executives, their arguments regarding the possible functional consequences of turnover are particularly relevant for top managers. [Joe, was there much else on the effect of mis-alignment?] Aside from the removal of mis-matched (and likely underperforming) employees, turnover can also have the effect of bringing in fresh perspectives and innovative approaches (Katz, 1982). This new blood hypothesis may

be especially relevant to organizational leaders; a number of studies have shown that as executives remain in their roles they tend to become more rigid and resistant to change and to support existing policies and procedures even when they are no longer effective (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Hambrick & Fukutomi, 1991; Staw & Ross, 1987). Turnover of this deadwood may be quite beneficial to the firm. Empirical Relationships between Turnover and Performance While thought-provoking, the fundamental question is whether this functional turnover perspective is borne out by research. Within the HR turnover literature, most of the initial research was conducted at an individual level of analysis, exploring whether higher or lower performing employees are more likely to resign. The general finding has been that less productive workers are more likely to separate (McEvoy & Cascio, 1987; Williams & Livingstone, 1994). This is an intriguing finding, as it might be expected that high performers would find it easier to locate alternative employment (Jackofsky & Peters, 1983). Although logical, at least two studies have failed to find evidence of this effect (Jackofsky & Slocum, 1987; Rosse, 1987). However, this research has not included executives, whose job performance may be particularly visible to alternative employers who are seeking to entice top talent away from their current employment. More recently, research has occurred on a more macro level--correlating aggregate turnover rates and organizational rather than individual performance and has more specifically drawn upon the two competing paradigms: the human capital perspective that views turnover as costly and to be minimized and the costs and benefits approach (e.g., (Abelson & Baysinger, 1984; Dalton et al., 1979) that suggests a moderate level of turnover is most beneficial. Thus, this research looks at turnover as the cause and performance as the outcomethe opposite of the assumed relationship

in the prior studies done at the individual level of analysis. The results of these studies 13 have been mixed, with most showing that turnover reduces subsequent organization or work-unit performance (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, & Lockhart, 2005; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005), but with some studies supporting an inverted-U relationship in which the optimal trade-off of costs and benefits occurs at some moderate level of turnover (Glebbeek & Bax, 2004; Harris, Tang, & Tseng, 2006). Siebert and Zubanov (2009) attempted to reconcile these findings with a contingency model that suggests that the optimal approach depends on the work systems under which the employees work. They studied retail sales assistants in 325 stores of a large U.K. clothing chain. Some of these workers were employed under what they termed a commitment work system, characterized by high-performance work practices (e.g., extensive recruiting, hiring, and training practices, performance-based pay). Other sales assistants worked under a secondary work system, characterized by part-time work, casual hiring practices, minimal training, and restricted responsibility. They found that turnover among employees in the commitment groupwith presumably greater human capital investmentshad a negative effect on organizational performance, whereas the secondary employees showed an inverted -U relationship between turnover and performance, with the highest performance occurring at moderate levels of turnover. In attempting to extend these results to executives, it is easy to assume that executives are like those in the commitment work system. Certainly they do not seem like the part-time, workers in the secondary group. Hiring of executives is not likely to be casual, the work is almost certainly complex and challenging, investment in human capital (either by purchasing it through hiring or through subsequent executive

development) is substantial, and compensation is generally performance-based. However, it also possible that this is an idealized view of executive talent management, and that errors in hiring (or degradation of skills over time) may also apply in the executive suite. We now turn to the literature on executive succession to explore these issues in more detail. Does Retention Matter: Lessons from the Executive Succession Literature A number of studies of executive succession are relevant to our discussion of executive retention. Like the turnover literature, scholars in this area distinguish between executive succession that is voluntary (often referred to as routine succession) and that which is involuntary (or forced, sometimes more directly termed 14 dismissal.) They also draw distinctions between internal and external successors, although the literature is mixed regarding the importance of this distinction. Two major reviews of the executive succession literature agree that the most consistent finding is that succession is preceded byand presumably a result of-declining organizational performance (Furtado & Karan, 1990; Kesner & Sebora, 1994). The obvious explanation is that boards are expected to meet their fiduciary responsibility by disciplining ineffective leaders, by dismissal if necessary. It may also be that CEOs, recognizing this, voluntarily choose to move on before suffering the indignity of being fired. Nor are these effects limited to CEOs; some studies show that declining performance can also result in heightened turnover among other members of the top management team (Hayes et al., 2006; Wiersema & Bantel, 1993a), and even board Chairs, although this effect seems less profound than for CEOs. Reviews also agree that CEO succession has a substantial effect on others in the organization, particularly other members of the top management team. In one study,

22% of senior managers left when a new internal CEO came on board; when the new CEO was an outsider, this figure rose to 33%, nearly twice the turnover rate of top managers in companies not experiencing a change in CEO (Coyne & Coyne, 2007). The critical question in the succession literaturealso relevant to our discussion of retentionis whether succession and the disruption of the status quo that it creates results in a return to successful organizational performance. Giambatista and colleagues (2005) note that the study of organizational succession has long been guided by three competing perspectives, commonly referred to as common sense, vicious cycle, and ritual scapegoating: The common sense perspective starts with the finding that succession events are usually preceded by declining organizational performance and argues that succession should result in improved performance due to a combination of removing the (presumably) ineffective CEO, the benefits of a honeymoon period for the replacement, and the heightened enthusiasm and fresh outlook that a newcomer brings to the job. In many ways it is similar to the costs and benefits approach to turnover that was previously described, and raises questions about the utility of retaining executives (at least when performance is in decline). The vicious cycle perspective suggests that turnover of top managers disrupts routines and established networks, impairing morale and reducing 15 efficiency. Thus, similar to the social capital analysis of turnover, the vicious cycle perspective predicts that executive succession will generally lead to a decrement in organizational performance. From this point of view, then, retaining rather than dismissing executives should be functional (as long as other corrective steps are taken to turn around the organizations

performance). The ritual scapegoating perspective predicts that organizational performance will not improve following a succession event, because the succession is merely a ritual to placate stakeholders. From this perspective, chief executives dont have a lot of control over the fates of their organization, so retaining (or replacing) them will have relatively little effect relative to external factors. There have been three major reviews of the literature testing these hypotheses, the first by Furtado and Karan in 1990, followed by Kesner and Sebora in 1994, and the most recent by Giambatista et al. in 2005; we also include in our review a few additional studies that were not incorporated in these reviews. At the risk of over-simplifying a complex topic, Furtado and Karan found no support for the idea that organizational performance improves following the departure of a CEO. Kesner and Sebora concluded that succession does lead to changes in organizational strategy and practices; however, they found mixed results as to what effect these changes had on subsequent organizational performance. In the most recent review, Giambatista et al. (2005) revisited the assumption that CEO succession leads to changes in organizational practices. Although noting studies since Kesner and Seboras review that strongly suggest that leaders do make a difference (see Bertrand and Schoar, (2003), for an excellent example), they also cite studies that failed to find evidence of changes following a succession event (Boeker, 1997; Sakano & Lewin, 1999), or found such an effect only in cases of non-routine succession (Wiersema, 1995). They speculated that this might be due to the studies using too short of a time frame (typically about a year) to detect changes. Alternatively, they suggested that inertia might simply be too strong to be readily overcome by a new

CEO (see also (Murphy & Zimmerman, 1993). Despite those misgivings, Giambatista and colleagues concluded that executive succession generally has positive effects on subsequent organizational performance, typically measured as improvements in various financial indicators, such as ROA or 16 stock prices. Khaliq et al. (2006) reached a somewhat different conclusion in a study that was instead based on CEOs perceptions of changes in the performance of the organization they left, as well as the organization they joined. They found that executives reported a number of negative effectssuch as cutbacks in investments in critical programs by their successor and increased competitive moves by rival firms following their departure. However, these findings may be attributable to self-serving bias, since the same executives tended to feel that the performance of their new employers improved once they were brought in as new CEOs! Gibelman and Gelman (2002) tried to explain these differing conclusions by proposing that the consequences of the disruption caused by leader succession depend on the reason for the succession event. Successions due to retirements allow the most time for planning the succession process and often signal underlying stability and normalcy rather than crisis. Voluntary resignations are more disruptive because they are often unanticipated; more important, though, may be the motives others attribute to the executives decision to depart. Forced resignations generally are still more disruptive, though they can often be managed in order to allow some time for transition planning and spin control. Finally, dismissals are generally the most disruptive, particularly if they result from a crisis caused by the executive (Farquhar, 1994). It has also been suggested that the consequences of executive turnover depend on whether the successor comes from inside or outside the organization. Giambatista et al. found the rather limited evidence to be very mixed. Most relevant to this review,

though, was a study that found that outside successors were least successful when the departure of a CEO also results in turnover of other members of the former top management team (Shen & Cannella, 2002). This scenario is not improbable: Coyne and Coyne (2007) found that top management team turnover was dramatically higher when the successor was external. This again suggests that retention management programs should target the whole executive team, particularly when the departure of the CEO is imminent. However, Coyne and Coyne also found that nearly 80% of this collateral turnover was involuntary, as the new CEO cleaned house. Future research should examine closely the effectspro and conof such wholesale changes in the top management team, as it is quite possible that resultant disruption is less functional than intended. 17 Does Retention Matter: The Context of Acquisitions There is a significant literature on leader succession in the context of acquisitions that offers additional perspective on the question of whether (or when) retention of leaders is in the interests of the firm. Acquisitions by their nature are highly disruptive events; this disruption is magnified by turnover among executives, particularly in the acquired firm. Executives in acquired firms depart at much higher than normal rates (Krishnan et al., 1997), averaging 23% in the year following the acquisition (Krug, 2003). Nor is this a temporary effect; two large-scale studies found that the heightened turnover persisted as long as nine years following the acquisition (Krug, 2003; Krug & Shill, 2008). The exodus of managers is even more likely in the case of unfriendly takeovers (Bergh, 2001; Cannella et al., 1993). It may also be more prevalent when the target of the acquisition had not been performing well (Hambrick & Cannella, 1993), although the evidence is mixed (Walsh & Ellwood, 1991).

Empirical studies indicate that this turnover is associated with lowered firm performance following the acquisition (Cannella et al., 1993; Krishnan et al., 1997); loss of longer tenured executives in particular has been identified as a factor in determining whether the acquisition will be a success or a flop (Bergh, 2001). In apparent disregard of this research, acquiring firms often encourage the departure of executives in target firms. In some cases this is because the target firm had been under-performing; according to the so-called market discipline perspective, top managers are ultimately responsible for the lack of performance, so their removal is a means of reviving performance. Another common reason for replacing managers in acquired firms is that the acquisition results in redundant positions or skills; under these circumstances, acquiring firms often prefer to retain their own employees and dismiss those who may be resistant to the acquisition, who dont fit the acquiring firms culture, or whose skills may not be as good a fit with a new direction the acquired firm is expected to take (Buchholtz, Ribbens, & Houle, 2003). In a seminal article, Bergh (2001) raises questions about the efficacy of executive purges. He found that acquisitions are less likely to be successful when longer-tenured executives were the ones that departed. Bergh explained this in terms of human capital and resource-based theory, suggesting that retaining leaders who know the ropes can be critical to the merged firms success. Krug (2003) offers a compromise position. He suggests that experienced leaders are critical for the initial period of the acquisition, by 18 providing ongoing leadership over existing programs, maintaining relations with key stakeholders, and providing the merged firm with expertise relevant to the target firms established niche (i.e., by providing the benefits of specific human capital). In the

longer-term, however, replacement of the old guard may be useful, as longer-tenured managers are less likely to take risks and strike out in innovative directions (the unstated assumption being that successful M&As are particularly dependent on innovation). This is an intriguing suggestion, although it has not yet been subjected to empirical test. If corroborated, it might suggest the utility of time-limited retention programs targeting short-term retention of key managers. How this might affect these short-timers decisions, as well as the morale of other employees and the ability to recruit or retain potential replacements would be worthy subjects of study. As with much of the literature on executive turnover, voluntary turnover has received less attention than have dismissals in the study of acquisitions and other major changes in firm ownership. In an important exception, Hambrick and Cannella (1993) showed that a key element in acquired managers decision to depart is how the acquisition affects their social status. The foundation for their study was the concept of relative standing: the idea that leaders of acquired firms suffer a loss of social status that makes it intolerable to stay. Top executives are used to being at the pinnacle of an organization, calling the shots and being responsible for the success or failure of the firm. Even if they are not dismissed, being acquired by another firm generally involves a loss of this status, and relegation to a less powerful role. Leaders of acquired firms may also question their own skills relative to those of the acquiring firms executive team, particularly if the acquisition results in a change of strategic direction. Rather than live with this reduced autonomy and prestige, leaders may decide that its a good time to move on to new challenges or opportunities. Hambrick and Cannella (1993) confirmed this hypothesis, finding that executive turnover was higher when the acquisition process was most threatening to the status of the targeted firms executives, such as in cases

where the discrepancy between the performance of the target and acquiring firms was largest. Alternatively, acquired executives who were appointed as officers or directors of the new firmthus minimizing the status differentialwere less likely to quit. (However, consistent with the aphorism that there is no free lunch, they also found that peers of these executives, who were not beneficiaries of this status bestowal, had an increased likelihood of quitting, since they had suffered a double loss in relative status.) Ghosh and Ruland (1998)also provided indirect support for the relative status theory when they 19 found that acquired executives who receive stock rather than cash payments as part of the acquisition are less likely to quit, apparently because the stock (and the accompanying voting rights) provides them with increased control over the direction of the new firm. Age of the acquired executives has also been implicated in their decision to quit rather than join the merged firm. Buchholtz and colleagues found an inverted-U relationship between age and turnover, with departures most frequent among the youngest and oldest leaders (the inflection point at which turnover was lowest occurred at age 54) (Buchholtz et al., 2003). They suggest that the youngest leaders are more likely to move on for a number of reasons. First, they have the least specific (versus general) human capital; their sunk costs in their current job are minimal and given the number of years ahead of them the payoffs of developing new specific capital are greater than for their older counterparts; they are less invested in a lifestyle that would be threatened by a temporary loss or reduction in income that might accompany quitting; and because firms are more willing to invest in younger employees, younger managers believe that they will have fewer problems finding a new position. Simultaneously, older

