There is a high rate of employee turnover. How much of a proportion should personnel expenses have on turnover?
How much of a role should the cost of employees play in determining turnover?
In a nutshell, these are the numbers:
Most often it is approximately 15%.
In light of the company’s owner’s pay, this incident is even more shocking. Aside from salaries and benefits, certain industrial firms with healthy balance sheets and steady development have increased their staff costs by 30% as a percentage of sales; on the other hand, a contact center represents a kind of firm (now in crisis) at approximately 25%.
Who’s right here? With so wide variation, it is impossible to define a phrase like “reason”. Investing in human resources should include the consideration of the question, “Is the personnel properly motivated?” Employee motivation is also related to employee turnover.
Rather than just sustaining the status quo, might managers be seen as a source of new ideas and perspectives? How can a corporation adapt to changing market conditions, or does it stay stoic and inflexible? How important are the business, the client, and the connection with end-users? Is it essential to go through a cycle of training and raising awareness among the workforce?
Personnel costs should not be seen as a “cost,” but rather as an investment. The shift (from cost to investment) occurs as a result of ongoing education and training.
As an investment in persons, training must be seen as a transformation evolution of the cost of personnel. Analyzing the company’s logo, mission, and social purpose in relation to the employee’s sense of self-identification inside the organization. Yes, I did say the company’s “social mission,” not the improper term. Although a company’s primary function is to create prosperity and well-being for its employees, this must be articulated in order for it