CEOs are less inclined to adapt to the new situation (not because old dogs cannot learn new tricks but because as one grows older there is less time to benefit from developing new skills and knowledge, according to Bucholtz) and may also have increasing interest in retirement or other alternative pursuits, as well as the resources to allow these options. In contrast, those in the middle (roughly between the ages of 45 and 65), have more to lose from changing jobs than the younger executives and more to gain from developing new skills and knowledge than the older executives; as a result, they are most likely to stay with the acquiring firm. Their preferences to stay may also match the preferences of the acquiring firm, since they have the potential to provide a balance between stability and adaptability. In fact, this pattern may represent a rough approximation of Krugs (2003) conclusion that acquisitions are most successful when longer-tenure leaders are initially retained in order to maintain continuity, and are then replaced with new leaders with greater adaptability to new initiatives. Does Retention Matter: Summary and Implications Thinking about turnover has evolved from the assumption that it is necessarily a costly problem to be avoided to a more nuanced assessment of costs and benefits. Research shows that turnover is more likely among lower performing employees, 20 suggesting that turnover may play an important role in improving job-person fit and job performance. A necessary caveat is that this conclusion is based on non-executive samples, probably because it is rare to try to measure the performance of executives other than by looking at performance of the organization. Along those lines, research on executive succession has consistently found that departure of organizational leaders (often, but not necessarily, involuntarily) follows a period of decline in organizational performance. This is consistent with the generally

accepted notion that chief executives are ultimately responsible for the performance of the firms they lead. That philosophy notwithstanding, researchers have cautioned of instances in which the CEOs departure may be hindered by an unwillingness on the part of the CEO or the board of directors to respond to a decline in performance (Comte et al., 1990; Dedman, 2003; Gregory-Smith, Thompson, & Wright, 2009). Although mixed, the evidence as a whole suggests that organizational performance often increases with a new leader, again implying that turnover may improve the person-job fit. Finally, the literature on changes in leadership when one firm acquires another illustrates a context in which retention of key leaders is particularly problematic. On the one hand, loss of leaders seems to result in lowered performance of the new firm, while on the other hand, sound rationales can be developed for revamping the top management team. Successful acquisitions demand a well thought out retention plan that begins with a clear understanding of executive talent needsboth for the immediate transition and for the longer-term success of the merged firmas well as taking stock of the skills, abilities and knowledge of the executive teams in both the acquiring and target firms. This is essential for an analysis of both gaps and redundancies in the merged workforce. This understanding of the organizations needs must then be integrated with awareness of how the acquisition is likely to affect key executives analysis of the costs and benefits of staying or seeking out new opportunities. Only then can a talent management plan identify the key targets for retention and executives who need to be dismissed (as well as a middle ground of executives whose loss is not desired but does not merit extraordinary retention efforts). Indeed, such an analysis seems fundamental in all situations, not only those involving acquisitions.

Overall, while it seems evident that turnover can have beneficial effects, it also involves significant direct costs as well as the potential loss of valuable human capital. Siebert and Zubanovs (2009) study points out that this is particularly true for jobs in which investments in talent are significant; although their study did not include 21 executives, they should be a prototype for this kind of job. In the context of executive teams, there is also persuasive evidence that turnover of the top executive can have a domino effect on other members of the top management team, which is even more likely to have negative effects than the departure of the CEO. A fundamental implication of this discussion is that HR professionals must provide a nuanced approach to talent management rather than reifying employee retention as a universal goal. Employee retention efforts should manage employee mobility by targeting voluntary turnover that is dysfunctional and avoidable, as shown in Figure 1. Simultaneously, these programs should be designed so as not to inadvertently encourage retention of employeesincluding executiveswho are not contributing positively to the organization. The goal should be a talent management program that simultaneously targets retention of high performing and hard to replace employees and either performance improvement or dismissal of poorly performing employees (Levin & Rosse, 2001). Dysfunctional Functional Voluntary - Avoidable Primary target for retention efforts Turnover should be encouraged - Uncontrollable Potential target for retention efforts Turnover should be encouraged

Involuntary (not applicable) Dismissals Figure 1. Relationships between types of turnover and talent management/retention programs. Retention of leaders may be essential when those individuals are the right person for that job and that organization, not only today but also for the near-term future. But it may be the wrong strategy when those criteria are not met, or when the costs of retaining the individual exceed the benefits. Having made that pointwe hope emphaticallywe will now proceed to evaluate what is known about how to retain executives when that has been determined to be the correct course of action. Strategies for Retaining Executive Leadership Perhaps the most distressing outcome of conducting this literature review was the discovery of just how little research has been conducted on executive-level turnover in general. More than a quarter-century ago, Bluedorn pointed this out in his review of the turnover literature (Bluedorn, 1982). The same conclusion was reached by Harrison and colleagues, who also noted that the majority of what literature does exist has 22 focused on the consequences, rather than the antecedents of top management attrition (Harrison, Torres, & Kukalis, 1988). In particular, most studies have dealt with leader succession; perhaps because the focus of this literature has been as much on the new leader as the past leader, for the most part these studies have not emphasized the process leading up to the departure of the former leader. It is clear that leader succession is often a result of poor firm performance, but it is much less clear how firm performance affects executive departure, except to the extent that it affects dismissals of executives considered to be failures. Indeed, this focus on involuntary departures is endemic in writings about executive turnover. The vast majority is specifically concerned

with dismissals of executives, and particularly the consequences of these dismissals for subsequent firm performance. While a very interesting and useful topic, it has at best only indirect relevance to the topic of retaining executives who decide on their own volition to leave (and for whom retention programming might be effective). Because of this paucity of literature, it has not been possible to structure this review in the conventional manner of grouping studies by categories, summarizing findings, and then reaching evidence-based conclusions and implications. There is simply too little literature to make this a viable approach. Instead, this review is organized roughly according the stages in an executives tenure in a firm, beginning with recruitment, moving on to the onboarding process, then considering factors that affect leaders commitment to their organization, and closing with a brief discussion of recommendations for special circumstances, such as mergers and acquisitions. Where possible, we have addressed the literature on executive turnover/retention for each of these stages; often, though, because of the lack of any literature specific to executives we instead reviewed findings from the general turnover literature and then offered suggestions as to how they might apply to top managers. Throughout, we emphasize research articles that allow evidence-based recommendations, although where appropriate we also note recommendations that are found in the non-scholarly literature, particularly as they suggest directions for needed research. Recruitment and Hiring Recruitment of new employees is the foundation for retention (Aberdeen Group, 2005; Levin & Rosse, 2001); this is no less true for top managers. In fact, some leading thinkers believe that ineffective hiring is the primary reason for executive turnover (Bennis et al., 2000; Schiemann, 2009) First, hiring managers with the competencies 23

necessary to be successful is fundamental. Executives who lack the skills to be successful will be dismissed, or encouraged to resign; managers without golden parachute packages may recognize the signs and depart of their own volition before this step is necessary. Second, and sometimes less obviously, not matching the right leader with the right setting may produce situations in which the leader is successful by the firms standards, but nonetheless quits because the job is not adequately satisfying. These departures can be particularly challenging because the leaders decision m ay seem to come out of nowhere. Because there is another review in this series specifically addressing the topic of leader recruitment and hiring (include cite), we will not dwell on strategies for recruiting and hiring executive talent. Rather we will focus our discussion on three aspects of the recruitment process that research has explicitly linked with employee retention: (1) the use of biographical data in making hiring decisions; (2) realistic job previews, and (3) consequences of similarity/dissimilarity in the top management team. Biographical data. Biographical data refers to information about applicants demographic background or past history that can be used to guide hiring decisions. Obviously, such information nearly always plays some role in recruiting employees, but selection researchers have developed two procedures for scoring this information to make it far more valid for this purpose. One is the use of Weighted Application Blanks, or WABs. WABs use straightforward statistical techniques to develop an empirical scoring key for existing biographical data (usually that which is included in application blanks, or forms, hence the name.) In concept, WAB scoring keys can be developed to predict anything from sales performance to honesty, but research most strongly validates their use for predicting tenure in a job. Meta-analysis reports a strikingly high corrected validity (= .33) for this purpose (Hom & Griffeth, 1995).

As encouraging as that may sound, there are a number of limitations for the use of WABs for predicting which candidate for a top management position is least likely to quit. Foremost among these is the lack of validation evidence for executive positions. WABs have been most frequently developed for clerical and sales positions (Gatewood & Feild, 2001); perhaps the closest example to an executive position was their use to predict creativity in research scientists (Albright, Smith, Gennon, & Owens, 1961). Conceptually, this is not a major problem, because the principle underlying the use of WABs should apply equally to executive positions. However, one of the main reasons for the lack of research in managerial settings highlights a significant practical limitation 24 of WABS for managerial selection: their development and validation requires data from large samples of incumbent employees. This is because the scoring of the various items of personal information (e.g., current and past residences, years of education, number of past jobs, tenure in prior jobs) is based entirely on empirical relationships that are computed between the characteristics and the criterion being predicted (i.e., whether or not the people with these characteristics quit prematurely). This requires a sample of hundreds of employees, plus additional hundreds to cross-validate the results to make sure they are not due to chance. This makes the use of WABs clearly impractical for use with top managers, even in very large organizations or consortiums of firms. (They might, however, be feasible for middle-level managers under these circumstances.) A related approach that might prove more feasible involves Biographical Information Blanks, or BIBs. Like WABs, BIBs are based on scoring background information about applicants in order to predict a criterion. The key difference is that while WABs use whatever information is readily available about employees that works to

predict turnover (often without any particular rationale for why), BIBs are based on items that have a sound logical relationship to the outcome. Thus, one might consider what kinds of personal information could be obtained from applicants for an executive position that might predict their longevity with the firm. Research shows that BIBs generally have higher validity than WABs, though with the caveats that this research has generally involved lower-level workers and has more commonly been used to predict performance rather than retention. Moreover, BIBs still require fairly large data sets to validate, and require more work in advance to develop items that are likely to be related to turnover. What could make BIBs a practical strategy is the possibility of developing generic scoring strategies for managerial positions. Some such forms are already available, though more research on both validity and validity generalization is necessary before they can be widely recommended (Glennon, Albright, & Owens, 1966; Rosse & Levin, 1997). Realistic Job Previews. In their meta-analysis of evidence-based retention strategies, McEvoy and Cascio (1985) highlight the research support for the use of realistic job previews (RJPs) as a predictor of employee tenure. RJPs are based on evidence that a substantial amount of turnoverparticularly that occurring during the first 6 12 months on a new jobis the result of unmet expectations (Hom et al., 1995). During the recruitment process, employers are eager to sell themselves to applicants; as with any other kind of courting, the strong temptation is to present oneself in the best 25 possible light, to always be on your best behavior, and to do whatever you can to mask any shortcomings. Employers expect this of applicants, and probably to a somewhat lesser extent, applicants expect it of employers. The problem is that this arabesque of self-presentation often leaves both parties with entirely unrealistic representations of the

other. Employers have developed a battery of assessment tools to cut through this faade and reveal more about the applicants true nature, but applicants have fewer tools at their disposal to accomplish similar transparency about the prospective employer. Thus it should be no surprise that new hires often experience reality shock once they take a position; frequently employees overcome this by re-adjusting their expectations, but in other cases it results in costly turnover, often of the dysfunctional and avoidable type. RJPs were developed to overcome this problem by presenting applicants with a balanced presentation of all aspects of the job and employer, both good and bad. (Keep in mind that what is bad to one candidate may be seen as positive to anotherand vice versa.) They operate in multiple ways to reduce turnover (Breaugh, 1983; Wanous, 1980; Wanous, 1992). In some cases, hearing the whole story will cause an applicant to decide to withdraw from the applicant pool; while this may be disappointing at the time, it saves losing that individual later, quite possibly when their exit would be unexpected and harder to cope with. In other cases RJPs confer an immunization effect, allowing the applicant to lower their expectations prior to organizational entry and thus reducing reality shock. RJPs can also reduce turnoverand have other positive effectsby communicating to the applicant that the employer is credible. Every job has its limitations, and employees respect employers who are forthcoming about them. Wanous found that RJPs increased retention in 11 of the 13 experiments he reviewed (Wanous, 1992); based on their meta-analysis of 15 studies, McEvoy and Cascio (1985) estimate that RJPs reduce turnover by an average of 9%. Unfortunately, we were unable to identify any research on RJPs that has been conducted using executives. Yet, unlike with biographical data, there are few inherent limitations to using

RJPs with this group. One boundary condition for RJPs is that they seem to work best with applicants who are relatively unfamiliar with the job, and thus benefit the most from getting the whole story. While most executive applicants will have prior functional experience, there is still very much about the firm that will be different from their prior experience and which may affect their fit with the new job. Having a good understanding of typical practices, the company history and culture, and the profiles of key players are 26 often described as instrumental in determining if there is a match with the job; not being informed of these opportunities and traps can spell disaster. A second boundary condition is that RJPs work best when applicants are readily able to choose among different job opportunities. Applicants with limited options may ignore warning signs that they are not a good match and accept a position despite being informed of unfavorable conditions, just because they need the job. They might even take the job fully intending to move on as soon as a better opportunity presents itself. The relevance of this boundary condition will vary from case to case; as a general statement, qualified applicants for executive jobs are more likely to be able to say no to a job thats not for them than are many non-managerial incumbents. More serious, though, is some evidence that the best candidateswho are likely to have a wide range of attractive optionsare less likely to accept a job when presented with an RJP (Bretz & Judge, 1998) unless there are compensating differentials to make up for the negatives (Wanous, 1989). Again, this research was not done with managers, whom we might expect to have a more seasoned view and more strongly appreciate a realistic picture of the job being offered. Regardless, RJPs are best viewed as a strategy to help screen out candidates who will not respond well to factors that are inherent to the job, rather than as a panacea for limitations that can and should be resolved by the firm.

Top Management Team Heterogenity. Management research on organizational demography has created a potential dilemma for organizations who take seriously the notion of employee diversity in their hiring practices. A series of studies have documented that demographic heterogeneity in work teams increases turnover, particularly of those individuals who are different from the majority. Unlike the other areas of turnover research, many of these studies target top management teams specifically. The most common demographic factors that have been studied include age (Godthelp & Glunk, 2003; Jackson et al., 1991; Wagner, Pfeffer, & O'Reilly, 1984; Wiersema & Bird, 1993b) and team tenure (Godthelp et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 1991; Wagner et al., 1984; Wiersema et al., 1993b). Wiersema and Bird (1993b) also found that university background predicted turnover among Japanese managers. That women and people of color are so rarely among the upper echelons of management probably explains why gender and race/ethnicity has not been included in studies of top management team heterogeneity. The generally accepted (though rarely tested) explanation for these effects has to do with frames of reference. Executives of different generations have different education 27 and training, think and make decisions in terms of different experiences (e.g., the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement) and are likely to have somewhat different values. Similarly, Wiersema and Bird (1993b) argue that university pedigrees are of great importance in Japanese society and are likely to affect managers outlooks; although it has apparently not been tested, a similar Ivy League effect has often been described in US business circles. The inference is that these differences in frames of reference make communication more challenging for members of heterogeneous groups, which in turn

interferes with social integration and cohesiveness among team members. This affects turnover in two ways. First, it may result in increased attrition for the whole group, as individuals find group membership less rewarding and task accomplishment more difficult. Many studies find even stronger evidence of turnover among those individuals in the group who are the most different, particularly if they are the only member with that characteristic. The challenge is how to use this research in designing effective retention programs. While demographic diversity seems to hamper retentionparticularly of nonmajority team membersthere is also substantial research that diversity enhances creativity, reduces groupthink, and increases the likelihood of good group decisions. Moreover, there is ample evidence that incumbents in executive positions are predominantly male, and white; there are very good reasons that organizations have been investing substantially in programs to reduce barriers to qualified women and individuals of color. What the organizational demography literature shows is that retention of these qualified individuals needs to be a critical component of glass ceiling programs. Unfortunately, there is little research to guide employers through this minefield; however we can infer some reasonable implications from the studies of team heterogeneity. One is to remember that demographic characteristics have been used in these studies mostly because they are easy to measure; while they are generally assumed to act as proxies for more fundamental underlying differences in world view, values, and experiences, this assumption is often not directly tested. Realistically, it is likely that in most instances of executive hiring, the vetting process will (or should) be intensive enough that even demographically diverse hires will share the fundamental values that form the core of the organization. Looking past superficial characteristics 28

and assessing person-organization fit at the level of values that are fundamental to the firms culture and business model should reduce attrition without sacrificing diversity. A second implication is to expect that diverse groups may experience more communication and social integration challenges and to recognize that some (maybe most, at least in effective teams) of this conflict can be used for constructive purposes. Differences in perspectives can be instrumental for challenging the status quo and encouraging innovationbut only if the culture encourages this kind of response. Creating such a culture should have beneficial effects on team performance as well as on retention. This seems particularly true for groups that are diverse, though a best practice would be to encourage effective conflict resolution skills on a company-wide basis. Research testing this proposition would be highly beneficial from both theoretical and practical standpoints. Onboarding The hard work of developing a high performance workforce only begins when the right person is hired for the job. Increasingly, turnover researchers and human capital specialists have turned their attention to what happens once a new employee enters an organization, particularly as it relates to retaining that talent (or not, in those cases in which the individual turns out not to be right for the job or the firm). Onboarding, rooted in the scholarly literature on employee socialization (Klein & Heuser, 2008; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Wanous, 1976), refers to programs designed to ensure that newly hired employees are quickly and effectively integrated into their new organizational home. The term is relatively new and is generally used with particular reference to managerial hires, although the principles of onboarding should be relevant for new hires at any level. The focus on executives is prompted by concerns about the particularly high costs of

executive attrition, and the realization that the failure rate of externally-hired managers is nearly double that of internal hires (Ciampa & Watkins, 1999; Downey et al., 2001). It reflects a sea-change in the traditional thinkingby both leaders and the organizations that hire themthat leaders are smart and experienced and should be able to handle whatever is thrown at them in a new situation. However, while increasingly discussed, some reviewers suggest that fully-developed onboarding programs remain rare (Conger & Fishel, 2007). Onboarding programs are described as having a significant effect on turnover during the first months or year of a new employees tenure. This is a time when first 29 impressions are being formed and new employees are wrestling with the question of whether they made the right decision when they accepted the job (Wanous, 1976). As applicants, these new employees likely received lots of attention; senior employees in particular are likely to have been wined and dined as part of the recruitment process. This lavish attention often comes to an abrupt halt once the applicant signs the contractprecisely the time at which they may be experiencing buyers remorse and be most in need of reassurance that they made the right career move. Programs designed to maintain positive contact during the period between accepting the offer and actually starting work create the seeds for a strong employment relationship. It seems reasonable to speculate that this may be particularly true for executives, who may have more ego-involvement in the job, and for whom the gap in time between signing and actually joining their new organization may be longer. In addition to potentially increasing retention, ongoing contact during this period may also smooth the hand-off process between the outgoing and incoming leaders. Once the new employee begins working, onboarding programs are likely to

include much more than traditional orientation sessions. Studies consistently show that employees who have unrealistic job expectations are more likely to quit (Hom et al., 1995). One solution, providing applicants with Realistic Job Previews, has already been described as an effective strategy to increase retention of these individuals. Another is to take particular care during the first weeks and months to establish clear expectations, and then to meet with new hires both to give them feedback on how well they are doing, revise goals as appropriate, and listen to any concerns or problems the employee may be experiencing. Hom and Griffeth (1995) found that role ambiguity (uncertainty about the expectations others hold of you) and role conflict (being subjected to conflicting demands and expectations) are highly significant predictors of turnoversubstantially more so, in fact, than role overload (feeling that expectations exceed your ability). Knowledge of how well one is doing may be particularly relevant for CEOs, as a number of practice-based articles recommend regular feedback meetings between CEOs and the chair or other key members of the Board (Aberdeen Group, 2005; Kaufman, 2005). Early and frequent coaching sessions with new hires may be effective means of dealing with these issues. Onboarding programs also seek to increase retention by providing a buffer between the new hire and others in the organization. New leaders hired from outside the organization may face opposition and resentment from internal candidates who feel 30 they were passed over, yet not realize they are walking into a minefield until too late. On-boarding programs can provide mentoring for both the new executive and the jilted internal managers to reduce or prevent these conflicts (Reese, 2005). While onboarding programs make good sense, there is as yet little empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness. Much of the justification for these programs

comes from surveys of HR executives or new hires who report that traditional programs are inadequate (Pomeroy, 2006; Wells, 2005). Evidence that on-boarding programs actually reduce turnover, or improve the speed at which new executives become effective performers, is mostly limited to anecdotal accounts by consultants of their work with particular firms. As we have noted, the general principles underlying on-boarding programs are consistent with research on socialization, unmet expectations, and sources of job dissatisfaction. Most directly relevant is the extensive research on socialization of newcomers (often non-managerial); a meta-analysis of this literature (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007) demonstrates that socialization programs increase retention, primarily by enhancing incumbents social acceptance and self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs that they are able to perform their new job). Support for the principles underlying onboarding can also be inferred from research on leader-member exchange, which documents that the quality of relationship between an employee and his or her leader has a number of positive effects, including increased retention, and that this bond begins almost immediately after a new employee is hired (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). However, more research specifically focusing on the components of on-boarding programs with executives is warranted in order to justify the expenses of such programs, which are rarely mentioned but are presumably substantial. Developing Commitment to the Organization Research has traditionally placed primary emphasis on the relationship between employees and the firm as the key to retention. This can be seen in theories of turnover dating back to the classical view that turnover is a function of two basic forces: the employees perceived ease of movement (affected primarily by macro -economic

conditions, but also by the quality--as well as visibilityof the employees performance) and the desirability of movement (March & Simon, 1958). Particularly in push theories of turnover that emphasize factors that drive employees away from their current employers, desirability of movement is described in terms of employees job satisfaction 31 and commitment to the organization. Even for pull theories (addressing factors that entice employees to a new organization), an underlying assumption is that something about the alternative job made it more desirable than continuing in the current job. One of the questions central to employee retention programs is what it is about an employment relationship that builds this commitment to the employer1 . At risk of over-simplification, it is probably safe to suggest that all the various theories of turnover address this question, with the key differences among them being how additional variables fit into equation, either as antecedents, mediators, moderators, or alternative outcomes. One way of simplifying this vast literature is to refer to Allen and Meyers theory of organizational commitment, which describes three ways in which employees develop a psychological linkage with their employer that makes it less likely that they will quit (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The first of these is affective commitment, in which employees stay with the company because they want to; they identify with the company, feel highly involved with it, and have developed an emotional attachment to it. Employees who experience continuance commitment stay with their organization because they feel they have to, based on a calculated analysis of the costs and benefits of leaving versus staying. With normative commitment, employees stay because they feel they ought to, out of a sense of responsibility to the organization or coworkers. Closely related to affective commitment is job satisfaction. Both describe

employees emotional reactions to their jobs; commitment measures directly address the employees interest in staying with the organization, whereas job satisfaction measures are more context-free. Nevertheless, job satisfaction is consistently related to employees decisions to quit or stay. In one of the few studies that looked specifically at top level executives turnover decisions, overall job satisfaction was one of the key factors that differentiated stayers from top executives who were looking for alt ernative jobs (Gaertner et al., 1992). Bretz and colleagues also found that overall job satisfaction was related to both intentions to quit and actual turnover in their study of 1388 managers (Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994). In addition to asking about overall or global satisfaction, job satisfaction can also be measured in terms of specific aspects (or facets) of the working situation, such as 1 Readers may wonder why we refer to this as commitment rather than the currently popular employee engagement. Engagement has suffered from definitional ambiguity, but current thinking conceptualizes it in terms of discretionary above and beyond job performance, rather than in terms of retention (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Commitment and job satisfaction are elements of engagement, and have an extensive research literature linking them with turnover/retention. 32 satisfaction with the nature of the work, with supervisors, with compensation, with coworkers, and so forth. Although these more detailed surveys are more cumbersome, they can provide results that are more useful for identifying specific problems and

deriving strategies for reducing dissatisfaction, and thus, turnover. Studies of general groups of employees have shown that the most important dimensions of satisfaction for predicting turnover are promotions, followed by clarity about role expectations and the quality of an employees relationship with their leader; as we will discuss i n more detail later in this review, neither actual pay nor satisfaction with pay are strongly related to retention (Hom et al., 1995). Unfortunately, studies of job satisfaction as causes of upper management turnover typically include only general measures of satisfaction, so it remains to be seen whether similar patterns exist for leaders. Although definitive research on the relative importance of commitment factors for executive turnover is lacking, three factors stand out as deserving particular attention due to a combination of research support and likely relevance to executives: the nature of the work, development and growth opportunities, and compensation. The literature on compensation is by far the most extensive; to do it justice, it will be described in its own section. The nature of the work. Interest in the intrinsic motivating value of work was first popularized by Frederick Herzberg, and continues to play a major role in theories of employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Hertzberg and his colleagues distinguished between motivators, intrinsic aspects of work (such as challenge and autonomy) that they suggested led to satisfaction and improved performance, and hygienes, extrinsic aspects of work (such as pay and benefits, working conditions, relationships with supervisors and coworkers) that he contended were the source of dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). This framework led to extensive research on the characteristics of work that make it intrinsically satisfying, which in turn leads to higher quality work and increased retention (Hackman & Oldham,

1980). The practical upshot of this work was the job enrichment movement, in which work was redesigned in order to be more personally and socially meaningful and provide employees with a sense of responsibility. McEvoy and Cascio (1985) found job enrichment programs to be the most valid of all programs they reviewed for reducing turnover, reducing attrition by an average of 17%. Conventional approaches to job enrichment consist of modifying jobs so that they provide five key characteristics. The first three of these affect the perceived 33 meaningfulness of work: skill variety (allowing the employees to develop and use a larger repertoire of skills); task identity (the extent to which employees see their work as part of a larger whole), and task significance (the extent to which the work affects others in meaningful ways). The fourth characteristic, autonomy, results in feelings of responsibility. The fifth characteristic is feedback about how one is doing at work. It is immediately apparent that most managerial positions should score high on each of these characteristics; indeed, the original intent of job enrichment was to redesign overly simplified jobs to make them more like managerial jobs, with the implicit assumption that doing so would make them more satisfying and lead to higher retention. If so, is there anything to be learned from this literature to further our understanding of turnover among organizational leaders? Studies of what organizational leaders actually do indicate that the work of those at the very top may be less enriched than one might think. Mentally challenging work is arguably the most important factor in ensuring that work is satisfying (Judge, 2004). Yet a recent study found that 80% of a CEOs day involved meetings, visits with clients, and ceremonial events (Karlsson et al., 2009). Decades ago, Mintzbergs study of

executives similarly found that they had far less autonomy over their schedule and spent much less time on strategic thinking and decision-making than conventional thinking supposed (Mintzberg, 1973). Whether this means that executives view their work as less enriched than it might seem is an unanswered question, due to the paucity of research on organizational leaders. Boards and top managers might find it useful to address the extent to which CEOs and top managers find their work intrinsically rewarding, particularly given research suggesting that significant extrinsic rewards (clearly the case with most US CEOs) can actually reduce the intrinsically satisfying value of work (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). While boredom is rarely cited as an executives reason for leaving, there are countless examples of senior executives leaving a company to begin their own startups. To retain these managers (and reduce competition), companies have turned to intrapreneurship or corporate venturing to provide restless managers with new opportunities without needing to leave the firm. It is also common to hear of leaders departing over differences in management philosophy; often this is a polite way of saying that they have insufficient autonomy relative to the CEO or the Board. Examples such as these argue against complacency in assuming that CEOs jobs provide adequate challenge to keep them motivated. 34 Development and Growth Opportunities. Studies of employee satisfaction commonly target both training/development and opportunity for career growth as areas that are important to employees decisions to stay or quit (Frincke, 2006). Not surprisingly, this is also truepossibly especially true--for managers. Gaertner and Nollen (1998), for example, describe jilted executives as those who overall are reasonably satisfied and otherwise interesting in staying in the current positions, but who

feel that they have no choice but to quit because they dont feel they have a good chance of being promoted. In many cases, these present classic cases of dysfunctional turnover, since being passed over for promotion may have as much to do with the inevitable dwindling of opportunities as one moves up the organizational pyramid as it does with lack of competence. Gaertner and Nollen suggest one way to counter such turnover is to create a culture that places greater value on accumulated experience and knowledge, or in which lateral moves are seen as acceptable alternatives to upward mobility. A more controversial suggestion is to be wary in the hiring process about applicants who seem too driven by promotions; while such individuals are often valued for their ambition, a preoccupation with upward mobility may be driven more by their own needs than by those of the firm; moreover, it makes attrition inevitable among the senior managers competing for a limited number of promotions. The most common means of dealing with concerns about executive development is to develop formal succession planning programs. A survey of 170 HR professionals found that 82% of their firms had internal leadership development programs, and that the presence of succession planning programs was strongly linked to retention of middle managers (Aberdeen Group, 2005). Readers interested in more detail about succession planning are referred to another review in this series (insert cite). Compensation Executive compensation is one of the most controversial management topics of our day, with widespread complaintsfrom shareholders to employeesthat US executive compensation is out of control. These complaints have been raised for at least a decade2 , but have particular currency (pun intended) in 2009s environment of

2 See, for instance, the April 12, 1997 cover of Business WeekExecutive Compensation: Its Out of Control or the April 3, 2000 issue of Forbes entitled The $100 Million CEO. 35 widespread bankruptcies and government bailouts. While we will not enter the broader debate, we cannot ignore the controversy as it applies particularly to the question of whether executive compensation broadly, or various components designed in particular to enhance retention, actually affect attrition of top managers. It is generally accepted among managers that compensation is an important driver of employee retention, and particularly so for executives. Compensation is featured in both push theories of turnover, which suggest that inadequate or inequitable compensation is a source of dissatisfaction that drives people away from their jobs, and pull theories of turnover, which describe how even satisfied employees may be seduced away by better compensation packages. This central role is due to the complex functions that compensation plays in the employee-employer relationship. Obviously, pay is vital for meeting ones needs (and desires) in life, and increasingly employer-provided benefits have come to form a safety net for most employees. But in addition to these direct roles, compensation also plays a very important symbolic role, providing feedback about how one is doing in life and bestowing status and prestige. This symbolic role of compensation is particularly critical for senior managers. In most cases, their survival needs have long ago been met, and in many cases, compensation can readily provide the luxuries in life. At the same time, the symbolic value of compensation is particularly salient to most executives, in part because the nature of executive workand the definition of successare inherently ambiguous.

This is challenging for executives, since most are high on achievement motivation and are driven by a sense of accomplishment. High levels of compensation, particularly relative to their peers, are a tangible sign of accomplishment, and thus highly salient to managers. Thus it is not surprising that executives expect to be well-compensated, and that compensation specialists contend that failing to meet these expectations will lead to turnover in the executive suite. But is this assumption borne out by research? Considering how much attention executive compensation has received, and the significant costs to organizations and their shareholders, it is quite surprising how little empirical research attention has been devoted to its effect on retention (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hassenhuttl & Harrison, 2002). Substantially more research has occurred among non-managerial employees; in these studies, compensation is consistently related to employee turnover. In an early meta-analysis, Cotton and Tuttle (1986) concluded that both pay level and pay satisfaction are strong predictors of turnover. A decade later, Griffeth and Hom (1995)s meta-analysis was more 36 circumspect, concluded there was very little direct support for the view that dissatisfaction with salary and pay strongly underlie turnover. Across seven studies and 3,700 employees, actual salary showed a correlation of only r = -.06 with turnover; satisfaction with pay was an even lower r = -.04 across 16 studies and over 4000 employees. Perceptions of the fairness of pay were only a slightly better predictor (r = .07). While these values are all statistically significant due to the relatively large combined samples, they raise questions about the utility of retention programs based primarily on compensation. However, given that compensation is qualitatively different for managers, we need to consider the research done on this group, with the caveat that such research is much rarer. Hasenhuttl and Harrison (2002) suggest that the rationale for using

compensation as a retention strategy for executives is not as sound as some compensation consultants say. While high compensation serves as a signal to the executive about his or her status, it also sends the unintended message that he or she is highly marketable. Simultaneously, in many cases it sends the same kind of signal to other employers, potentially making the executive a target for competing offers. Ultimately, high salaries are not an easily sustainable competitive advantage, and are likely to result at best in continuance commitment, that is, commitment to an organization that is based not on common values or passion, but on an assessment that one cant afford to quit. At least not until someone else makes a better offer. Thus, a serious concern with using compensation as a retention device is that it is likely to result in a mercenary rather than loyalty-based bond with the firm. Based on research with non-managerial samples, we could expect such an instrumental relationship to result in more self-serving behavior. Unfortunately, we were not able to locate any research that directly tests this hypothesis among executives. Direct Compensation and Retention. Research on the effects of direct compensation on managerial retention has generally been supportive. Mehran and Yermack (1997) found an inverse correlation between turnover and excess compensation (i.e., compensation beyond that paid to peers), particularly for voluntary turnover. Balsam and Mijaro (2007) found a similar effect, though they noted that the effect was stronger for equity-based compensation (a topic we will address next) than for cash-based compensation. Counter-intuitively, Bretz, Boudreau and Judge (1994) found that higher pay was related to an increased tendency to search for alternative 37 employment, though it was not related to actual turnover. And Hassenhuttl and Harrison

(2002) found no effect for salary or benefits, but did find a limited effect for stock options. Deferred Compensation and Retention. Deferred compensation is an area in which executive compensation is distinctly different from employee compensation more generally. Long-term incentives form a large portion of most executives pay, and are increasingly a critical component in hiring negotiations. Compensation strategists typically explain the importance of deferred compensation from two perspectives. One is based on agency theory, which suggests that deferred compensation is important for aligning the long-term interests of shareholders and executives. By ensuring that a substantial portion of their compensation is dependent on firm success, executives are assumed to act in the best interests of the firm, since those interests are also their own. In addition, deferred compensation should enhance retention, as well as performance, because it is generally structured so that it can be cashed in only after a vesting period of three, four, or even as many as seven years, and must be forfeited if the executive leaves before then. This is particularly true for stock options, although a similar effect may occur with cash bonuses or restricted shares, depending on how the arrangements are structured. Indeed, research suggests that retention is often the primary motive for offering stock options (Ittner, Lambert, & Larcker, 2003; Kole, 1997). On the other hand, critics have noted that departing executives can be made whole if a new employer is willing to compensate them for the value of their unvested compensation, thus reducing their retention value. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such make whole deals are common (Lublin, 1998), although Hasenhuttl and Harrison (2002) contend that more research is needed to determine just how common. For the most part, empirical research shows that equity compensation does reduce managerial turnover. Mehran and Yermack (1997) found this was especially true

for voluntary turnover, as one would expect. Balsam and Mijaro (2007) found that the effect occurred for non-CEOs as well as CEOs, and as noted in the prior paragraph, found that equity compensation was more effective than cash compensation for reducing turnover. Particularly encouraging was their discovery that the retention effect was more robust for executives who were strong performersprecisely the ones for whom retention is critical. Ghosh and Ruland (1998) also found lower turnover among managers who received stock rather than cash in their study of turnover following acquisitions. 38 Two studies were less supportive of the use of equity incentives as golden handcuffs. Hasenhuttl and Harrisons 2002 study of 1233 firms found that stock options reduced turnover only in manufacturing firms. Interestingly, they found that providing executives with grants of restricted stocks (rather than stock options) actually increased turnover in this group. They suggested that this unexpected effect might be explained in terms of signaling: restricted stock grants are unusual and might indicate to other employers that the executive is unusually qualified, thus leading to attempts to recruit him or her. Finally, Fee and Hadlock (2002) found that equity compensation had no effect in their study of 443 publicly traded firms in which a CEO left to join another publicly traded firm. Hasenhuttl and Harrison (2002) speculate that this anomalous finding might be due to Fee and Hadlock limiting their study to CEOs who joined another large, publicly traded firm, on the grounds that such firms might be more likely to make the CEOs whole as part of their offer of employment. One of the consequences of relying on stock options is the possibility that the options become less valuable if the performance of the firm declines prior to the time that the option is exercised, thus nullifying their retention value. In some cases, this may

be attributable to an underperforming CEO, in which case the board would most likely be happy to see the leader leave. But increasinglymost pointedly in the crash of the technology market in 2001 and the general implosion of the economy in 2008/2009 executives are finding their stock options to be underwater. Under these circumstances, the stock options can have the completely contrary effect of increasing executive turnover (Carter & Lynch, 2004); (Dunford, Boudreau, & Boswell, 2005); Dunford et al., 2008). The 2008 study by Dunford and colleagues is particularly interesting because they showed that the psychological impact of being out-of-the-money is actually substantially greater than the commonly accepted accounting evaluations of the underwater stock would predict. They suggest that having underwater stock options sends the message to executives that they are associated with a loser, anathema for CEOs. This provides a particularly strong incentive for them to quit before their social capital is harmed further. Firms with underwater stock options are thus understandably concerned about how to rectify the disincentive these options represent. Balachandran and colleagues report that the most common response (65% of firms in their study) is to offset the stock options by increasing base pay, followed by increasing bonuses (52%), increasing grants of restricted stock (31%), offering exchanges for new options (2%), or re-pricing 39 the options so that they are back in-the-money (1%) (Balachandran, Carter, & Lynch, 2004). Each option is controversial; as already noted, neither pay nor bonuses have been found to be as effective for reducing turnover as stock options; restricted stock grants basically represent giving away stock (often without a vesting period), thus diluting the value of shares and depleting organizational resources; and in all cases, shareholders and other employees are likely to complain that executives are benefitting

from their own mistakes, while they are left without any protections. Unfortunately, the research on re-pricing doesnt provide unequivocal advice about how to proceed. Chen (2004) found higher CEO turnover in firms that had policies restricting re-pricing compared to firms with more generous policies, implying that repricing should enhance retention. On the other hand, Carter and Lynch (2004) found that re-pricing had no effect on executive turnover, and in the most surprising study, Chidambaran and Prabhala (2003) found that firms that re-priced actually had higher turnover among executives. Most useful, however, is the study by Dunford et al. (2008). Rather than simply looking at whether executives were or were not underwater, they determined that the extent to which executives were out-of-the-money was important, leading to the very important implication that using re-pricing to simply reduce the gap so that the person was less underwater, even if not actually in-the-moneyhad a positive effect on retention. More specifically, they found that every $1 increase in the value of the stock options led to a 1.6% reduction in turnover. They also found an important difference between CEOs and other executives. CEOs, with greater responsibility for firm performance, suffered a greater psychological impact of feeling that they were a loser because of the underwater stocks. For them, the key was repricing that would not simply reduce the discrepancy, but that would actually bring them back into-the-money. While obviously a more costly adjustment, Dunford and colleagues project that doing so would accomplish a 50% reduction in CEO turnover. Retention Bonuses and Key Employee Retention Programs (KERPs). As discussed previously, long-term incentives are generally used for the dual purposes of aligning executives financial interests with those of the firm (i.e., a performance objective) and increasing retention of those executives. At least in theory, executives will not reap the benefits unless the firms perform well, except in the case when

adjustments are made to underwater options (which explains why shareholders and other employees often find these adjustments to be so unpalatable). In this section, we discuss the use of financial incentives that are more purely focused on retention and 40 which often have no connection to performance. Broadly these are referred to as retention bonuses; in the context of bankruptcies, they are more specifically referred to as Key Employee Retention Programs, or KERPs. Retention programs are used when there are particular concerns about employee turnover and a belief that normal procedures will not be sufficient to retain key employees. They usually target specific employees who are perceived as being at high risk of being headhunted, or for particularly hot job categories. They may also be invoked in special circumstances, such as mergers or acquisitions (discussed separately in another section of this review); KERPs in particular are associated with bankruptcies, which present a special case since the KERPs must be approved by the bankruptcy court. KERPs are generally based on certain dates, or milestones, and payments are triggered by meeting these time-based criteria, rather than by performance-based criteria. (In some cases, these agreements are described as performance-based in order to meet certain legal constraints, but most experts suggest that in practice the real criterion remains time.) As a consequence, they are particularly controversial, since they represent sizable increases in executives salaries (often two or three times base salary) at a time when other employees are being laid off and shareholders and vendors are anticipating heavy hits to their investments. This has become even truer in the case of government bailouts, first in 2004-2005 and on a far grander scale in 2008-2009. These concerns have led to calls for restrictions on KERPs for publicly-funded reorganizations;

as of this writing, Troubled Asset Relief Program recipients are not allowed to provide KERPs involving either retention or incentive bonuses (Thatcher, 2009). Unfortunately, corporate boards, bankruptcy judges and public policy makers have little or no empirical data on the effectiveness of retention bonuses to guide them. Organizational decision makers believe retention bonuses are effective (Poe, 1998), but we were able to find no evidence that directly addresses their effectiveness, either pro or con. Proponents argue that retaining key executives is critical to the process of bringing a firm successfully out of bankruptcy. An interesting example is provided by the American Insurance Group (AIG), who contended that only a very few key employees understood the complex financial derivatives that formed a substantial part of their business; if they left the firm, AIG contended that it would take years to figure out the work they had done. Proponents argue that the investment in retaining the key people ultimately benefits shareholders, for without the key players the firm would not be 41 successful and their shares will be valueless. KERPs are also defended on the basis that competitors see the bankruptcy as an invitation to headhunt key employees, who will be particularly susceptible to job offers absent tangible incentives to stay, particularly if their long-term incentives are underwater. Opponents of KERPs dispute each of these arguments, contending that if the executives were really that talented the company wouldnt be in the position it is. Following that logic, they also question why competitors would be so eager to recruit the executive team of a failed organization. Critics also point out what they see as excesses, such as Enrons declaration that 900 of their 1,100 employees were critical (Keach, 2003), and suggest that the negative effect on the morale of rank and file employees (and customers) offsets any advantages to be gained.

As Keach (2003) notes, resolving these issues is currently challenging because of the lack of empirical data. Legislators, bankruptcy judges and the public are left with an abundance of anecdotal evidence that retention bonuses are not effective, generally in the form of reports that executives receiving bonuses depart early anyway. Whether this is true more generally, and if so, whether it is a fundamental limitation of retention bonuses or a result of ineffective implementation, cannot be addressed without more research. Special Retention Circumstances In this final section, we consider two particular contexts in which executive retention has been addressed that do not fall naturally in our categorization by stages of an executives career. The first deals with retention issues in the context of mergers and acquisitions, the second with counter-offers to an executive who has received a job offer from another firm. Managing Retention during Mergers and Acquisitions. As we noted earlier in this review, retention of executive talent during major ownership transactions mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, bankruptciesis a major concern. Most of the empirical research has addressed acquisitions, with a clear finding that management turnover spikes at the time of the acquisition and continues at higher than normal levels for as much as nine years. We also noted that research, theory and practice disagree on whether this turnover in the executive suite is a problem, although data-based studies suggest that higher turnover reduces the likelihood of a successful acquisition. 42 Advice from consultancies such as Mercer is to address the need for, and design of, an executive retention program on a case-by-case basis (Passin & Smith, 2008). They suggest that whether a retention program is needed depends in part on the nature of the change; for example, executives in spin-offs will probably find the increased

autonomy sufficient reason to remain, whereas the uncertainty related to a sell-off divestiture makes a good case for a retention program designed to keep key executives through the sell-off period. For mergers and acquisitions, the importance of retention programs will hinge on the reasons for the acquisition (e.g., a retention program makes far more sense if the purpose was to acquire a talented management team than if it was to expand to a new market). They also recommend analyzing whether existing programssuch as incentive and severance packagesare sufficient to retain the key personnel; they also wisely suggest reviewing existing programs to determine if any might have the unintended effect of encouraging executives to leave (e.g., equity vesting programs that might be triggered by the transaction). The next, and critical, step is to identify which executives should be targeted by the retention program. Typically, this would be based on an analysis of each execu tives contribution to the organization, both overall and with particular reference to the transition. As described earlier, there is a good argument (but little data) to suggest that retention efforts should distinguish between short-term retention (during and perhaps a year or so following the merger/acquisition, or divestiture) and retention of leaders needed to drive the new organization ahead for the longer haul. Other considerations include the difficulty of replacing the executive and perhaps the judged likelihood that the person will actually leave (although organizational justice theory suggests that treating executives differently on the basis of their perceived likelihood of quitting is an invitation to feelings of inequity, which in turn may lead to turnover among those not favored). The biggest gap in the literature regards the incentives used in the retention program. Most revolve around the use of financial awards; while consultants offer advice on how to structure these rewards, they also lament the lack of evaluation

evidence for these programs (Passin & Smith, 2008). The only empirical study we were able to locate found that stock is more effective than cash awards (Ghosh et al., 1998). The authors speculate that the reason may be that stock provides the managers with more control (in the form of voting rights) over the direction of the new firm. If that speculation is correct, it suggests that other means of providing control may also be useful, and perhaps more cost-effective. Similarly, Hambrick and Cannella (1993) found 43 that enhancing the status of the executives in the acquired firm in their case by appointing them as officers or directors, though one might readily consider other ways of doing soincreased retention. Given the stakes involved, this is clearly an area in need of more research. Counter-Offers as a Retention Strategy. We close our review with a brief discussion of the use of counter-offers as a last-ditch measure for retaining a valued executive who has received an offer of employment elsewhere. The discussion is necessarily brief because it is a topic that seems to have received almost no attention by the research community (for any level of employee, much less for senior leadership). Despite the obvious interest in the topic, there is almost no empirical evidence about how common counter-offers are (Barron, Berger, & Black, 2006), let alone whether they are effective in actually retaining key talent. What research exists has primarily been done by labor economists, whose focus has been the effects of counter-offers on labor mobility and market efficiency. These researchers tend to think in terms of a dichotomy between firms that have policies either prohibiting or permitting counter-offers; as Barron et al. (2006) argue, the more likely reality is that most firms make that decision on a case-by-case basis. Labor economists

argue that the basis for that decision hinges on whether the employees productivity is sufficient to justify a counter-offer, i.e., is the employee worth the costs involved in matching an offer? While obviously a critical consideration, this approach ignores other key issues, foremost of which is the risk that a sweetheart deal with one employee will create issues of internal equity for other employees. This concern may have somewhat less relevance when applied to a CEO, but is likely to be pertinent for other members of the top management team. Moreover, counter-offers send the signal to both the individual seeking the counter-offer, and to other employees, that receiving an outside offer is an effective strategy for increasing your salary, even if you have no intention of actually taking the outside offer (Lee & Maurer, 1997). A web search of the term counter-offer quickly reveals that the general wisdom offered to employers is not to use counter-offers to respond to the threat of an employee quitting. The rationale is that employers who resort to counter-offers are generally those whose compensation house is not in order and who have allowed the employees salary to fall below his or her market value. But even in this situation, responding with a counter-offer only makes sense if it is part of an overhaul of the compensation system. In fact, this argument goes, a counter-offer may signal your acknowledgement that the 44 compensation system is not working, and encourage dissatisfaction with pay among employees more broadly. While this argument makes sense, no research on this question was located. Similarly, the general advice to applicants is not to seek counter-offers, or entertain them if offered. The basis for this advice is that the counter-offer is not likely to resolve the core issue that led the employee to look for an alternative job. Often the fundamental reason for quitting is not pay, but something else about the current

employment situation. If so, as attractive as a counter-offer may be in the short-term, it will not resolve the underlying dissatisfaction. And if the fundamental issue really is pay, it will probably resurrect itself in a year or two if the employers a pproach is to respond only to outside offers rather than systematically improving the compensation system. The limitation of this advice is that it does not appear to have any research support; in the case of the employer, we do not know whether counter-offers are actually effective in retaining the target employee (ignoring for a moment any effect it may have on other employees). The immediate question is whether the counter-offer will simply lead to further negotiations between the employee and the prospective employer; if so, the outcome may be that the employee quits anyway, but with a richer offer. The longerterm question is whether the counter-offer, even if immediately successful, will have any long-term effect. One might expect that it will have only a temporary effect if it does not address the employees fundamental reasons for leaving. Moreover, it may simply condition the employee to regularly seek out alternative offers in order to negotiate counter-offers. At present, there is no research to determine whether counter-offers foster appreciation and loyalty, or simply postpone the inevitable. Finally, it is worth noting that the sparse literature almost always seems to assume the counter-offer is financial in nature. This is ironic, since our review has emphasized that compensation is rarely the primary cause of turnover, as long as it is fair in terms of the demands of the job, the needs of the employee, and the market. The exception might be job offers that include dramatically higher (or excess) compensation, but in these cases a counter-offer is probably impractical anyway, unless the current compensation is way out of alignment with the market. If so, the firm has a bigger problem on its hands. Rather than responding only to the financial terms of the

offer, employers should try to determine the fundamental reason that the employee is considering leaving, and whether there might be alternative approaches that better fit the employees needs. For example, flexibility (as it applies to work-life balance) is 45 increasingly an issue for men as well as women, including those in executive ranks (Cadman, 2007). Lee and Maurer (2007) suggest that sabbatical leaves might be attractive to some managers; changes in assignments, or reassurance about promotion opportunities might be effective in other cases. Before automatically responding to an outside offer with a match in salaryor instituting a default policy of not responding to any outside offersunderstanding the real reason an employee is thinking about quitting seems appropriate. Conclusions For decades, organizational researchers have studied employee turnover, as well as other forms of employee withdrawal from work. Over a quarter-century ago it was estimated that there had been over 1,500 studies of employee turnover (Bluedorn, 1982); it is not hard to imagine that this number has doubled or tripled in the ensuing years. Against that backdrop, it is remarkable how very little research attention has been devoted to retention of executive-level employees. While there has been considerable research devoted to executive succession, it has for the most part been focused on the consequences of leader replacement. To the extent that antecedents of leader turnover have been studied, the concern has primarily been for involuntary turnover, with the fairly consistent finding that dismissal of leaders is preceded by a period of declining organizational performance for which the leader is held responsible. As a result, there is shockingly little empirical evidence related to best practices in executive retention.

One plausible inference is that the lack of research means that there is not really a problem with leader retention. While such an inference flies in the face of some calls for management action to retain leaders, there is some basis for it. Rates of voluntary executive turnover are relatively low and have not substantially increased over the last few decades. In fact, the 2008-09 economic downturn seems to have resulted in an overall reduction in turnover of top executives. On the other hand, there are situations in which retention of leaders is a significant concern, particularly in cases involving major restructurings (such as mergers and acquisitions, as well as bailouts and turnarounds). A reasonable conclusion is that retention of executives (or of any other employee group, for that matter) should not be seen as a universal goal or as a panacea. Rather, retention should be viewed in the context of a comprehensive approach to talent 46 management that emphasizes retention of the right employees under the right circumstances, not simply the wholesale retention of current employees. The review of plausible retention strategies reveals more questions in need of targeted research than it does answers. It is evident that the primary focus of retention efforts in the executive suite has been compensation. Theory suggests that compensation is likely to be an important factor for retention of executives, and in a very general sense, research has supported that prediction. However, there remains much to be learned about how to best to wield this most costly of retention tools. There is a growing consensus that deferred compensation, particularly equity-based compensation, is more effective for retention purposes than base pay. Whether this is equally true for attraction purposes is less studied, although one can infer from negotiations that this balance is seen as attractive by many or most top executives. (However, the popularly acclaimed book Firms of Endearment [(Sisodia, Wolfe, & Sheth, 2007) provides some

interesting examples of successful firms whose CEOs consciously eschew the high levels of compensation of their peers.) One of the critical questions about equity-based compensation is how to handle so-called underwater options; we have already seen a growing body of research on this question, and can anticipate more as a result of the current economic conditions. Thus while this is a critical question, it will probably receive the needed research attention without additional encouragement. In contrast, our review suggests a number of other areas that are in need of additional research. Before enumerating specific areas, it is worth noting a general tendency for research on executives to in fact target CEOs. Certainly, CEOs are a worthy topic of research, but repeatedly we have noted instances in which retention strategies targeting the CEO overlook retention among other senior managers. Indeed, in some cases, these strategies may have the unintended effect of increasing turnover among less senior members of the executive team. The irony is that in some cases it may be more productive to target retention strategies at reducing collateral turnover that would otherwise ensue as a result of the CEOs departure. Other than occasional warnings about this collateral turnover effect, we saw very little research on this phenomenon or how it could be avoided. Looking at more specific research needs, we focus first on compensation. Within this domain the most glaring need has to do with the effectiveness of retention bonuses for key management personnel. This topic should receive the highest priority for two reasons. One is that it is widely held (by boards of directors, as well as the executives 47 receiving them) that retention bonuses are critical for organizational success, even survival. If they are correct, we need to know more about how best to structure these incentives in order to receive the most benefit; attention also needs to be directed

towards possible detrimental effects on the morale, productivity and retention of employees who do not receive the bonuses. The other reason for conducting research on retention bonuses is the opposition they receive from many shareholders, employees and, most recently, taxpayer groups. If these critics are correct, organizations are squandering not only massive amounts of money but also goodwill in continuing these programs. Policy-makers have already begun to regulate some bonus programs; it is incumbent upon organizational researchers to provide Congress and bankruptcy judges with a sound evidence base upon which to make these policy decisions. Although probably at a much lower level of priority, it was quite surprising to find the utter lack of research on the effectiveness of counter-offers as a retention strategy. Speculation abounds, and it would not be difficult to translate much of this speculation into research hypotheses that could be addressed empirically. In fact, this issue is basicand apparently equally ignored by researchersfor all levels of employees. Considering the absence of research on this topic, even research on non-managerial employees (which could be easier to conduct) might enhance recommendations for practice at the senior executive level. At a more fundamental level, priority should also be addressed to basic research on the sources of job satisfaction, commitment, and engagement among managers. Once again, literally thousands of studies have been conducted on these topics, but relatively little has targeted managers, particularly senior managers. Actually, it is not that this group has not been studied, it is more a problem that much of the data for these positions have been collected through internal, proprietary studies that have not been published and been made widely available. As a result, it is difficult to make general statements (or even determine whether it is valid to make general statements) about

what is important to retain senior personnel. This gap in basic knowledge in turn makes it difficult to evaluate the likely efficacy of retention strategies that are based on sources of dissatisfaction as a driver of turnover. One particular area that deserves attention has to do with career mobility. It is widely assumed (with some research substantiation) that growthusually interpreted as upward mobilityis extremely important to managers. This creates an inherent conflict for senior managers because of structural limitations on upward mobility the higher one is in a hierarchy; clearly, as one moves higher in the 48 organizational pyramid, there are fewer and fewer positions available into which one can move . We need to know more about both how senior managers think about career growth and how they value alternative forms of growth opportunities. Placing more emphasis and value on lateral growth opportunities, for example, could provide an alternative source of motivation for senior managers who are facing this structural ceiling in upward growth opportunities. Although it has already been a topic of considerable research, we believe there is also merit in continued studies of the effects of heterogeneity on top management team retention (and performance). Studies to date clearly indicate that there is an issue: diverse teams tend to have higher turnover overall, and those who are different from the rest of the team are particularly likely to quit. But the organizational demography literature has been less effective in determining (rather than speculating about) the reasons for this effect. That seems particularly important because the usual imputed explanation of social conflict may have very mixed effects in operational teams, particularly at the top levels of organizations. What seems important is research that explores both the intervening mechanisms that have been hypothesized to result in turnover and mechanisms for managing these mechanisms. Diversity,

retention and performance are all important to organizationswe need to learn more about how to maximize all of them. While not wanting to limit other research thrusts, we finish with one other area that we feel might particularly benefit from more studythe mentoring and development of managers through onboarding or related programs. Since this falls into the domain of another report in this series (include cite for leader development report), we have not accentuated this topic in our report. Nonetheless, we cannot help but note that the popular attention to onboarding far surpasses the extent to which it has received rigorous research attention. Moreover, it seems likely that the study of onboarding processes would benefit substantially from the decades of scholarly attention to organizational socialization (and, in the context of senior managers, the similar attention devoted to leader development programs) that broadly form its foundation. It also seems likely that onboarding practices could be integrated with such recruiting practices as realistic job previews, for which there is little or no research evaluating utility for managerial jobs. Better integrating these literatures is likely to produce richer and more useful research-based evidence of whether and how onboarding practices can enhance retention (as well as performance) of new executives. This is also an area in which it is likely to be important to study how the effectiveness of the practices differs according to 49 the level of the managers; at this point, we have little more than speculation about the generalizability of many of the proposed strategies. References Abelson, M. & Baysinger, B. 1984. Optimal and dysfunctional turnover: Towards an organizational level model. Academy of Management Review, 9: 331-341. Aberdeen Group. 2005. Retaining talent: Retention and succession in the corporate

workforce: Aberdeen Group. Albright, L. E., Smith, W. J., Gennon, J. R., & Owens, W. A. 1961. The prediction of research competence and creativity from personal history. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45: 5962. Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 118. Balachandran, S., Carter, M. E., & Lynch, L. J. 2004. Sink or swim? Firms responses to underwater options. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 16: 1 18. Balsam, S. & Miharjo, S. 2007. The effect of equity compensation on voluntary executive turnover. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 43: 95119. Barron, J. M., Berger, M. C., & Black, D. A. 2006. Selective counteroffers. Journal of Labor Economics, 24: 385-409. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. 2007. Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 707-721. Bennis, W. & OToole, J. 2000. Dont hire the wrong CEO. Harvard Business Review, 78(3): 171-176. Bergh, D. D. 2001. Executive retention and acquisition outcomes: A test of opposing views on the influence of organizational tenure. Journal of Management, 27: 603-622. Bertrand, M. & Schoar, A. 2003. Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118: 1169 1208.

Billiger, S. & Hallock, K. F. 2005. Mass layoffs and CEO turnover. Industrial Relations, 44: 463-489. Bluedorn, A. C. 1982. The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meanings. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 1: 75-128. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 50 Boeker, W. 1997. Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 152 170. Breaugh, J. A. 1983. Realistic Job Previews: A critical appraisal and future research directions. Academy of Management Review, 8: 612-619. Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. 1994. Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47: 275301. Bretz, R. D. & Judge, T. A. 1998. Realistic job previews: A test of the adverse selfselection hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 330-337. Buchholtz, A. K., Ribbens, B. A., & Houle, I. T. 2003. The role of human capital in postacquisition CEO departure. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 506-514. Cadman, P. 2007. Flexibility is the key to executive retention. Heidrick & Struggles: http://www.heidrick.com/NR/rdonlyres/92387420-8419-4E0E-A881A724E4103D65/0/HS_ExecutiveRetention.pdf. Cannella, A. & Hambrick, D. C. 1993. Effects of executive departures on the performance of acquired firms. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 137152. Carter, M. E. & Lynch, L. J. 2004. The effect of stock option repricing on employee turnover. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37: 91112. Cascio, W. & Boudreau, J. W. 2008. Investing in people: Financial Impact of Human

Resource Initiatives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chen, M. A. 2004. Executive option repricing, incentives, and retention. Journal of Finance, 59: 11671199. Chidambaran, N. K. & Prabhala, N. R. 2003. Executive stock option repricing, internal governance mechanisms, and management turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 69: 153189. Ciampa, D. & Watkins, M. 1999. Right from the start: Taking charge in a new leadership role. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Comte, T. E. & Mihal, W. L. 1990. CEO turnover: Causes and interpretations. Business Horizons, 33(4): 47-51. Conger, J. A. & Fishel, B. 2007. Accelerating leadership performance at the top: Lessons from the Bank of America's executive on-boarding process. Human Resource Management Review, 17: 442-454. Cotton, J. L. & Tuttle, J. M. 1986. Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 55-70. 51 Coyne, K. P. & Coyne, E. J. 2007. Surviving your new CEO. Harvard Business Review, 85(5): 62-69. Dalton, D. & Todor, W. 1979. Turnover turned over: An expanded and positive perspective. Academy of Management Review, 4: 225-235. Dalton, D., Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. 1981. Functional turnover: An empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 716-721. Dalton, D., Todor, W., & Krackhardt, D. 1982. Turnover overstated: The functional taxonomy.

Academy of Management Review, 7: 117-123. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 627-668. Dedman, E. 2003. Executive turnover in UK firms: The impact of Cadbury. Accounting and Business Research, 33: 33-50. DeFond, M. L. & Park, C. W. 1999. The effect of competition on CEO turnover. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 27: 35-56. Dess, G. & Shaw, J. 2001. Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26: 446-456. Downey, D., March, T., & Berkman, A. 2001. Assimilating new leaders: The key to executive retention. New York: Amacom. Dunford, B. B., Boudreau, J. W., & Boswell, W. R. 2005. Out-of-the-money: The impact of underwater stock options on executive job search. Personnel Psychology, 58: 67-101. Dunford, B. B., Oler, D. K., & Boudreau, J. W. 2008. Underwater stock options and voluntary executive turnover: A multidisciplinary perspective integrating behavioral and economic theories. Personnel Psychology, 61: 687-726. Farquhar, K. 1994. The myth of the forever leader: Organizational recovery from broken leadership. Business Horizons, 37(5): 42-50. Fee, C. E. & Hadlock, C. 2004. Management turnover across the corporate hierarchy. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37: 3-38.

Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484503. Fredrickson, J. W., Hambrick, D. C., & Baumrin, S. 1988. A model of CEO dismissal. Academy of Management Review, 13: 255-270. Frincke, J. 2006. 2006 U.S. job retention: Poll findings. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Research. 52 Furtado, E. & Karan, V. 1990. Causes, consequences, and shareholder wealth effects of management turnover: A review of the empirical evidence. Financial Management, 19: 6-75. Gaertner, K. N. & Nollen, S. D. 1992. Turnover intentions and desire among executives. Human Relations, 45: 447-465. Gatewood, R. D. & Feild, H. S. 2001. Human resource selection (Fifth ed.). Fort Worth: Dryden Press. Ghosh, A. & Ruland, W. 1998. Managerial ownership, the method of payment for acquisitions, and executive job retention. Journal of Finance, 53: 785-798. Giambatista, R., Rowe, W. G., & Riaz, S. 2005. Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical review of leader succession literature since 1994. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 963-991. Gibelman, M. & Gelman, S. 2002. On the departure of a chief executive officer: Scenarios and implications. Administration in Social Work, 26(2): 63-82. Ginsberg, S. 1997. When departures produce uncertainty, Washington Post: H4. Washington, DC.

Glebbeek, A. & Bax, E. 2004. Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company records. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 277-286. Glennon, J. R., Albright, L. E., & Owens, W. A. 1966. A catalog of life history items. Greensboro, North Carolina: The Richardson Foundation. Godthelp, M. & Glunk, U. 2003. Turnover at the top: Demographic diversity as a determinant of executive turnover in The Netherlands. European Management Journal, 21: 614-625. Gregory-Smith, I., Thompson, S., & Wright, P. W. 2009. Fired or retired? A competing risks analysis of chief executive turnover. The Economic Journal, 119: 463-481. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hambrick, D. C. & Fukutomi, G. D. 1991. The seasons of a CEOs tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16: 719742. Hambrick, D. C. & Cannella, A. A. 1993. Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 733-762. Harris, M., Tang, K.-K., & Tseng, Y.-P. 2006. Employee turnover: Less in not necessarily more? In B. Baltagi (Ed.), Panel data econometrics: Theoretical contributions and empirical applications, Vol. 274: 327-350. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Harrison, J. R., Torres, D. L., & Kukalis, S. 1988. The changing of the guard: Turnover and structural change in the top-management positions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 211-232. 53 Hasenhuttl, M. & Harrison, J. R. 2002. Exit or loyalty: the effects of compensation on CEO turnover. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Toronto.

Hayes, R., Oyer, P., & Schaefer, S. 2006. Coworker Complementarity and the Stability of Top-Management Teams. Journal of Law Economics & Organization, 22: 184. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hom, P. W. & Griffeth, R. W. 1995. Employee Turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Ittner, C. D., Lambert, R. A., & Larcker, D. F. 2003. The structure and performance consequences of equity grants to employees of new economy firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 34: 89127. Jackofsky, E. & Peters, L. H. 1983. The hypothesized effects of ability in the turnover process. Academy of Management Review, 8: 46-49. Jackofsky, E. & Slocum, J. 1987. A causal analysis of the impact of job performance on the voluntary turnover process. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8: 263-270. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. 1991. Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675-689. Judge, T. A. 2004. Promote satisfaction through mental challenge. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior, Second ed.: 75-89. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Karlsson, P.-O. & Neilson, G. L. 2009. CEO succession 2008: Stability in the storm. Strategy + Business(55): in press.

Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 81104. Kaufman, B. 2005. En route to executive retention: the board's role in retaining the chief staff leader. Association Management(January): 1 - 3. Keach, R. J. 2003. Controversy shadows Executive Retention Programs: Opponents deride KERPs as costly, unnecessary. The Journal of Corporate Renewal (online)(August): http://www.turnaround.org/Publications/Articles.aspx?objectID=2247. Kesner, I. F. & Sebora, T. C. 1994. Executive succession: Past, present and future. Journal of Management, 20: 327 372. 54 Khaliq, A., Thompson, D., & Walston, S. 2006. Perceptions of hospital CEOs about the effects of CEO turnover. Hospital Topics, 84(4): 21-27. Klein, H. J. & Heuser, A. E. 2008. The learning of socialization content: A framework for researching orientating practices. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 27: 279-336. Kole, S. 1997. The complexity of compensation contracts. Journal of Financial Economics, 43: 79104. Krackhardt, D. & Porter, L. W. 1986. The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 50-55. Krishnan, H. A., Miller, A., & Judge, W. Q. 1997. Diversification and top management team complementarity: Is performance improved by merging similar or dissimilar teams? Strategic Management Journal, 18: 361374.

Krug, J. A. 2003. Executive turnover in acquired firms: An analysis of Resource-Based Theory and the upper echelons perspective. Journal of Management & Governance, 7: 117-143. Krug, J. A. & Shill, W. 2008. The big exit: executive churn in the wake of M&As. Journal of Business Strategy, 29: 15-. Lee, J. & Milne, R. 1988. Does High Executive Turnover Promote A Short-Term View? Business Forum, 13(3): 25-29. Lee, T. W. & Maurer, S. D. 1997. The retention of knowledge workers with the unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 7: 247-275. Levin, R. A. & Rosse, J. 2001. Talent Flow: A Strategic Approach to Keeping Good Employees, Helping them Grow, and Letting Them Go. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass/Wiley. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol. 15: 47-119. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lublin, J. S. 1998. CEOs who get "Made Whole" get rich, Wall Street Journal: B1. Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 3-30. March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons. McEvoy, G. M. & Cascio, W. 1985. Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 342-353. 55 McEvoy, G. M. & Cascio, W. 1987. Do good or poor performers leave? A meta-analysis of the relationship between performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal,

30: 744-762. Mehran, H. & Yermack, D. 1997. Compensation and top management turnover, NYU Department of Finance Working Paper Series 1998: 1-36. Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row. Murphy, K. J. & Zimmerman, J. L. 1993. Financial performance surrounding CEO turnover. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 16: 273-315. Nash, K. 2007. Average CIO tenure slips but still more than four years, http://www.cio.com/article/153600/Average_CIO_Tenure_Slips_But_Still_More_Than_F our_Years. Nash, K. 2009. One in four CIOs fired for performance, http://www.cio.com/article/484008/One_in_Four_CIOs_Fired_for_Performance. Passin, G. & Smith, J. 2008. Executive retention during major ownership transactions. Executive Remuneration Perspective(71): www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1308470. Poe, A. 1998. Retention bonuses prove effective for companies in transition, HRMagazine, Vol. 43: 53-59. Pomeroy, A. 2006. Better executive onboarding processes needed. HR Magazine, 51(8): 16. Reese, V. 2005. Maximing your retention and productivity with on-boarding. Employment Relations Today, 31(4): 23-29. Rosse, J. 1987. Job-related ability and turnover. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1: 326-336. Rosse, J. & Levin, R. L. 1997. High-Impact Hiring: A Comprehensive Guide to PerformanceBased Hiring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sakano, T. & Lewin, A. 1999. Impact of CEO succession in Japanese companies: A coevolutionary perspective. Organization Science, 10: 654671. Schiemann, W. 2009. Reinventing Talent Management. New York: Wiley and Sons. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1): 63-113. Shaw, J., Duffy, M., Johnson, J., & Lockhart, D. 2005. Turnover, social capital losses and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(594-606). 56 Shaw, J., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. 2005. Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 50-68. Shen, W. & Cannella, A. 2002. Revisiting the performance consequences of CEO succession: The impacts of successor type, postsuccession senior executive turnover, and departing CEO tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 45(717-733). Siebert, W. S. & Zubanov, N. 2009. Searching for the optimal level of employee turnover: A study of a large U.K. retail organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2): 294313. Sisodia, R., Wolfe, D., & Sheth, J. 2007. Firms of endearment: how world-class companies profit from passion and purpose. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Staw, B. M. & Ross, J. 1987. Knowing when to pull the plug. Harvard Business Review, 65: 6874.

Thatcher, L. G. 2009. Executive compensation restrictions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Compensation and Benefits Review, 41(3): 20-28. Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 209-264. Vancil, R. F. 1987. Passing the baton: Managing the process of CEO succession. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wagner, W., Pfeffer, J., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 74-92. Walsh, J. P. & Ellwood, J. W. 1991. Mergers, acquisitions, and the pruning of managerial deadwood: An examination of the market for corporate control. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 201-218. Wanous, J. P. 1976. Organizational entry: From nave expectations to realistic beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 22-29. Wanous, J. P. 1980. Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection and Socialization of Newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wanous, J. P. 1989. Installing a Realistic Job Preview: Ten tough choices. Personnel Psychology, 42: 117 - 134. Wanous, J. P. 1992. Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Wells, S. J. 2005. Diving in. HR Magazine(March): 54-59. 57 Wiersema, M. & Bantel, K. A. 1993a. Top management team turnover as an adaptation mechanism: The role of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 485-504. Wiersema, M. & Bird, A. 1993b. Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group

heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 996-1025. Wiersema, M. 1995. Executive succession as an antecedent to corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management Review, 34: 185-202. Williams, C. R. & Livingstone, L. 1994. Another look at the relationship between performance and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 269-298.

Part 4
The reason of turnover vary from external environmental factors such as economy and its impact on turnover such as employment level, inflation (Pettman, 1975; Mobley, 1982) to the organizational variables such as type of industry, occupational category, organization size, payment, supervisory level, location, selection process, work environment, work assignments, benefits, promotions, and growth (Mobley, 1982; Arthur, 2001) The other turnover factors are related to the individual work variables such as demographic variables, integrative variables like job satisfaction, pay, promotion and working condition (Pettman 1975; Mobley, 1982; Arthur, 2001). The last perspective is the individual nonworking variables such as family variables (Pettman, 1975; Mobley, 1982). The most important studied demographic variables are age, tenure and education. It was found, for example, that there is a consistent negative relationship between age and turnover. Younger employees have a higher probability of leaving (Porter and Steers, 1973; Price, 1977; Horner et al., 1979; Muchinsky and Tuttle, 1979). Younger employees have

more chances, low family responsibility, and no lost chances in the existing organization. Similar to age, length of service is contributing to turnover decision. It was found that, the shorter the period of service, the higher is the turnover. Mangione (1973), in a multivariate study, found that length of service is one of the best predictors of turnover. However, there is no relationship between turnover and education as highlighted by Horner et al. (1979) and Price (1977) The main concern of this study, however, is the individual level of turnover's factors. In this regards, Darwish (1999), for example, in a study in the UAE found that there is a positive correlation between intrinsic motivation, organizational commitment and job performance. He found also that organizational commitment is positively correlated with performance. Lastly, he found that organizational commitment is positively correlated with age, job experience and duration of service in the actual institution. Cohen 1993; Hom & Griffeth 1995 and Allen, Shore & Griffeth 2003 explored that turnover intentions have represented a reliable indicator of actual turnover and were heavily influenced by job satisfaction. Hom and Griffeth (1995) maintained that employees decided to leave their organization when they become dissatisfied with their

Jobs. Likewise, Meyer & Herschovitch argued in 2001 that when employees were dissatisfied with their jobs, their desire to remain in their organization started to erode. In fact, initial consequences of these negative affects, in the form of low job satisfaction were turnover cognitions. Reggio (2003) had asserted that both low levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are related to higher rates of turnover. Moreover, Muchinsky and Tuttle (1997) have summarized thirty nine studies related to the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover conducted in the past 50 years and found that all but four cases have shown a negative relationship. Research by Allen & Griffeth (2001), Allen et al. (2003), and Chiu & Francesco (2003) have shown that job satisfaction was a strong predictor of turnover intentions. In a study conducted in Pakistan by Rehman Safdar and Ajmal Wahed ( 2010 ) has shown a positive significant correlation between job retention and job satisfaction of r=0.34 which reflects that due to satisfaction with the current job is an indicators to predict employee turnover in the organizations may be low in finding another job due to a positive experience with their organizations policies. A large effect size correlations between job performance and job

satisfaction (r=0.52) was found by Rehman Safdar and Ajmal Waheed in 2011 in the context of a non- Western country Pakistan. III. CONSEQUENCES OF TURNOVER Consequences of turnover may be at both either organizational or personal levels having both positive and negative consequences. Negative consequences to organizations includes, cost both tangible like recruitment and selection, training and development, low productivity and intangible cost like moral impact, stimulation of further turnover, impact of work load , disruption of team , and distraction of job performance. Some other negative consequences are strategic opportunity costs, disruption of social and communication patterns (Mobley, 1982; Roseman, 1981). Positive consequences include dislocation of poor performer, improvement, flexibility, adaptableness, conflicts resolutions, and a reduction in other withdrawal behaviors (Mobley, 1982). Negative consequences to individual include high expectation which might not materialized, losing seniority, and disruption of social life Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue I Version I 84 Employee Turnover and Retention Strategies: An Empirical Study of Public Sector Organizations of

Pakistan. January 2012 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US)(Mobley, 1982; Roseman, 1981). Positive consequences include higher income, job challenge, escape from stress environment. (Mobley, 1982). Generally, turnover is very costly especially at the executive levels. A study had estimated the cost of replacing an executive by 64,000 American Dollar and the cost of unscheduled absence averaging as high as 757 American Dollar per employees (Greenberg and Baron, 2003). Based on understanding the causes and the consequences of turnover, several researchers had suggested solutions and remedies to the problem of turnover through developing strategies for employees' retention. IV. EMPLOYEE RETENTION Retention could be improved by many factors like better recruitment effort, selecting right man for the right job, continuous review of job specifications and job descriptions, compensation practices, leadership and supervision, career planning and development, working condition, team building, centralization, organization communication and commitment, counseling leavers, flexible working hours, employee participation, turnover policies and appreciations (Mobley, 1982; Arthur, 2001).

Although review of literature revealed a modest correlation between job satisfaction and performance, Greenberg and Baron (2003) concluded that "Naturally, as working people, we all want to be satisfied with our jobs. Not only does satisfaction keep us from withdrawing from our jobs, but it is also makes them more pleasant and enjoyable. And this, of course, is an important end in itself. McConnell defined job performance in 2003 as an accomplishment that can be observed and measured. Wright & Bonett in 2002 observed age as a variables influence job performance, Cronin & Becherer, 1999 and Fort & Voltero, 2004 found non-financial rewards like recognition of achievement and McConnell, 2003; Tzeng, 2004 found job satisfaction influenced job performance. All these variables should have a positiv influence on employee job performance. In a study conducted in Pakistan Rehman Safdar and Ajmal Waheed in 2011 found highly significant correlation of job performance with the job satisfaction (r=0.52) which supported the earlier wok of McConnell, 2003 and Tzeng, 2004.

Part 5
Introduction The literature presented in the following sections provides a framework from which to analyse the questions under examination in this research study. Due to the extensive amount of information available on the subject of teacher retention, only information pertinent to the research questions is presented. Furthermore, information with similar ideas has been grouped into sections for easier reading and comprehension. According to Schulze (2002:21), a literature study is a systematic, critical analysis and a summary of existing literature that is relevant to the research topic. It involves reading an appropriate selection of available literature such as books, magazines, articles, dissertations and newspaper reports in which new events have been reported and opinions expressed on the matter under investigation. As noted by De Vos, Strydom, Fouche and Delport (2005:117) a literature review is a description of primary and secondary sources of research material. More particularly, it is a narrative or interpretative survey of the current status of research being investigated. The purpose 14 of a literature review is, therefore, to determine what others have learned about the field of the research problem and thus gather information about it.

Mouton (2002:119) maintains that a literature review offers a synthesis of:

gaps in the coverage) and

existing knowledge base. In this chapter, literature on personnel retention strategies implemented in various education institutions globally is discussed with a view of determining whether the same happens at Cor Jesu College. The review includes the views of other researchers on the said strategies namely working conditions, incentives, job satisfaction, mentoring, and staff development. It is essential to; first and foremost, focus on the reasons for staff retention and then the strategies employed.15 2.1 Reasons for staff retention Staff retention is a key challenge in organisations today. Employee retention strategies help retains the best staff. Ingersoll (2001:15) states that understanding why teachers leave is the first step in getting them to stay. For teachers to stay they need to encounter environments that provide essential professional support from school leadership, organisational structures and workforce conditions that convey respect and value for them and induction and mentoring programmes for new and experienced teachers. This view is supported by Darling-Hammond (2003:8) that good salaries, career advancement or

professional development, administrative support and other school-environment related factors influence teachers to stay in the profession. Wright (1991:60) lists top four reasons for staff retention which are closely related to administrative and economic factors which include support by administration, better salary and benefits, academic freedom and choice of teaching subjects. 2.2 Factors influencing personnel retention Ortigas (1997: 3) postulates that successful retention is best achieved by a proactive human resource department that actively seeks out what employees want most, and also by discovering the reasons behind the departure of former staff the organisation has failed to keep, but wishes it had. Personnel are more likely to stay at a school where they felt a connection to their students and their colleagues.16 The other factor influencing personnel retention is the use of new teacher support programmes. According to Lewis et al (1999:2) new teachers often are assigned to some of the most challenging courses and classrooms. In addition, some feel they have not received enough training to handle certain aspects of their job. Lewis et al (1999:2) further states that the combination of these challenges drives too many teachers from the profession. One response to this situation has been the adoption of programmes at the local level to support new teachers. A study by Tillman (2000:25) reported that as practising teachers, mentors appreciate and value

opportunities to interact, share their expertise as they support new teachers. Mentors can provide the emotional and professional support that often influences teachers decisions to remain in the teaching profession. The other retention strategy is restructuring schools to make them smaller. Bryk (1994:6) indicates that restructuring schools to make them smaller may result in an improved environment for teaching. A study by Bryk (1994:8) concluded that the new smaller schools created out of large schools increased cooperation among teachers and involved more teachers in the process of educational reform. Management should establish policy or legislation to define class size limits to include number and percentage of students who receive instruction. The type and amount of additional services provided such as behavioural support designated instructional services and consultation related services should be streamlined. 17 A study by U.S. Department of Education Initiative on Teaching (2006:6) found that recruiting from and training in the community was another very successful retention strategy. A school may provide employees such as paraprofessionals, substitute teachers, secretaries, custodians who have exemplary work records and commitment to teaching and other support so they can complete a teaching degree. Parent volunteers may also be included in such a programme. The

rationale is that it is easier to retain people who have deep roots in the community. Additionally, Lewis et al (1999:3) reveals that collaborative professional development such as common planning periods, team teaching and regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers and administrators is more effective than other forms of retention strategies. Collaboration among teachers can result in improved teaching. Stronger teachers can assist weaker ones; teachers can share techniques and information. Management should provide meaningful professional development for its employees. This professional development must be relevant, high quality, job-related, ongoing, effective data informed, research based and student outcome focused. Furthermore, ways should be identified to improve teacher induction that is additional training time for beginning, middle and experienced teachers. Schorr (1994:4-5) states the following retention strategies as important to an organisation: 1. Welcoming new staff -service training related to local customs and challenges; 18

ff to school policies, procedures, and expectations; and

2. Collegiality

3. Work control provide planning time during work day;

4. Professional development

on site;

age teachers to develop professional growth plans; and

5. Achievement and recognition

nition of professional efforts;

6. Resources20

provide day care for children; and

Other suggested strategies for retaining teachers include: effective school leadership, retention bonuses, effective staff selection and development, effective relationships with the community, shared decision making, career ladders, merit pay, performance pay and loan reduction or forgiveness (Ingersoll, 2001:10). 21 2.2.1 Working conditions In this particular study, working conditions refers to salary, fringe benefits, the physical environment and administrative support (Manser, 2000:6). In an investigation conducted in

South Africa by Pager (1996:85), teachers indicated that an improvement in working conditions was one of the most important factors in teacher retention. Burch (1993:5) found that specific conditions of a teachers workplace have a strong effect on their decision to remain in teaching. Those conditions involve support by staff and experienced or mentor teachers. Burch (1993:7) further observed that the support offered to teachers was identified by both beginning and experienced teachers as having the strongest effect on their decision to remain in teaching. Such support includes creating a conducive workplace to make sure that teachers stay. Wald (1998:8) states that work environment becomes pleasant when personnel are provided with timeout space such as a teachers lounge and ample parking for their vehicles. Teachers are likely to work hardest and accomplish most in their jobs if working conditions such as classroom space, equipment, supplies, and basic physical necessities are modern and adequate. Physical discomfort caused by large and difficult classes, poorly constructed classrooms, heavy schedules, inadequate furniture, and lack of resources affect teacher retention (Flores, 2004:24). Management should provide resources including libraries and other informational materials to encourage teaching personnel to stay.22 According to Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright (1994:293) physical environments,

particularly extreme conditions within those circumstances, are capable of affecting job performance as well as retention. There are dynamic and interacting variables which affect teacher retention process, arising from the individual, the nature of the job and the work environment (Hofmeyr, 1992:30). Individual variables concern what the employee brings to the work situation, and these include attitudes, beliefs, interests and specific needs. Teachers choices to stay in or exit the profession are shaped by occupational and organisational conditions present in schools. Ingersoll (1999: 7) and Sclan (1993:29) reported that poor workplace conditions conspire against teachers career choice commitment and retention. Work environment implies physical buildings, classroom climate, the school climate, materials and resources, discipline and support from administrators, parents, and colleagues: can also influence the school climate which is seen in the nature of the work and the people, in the architecture of its buildings and environment, and also in its history and culture. This is expected to reflect in the organisational structure, management and leadership style. Interpersonal relationships reflect the schools climate in the attitudes, motivations and academic achievements of all the people who work there (Sergiovanni & Strarratt, 1988:83). Physical facilities that could have a positive influence on the climate of the school include23

2.2.2 Financial incentives Financial incentives have long been held to have a positive effect on how hard people can work or how effectively they may contribute to the organisation. The idea of financial incentives was born from the scientific management theory between 1890 and 1930. The first theory is associated with Fredrick Taylor (Cannon and Edmondson 2001:161). Cannon and Edmondson (2001:161) went so far as to suggest that the scientific management stressed paying of salaries as a key to better human resource management as experienced in the United Kingdom. The most common form of incentive system which dates back to Scientific Management is the piece-rate system. Employees are paid a certain amount based on the number of products.24 The enterprise culture of the 1980s had vigorously reinforced and expanded the use of incentives with pay administration to motivate and provide competence earning levels. Smith (1989:3) asserts that well designed incentives, motivate, attract and retain employees. On the other hand, badly designed and poorly managed incentives can demotivate employees. Odden and Kelley (1997:105) further state that management have regularly received awards

which at first glance look like incentive payments but on closer scrutiny are no more than additional pay. Provision of bonuses for senior managers are well established in the United Kingdom industries but these executive bonuses do not have a direct link with individual or group performance. Their determination depends on factors and events outside the executives control. There are several types of bonuses:

sectors in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Goodwill is the determinant here with issues of performance or retention nowhere near.

payments made traditionally without following the corporate policy or strategic thinking. Bonus may be paid regardless of the companys well being and executives contribution to it. Arbitrary determination of these bonuses makes them doubtful motivators of executive performance. However, they generate goodwill and help build competitive remuneration 25 packages which attract and retain executives of the right calibre to meet company requirements. Incentives are still needed to forge necessary link between executive effort and company success (Odden and Kelley 1997:105). Teachers also receive allowances that have no direct relation to the responsibilities of their posts. They are entitled to additional payments by virtue of being employees. According to Odden and

Kelley (1997:27) teachers working in Berlin are given three percent of their monthly salary as an allowance, similarly, civil servants are placed in one of the three bands in Germany: (single; married or single parent families; married with children) and they receive an allowance for each child up to a maximum of six children. Every staff wants to feel that one is being paid appropriately and fairly for the work he or she does. It is important to find out what other schools, companies, colleges or organisations are offering in terms of salary and benefits. Bonuses and performance loadings will also play the role of keeping the most able apt instructors in the classroom thereby retaining the most able teachers in order to improve educational outcomes (Webster & Wooden, 2006:198). However, Fulmer (1987:277) contends that people do not always work for money only. Interesting work and pleasant colleagues are two non-financial influences on attitude towards and enthusiasm for work and retention of employees. Contrary to this view, Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener & Weber (1997:396) note from their study that salaries earned by teachers who actually left and those who stayed indicated that leaving decreased as salary increased. This is echoed by Henke, Choy, Chen, Geis & Alt (1997:247) who suggest that compensation is an important consideration for 26 teachers weighing the tangible and intangible costs and benefits of remaining in the teaching

profession. Henke et al (1997:248) further point out that schools that cannot offer competitive salaries are likely to be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to teacher retention. In addition, Carlson and Billingsley (2001:4) state that a financial incentive such as cash bonuses or placement on a higher step of the salary schedule is a useful retention strategy. Education managers should offer competitive salaries and better fringe benefits to its personnel. They should also help develop feelings of loyalty among its employees by ensuring that all education professionals are being treated equitably. Webb and Norton (1999:397) state that the salary system should be equitable; this requires that each position be evaluated in terms of its relative importance to other positions, that a hierarchical arrangement be established, and that salary be awarded accordingly. In addition to that, management can offer good opportunities for development, training and career progression. A reasonable degree of security enhanced future employability because of the reputation of the College as one that employs and develops high quality people as well as learning opportunities. Teachers as professionals are entitled to fringe benefits. Drotskie, Meyer, Cornelius, and Viljoen (2005:60) point out that a fringe benefit is a supplementary advantage conferred on an employee for which no work is required. Furthermore, benefits are loosely connected to the rank of an

employee. Therefore, each employee is entitled to the same benefits and privileges as long as he 27 or she meets the conditions of service. It must be observed also that other than the benefits which are mandated by law, certain benefits can be withdrawn or suspended for various reasons. According to Badenhorst (2003:156-157) and Cor Jesu College Faculty Manual on Policy and Standards (2006:63-71) special leave with full pay may be granted for an approved educational programme of study such as: (i) A 50 percent discount on tuition fees for regular, full-time employees who enrol in some courses in the undergraduate programmes such as acquiring a new major or a second undergraduate degree and (ii) A 25 percent discount on tuition fees for regular, full-time employees who enrol in the graduate school or law school of the Cor Jesu College. 2.2.2.1 Intangible rewards Many organisations recognise employee retention with what can be described as intangible rewards. Sometimes employees longevity in an organisation is recognised through an award or honours. As Jacobson (1992:45) mentioned, many organisations communicate employees worth to the organisation by location of the office, size of office, or by giving an impressive title. Some also give some senior employees an increased autonomy and freedom. The non-cash incentives had become popular in the United Kingdom during the 1970s.

Incentives such as merchandise, vouchers, and gift vouchers were used in high street chain stores 28 and holidays at home and abroad (Jacobson 1992:96). But currently, the main use of the noncash incentive is a backup to cash based scheme. For instance presentations of awards can usefully be made at a special ceremony, attended by all staff members with the chief executive making the award and a picture and support story appearing in a college magazine or in the local tabloid. This practice is widely done on Labour Day celebrations in most organisations when employees are rewarded and recognised for their achievements. 2.2.3 Job satisfaction One of the factors associated with teacher retention is job satisfaction (Mathieu, 1991:610; Ostroff, 1992:965). Job satisfaction can be defined as an overall feeling about ones job or career or in terms of specific facets of the job or career and it can be related to specific outcomes, such as productivity (Rice, Gentile, & McFarlin, 1991:31-32). Managers in education should provide specific feedback, encouragement and continued opportunities for growth by restructuring the work place by giving teachers more responsibilities and autonomy. Abu Saad and Hendrix (1995: 141) define job satisfaction as the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job achieving or facilitating the achievement of ones values. Values and needs are inter-linked and are also bound to change with time and

circumstances. Individuals lives are affected by factors in the job setting, such as the task environment as well as the nature of supervision. It, therefore, means that the experience of job 29 satisfaction is a personal and sometimes emotional reaction, involving the individuals internal needs, values and expectations. Theories on job satisfaction include the motivational needs theory by Maslow, the two factor theory by Herzberg, Lockes value theory and the expectancy theory by Vroom (Steyn & Van Wyk 1999: 37). The most widely used conceptualisation of job satisfaction is Herzbergs twofactor theory (Hill 1994: 223). Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory is inter-linked to Maslows hierarchy of human needs. The focus will be on these two theories. 2.2.3.1 Herzbergs two factor theory Frederic Herzbergs motivational theory arose from a study of about 200 engineers and accountants on factors that bring about satisfaction or dissatisfaction at work. He distinguished two sets of work factors. One set relates to the satisfiers or motivators. The other set relates to the dissatisfiers or hygiene factors. The motivators have to do with the work itself, and include achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement. The hygiene factors have to do with the environment or conditions of work. Job satisfaction is brought about by a combination of factors that relate to the actual execution of the work, called satisfiers. These include salary, possibility of growth, interpersonal relationships, administration, school policy, working

conditions, personal life, status and job security (Herzberg & Grigaliuma 1971: 7379).30 The satisfiers are intrinsic to the job they are defined as factors which contribute to job satisfaction if present but not to dissatisfaction if absent. They are also referred to as motivators, since the motivational potential for most people increases accordingly (Matlawe 1989:12-14). However, Olsen (1993: 453) explains that although the intrinsic rewards have been defined in a variety of ways, they in general pertain to the nature of the work itself. Examples of intrinsic rewards are: the opportunity for independent thought and actions, feelings of worthwhile accomplishment, opportunities for personal growth and development, as well as jobrelated selfesteem. Ayse (1999: 110) suggests that intrinsic factors such as pride in their work can motivate educators for professional development and increased performance. The dissatisfiers are extrinsic in their nature and refer to the circumstances under which the work is done. The extrinsic factors are seen as factors that bring about dissatisfaction in the work environment and include: lack of support, poor salary, poor infrastructure and an inferior reward system. Salary has become more significant because academic income has failed to keep pace with increases in the cost of living and levels of compensation as have been the case in other professions. Therefore, knowledge of job satisfiers can provide insight into what could be done to strengthen the teaching profession and make it a more satisfying career

. 2.2.3.2 Implications of Herzbergs theory for education managers Implications of Herzbergs theories of motivation on what managers should do in education in order to retain staff:31

enhances growth at the school taking into account what teachers want from their job;

assumption of Herzbergs theory is that the job itself is a powerful intrinsic motivator. The school head should explore measures to increase the variety of teaching experiences and make teachers aware of the possibilities (Tarrant 1991:37);

teachers in their efforts to grow and perceive their ways of perceiving their environment they work in, their personal goals, feelings and beliefs (Owens 1995:61);

shared responsibilities for decision-making, exercising independent thought, experiencing stimulating and challenging work and personal growth, and leadership so that they are continually motivated and remain in the profession ( Frase & Sorenson 1992:40; Tarrant 1991:71); and

either formally or informally (Tarrant 1991:37). 2.2.3.3 Maslows hierarchy of needs

Maslow (1954: 2-8) suggests that people normally seek satisfaction and are motivated through a hierarchy of needs. The needs range from the lowest to the highest. According to Maslow, the lower order needs have to be satisfied before the higher order needs can be met. Thus, it is not possible to satisfy the higher order needs before the lower order needs. The lower order needs are 32 the basic physiological, security and safety needs and are synonymous with Herzbergs hygiene factors. The higher order needs are esteem, autonomy and self-actualisation. The higher order needs are similar to Herzbergs motivators. The lower order needs are considered to have low motivational potential for educators and the higher order needs have a high motivational potential. The lower order needs do, however, need to be satisfied so as to avoid educator dissatisfaction and frustration. The satisfaction of the lower order needs help only in eliminating job dissatisfaction, but does not bring about motivation. This can be explained as follows: For example, Matlawe (1989: 12-14) confirms that the satisfaction of the needs at the lower level is a prerequisite for satisfying needs at the higher level in the hierarchy. Basic physiological needs are fulfilled when you have money and employment. Security needs are met when individuals know that their survival is not in jeopardy. Social needs are satisfied when one enjoys the full acceptance and membership of a group.

To meet the lower order needs alone is not enough as that would only help to remove dissatisfaction but will not motivate the educator. Steyn and Van Wyk (1999: 37-43) indicate that if educator performance in schools is to be improved, it is necessary to pay attention to the kind of work environment that enhances the educator sense of professionalism and decreases their job dissatisfaction.33 Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors have been found to affect teacher satisfaction. Intrinsic factors may play a role in motivating individuals to enter the teaching profession, since most teachers enter the profession because they enjoy teaching and want to work with young people. Very few teachers enter the profession because of external rewards, such as salary, benefits or prestige (Choy et al., 1993:18). This indicates that teachers are primarily attracted to teaching by intrinsic motivation, but extrinsic factors play a major role in retaining them. Student characteristics and perceptions of teacher control over classroom environment are intrinsic factors affecting teacher satisfaction (Lee, Derick, and Smith, 1991:190). In addition, Boe and Gilford (1992:4) found that intrinsic factors are related to teacher retention and satisfaction in teaching, as well as other professions. Steyn (1988: 9-14) explains that the complexity of the concept of job retention assumes that certain aspects of the educators background can influence their experience thereof, the implication being that job retention can be

influenced by an individuals expectations. One of the facets that may bring about staff retention as outlined by Chaplain (1995:473-481) is that educators are more satisfied with their own performance as educators than any other aspect. Therefore, the most satisfying single aspect as an educator, regarding retention is personal performance as an educator which includes professional autonomy. This opinion is endorsed by Barnabe and Burns (1994:171) educational professionals want to be able to do their work 34 unhindered within a context that is compatible with their needs, expectations, values and ideologies. 2.2.3.4 Implications of Maslows theory for education managers Implications of Maslows theories of motivation on what managers should do in education in order to retain staff: and must endeavour to afford the staff opportunities to satisfy these needs;

environment are fulfilled ( Hofmeyr 1992:69); hich might include increasing the opportunities for greater autonomy, task variety, and responsibility and teacher retention;

individual

differences in needs and selects appropriate assignments and incentives and give them the opportunity for growth (Tarrant 1991:37); and

recognition to enhance staffs self-esteem and motivate them for the purpose of realising education and teaching (Van der Westhuizen 1991:1997). 2.2.4 Mentoring35 Experienced mentors help beginning teachers deal with issues that they may encounter on a daily basis. Through mentors, novice teachers are also provided feedback, instructional strategies, and insights into distinct guidelines as they relate to education (Ferraren, 1999:18-20). Induction schemes have been devised which allow new teachers to take on their responsibilities more gradually, with supervision and support (Andrews, 1987:11). Mentors have been assigned to beginning teachers, to guide them through the first few difficult steps of their now professional life (Little, 1990:310; McIntyre, Hagger, & Wilkin, 1983:96), and professional development schools are emerging everywhere as places where student teachers can be exposed to both exemplary classroom practice and the support of committed colleagues, as a context for learning their craft (Darling-Hammond, 1994:2). College management should put in place a mentoring programme so that new teachers can have close supervision and guidance in handling their teaching duties. This will provide for the

recruitment and retention of new teachers. It is the task of the college president to create a favourable climate in which newly appointed teachers feel comfortable and motivated to start their new careers at the college. 2.2.5 Staff development36 In order for students to improve academically, professional development is a critical support that must be provided for all teachers. Teachers desire new challenges because they want to learn, develop better skills, and obtain greater knowledge about their practice (Sinalo, 2002:96). According to Guthrie and Reed (1991:346), the terms professional development and inservice training are frequently used interchangeably. Professional development relates to lifelong development programmes which focus on a wide range of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to educate students more effectively (ONeil, 1994:285; Dunlap, 1995:149). It is a formal, systematic programme designed to promote personal and professional growth. Inservice training relates to the acquisition of knowledge or a particular skill and can therefore be a component of professional development in the broader context (Guthrie & Reed, 1991: 346). The primary aim of professional development is to increase the quality of student learning by the development of staff potential (Aylward, 1992:145).

Professional development is driven by the individual, with the institution providing logistic support for the development (ONeil, 1994:30). Principals play a key role in terms of creating a positive climate for collaboration (Ehrich, 1997:14). Involving staff in designing and implementing development programmes improves their readiness for effective learning and improves on the feeling of wanting to stay in an institution.37 Brownell, Smith, McNellis & Lenk (1994:83) report that teachers who stay are more likely to assume at least some responsibility for their own professional development and to initiate actions to continue their own learning. They also report that only stayers discuss the importance of university training to their professional development. 2.3 Potential barriers to staff retention According to Kruger and Van Deventer (2003:4) the collapse of a culture of learning and teaching in an institution which would ultimately become barriers to effective staff retention include:

ty;

-out rate, poor school results;

buildings and resources.38 Poor salary and an inferior reward system are some of the factors acting as barriers to staff retention among educators. Lee (1987:28) cites salary as the most important determinant of staff retention. The lack of lateral and upward mobility in education and the fact that long service brings limited salary increases result in a great exodus of educators from the teaching profession. Calleja (2006:132) shows that educators most likely to leave the profession are the ones paid relatively low salaries. This view is supported by Ingersoll (2001:7) that low salaries, inadequate support from the school administration, student discipline problems, and limited faculty input into school decision making all contribute to less retention. A study conducted by Kloep and Tarifa (1994:159) on working conditions, styles and staff retention among Albanian educators indicate that although they had poor working conditions, with worn out classrooms, scanty furniture, broken windows, lack of resources such as paper and text books, overheads, audio-visual aids and copying machines, these educators retention levels seemed to depend rather on intrinsic factors of job security. Other researchers such as Du Toit (1994:18-23) indicate that the attitude that individuals may have regarding certain factors can become barriers to staff retention resulting into job

dissatisfaction. A factor like poor physical working conditions may become a barrier to staff retention if the attitude of the educator is negative. Poor infrastructure is not a motivator; it serves merely to eliminate barriers to retention and frustration. External factors like poor physical working conditions can be balanced by other factors concerning education. This seems 39 to suggest that if factors concerning the work itself are alright, then the environmental conditions are balanced. Job dissatisfaction as a barrier to staff retention is brought about by factors that relate to the work environment, and are known as dissatisfiers (Herzberg & Grigaliuma 1971: 73-79). Dissatisfiers can be defined as factors which lead to dissatisfaction if absent but their presence does not necessarily contribute to satisfaction. The factors include salary, status, supervision, policy and administration, interpersonal relations, working conditions and job security. Matlawe (1989:14) refers to the dissatisfiers as hygiene factors. They are called hygiene factors as they prevent on-the-job trouble, such as high absenteeism due to illness and high staff turnover. Hygiene factors revolve around stress and burnout experienced by educators and the exodus of educators from their profession, as well as the possible impact their attitude may have on learners at school (Steyn & Van Wyk 1999:37).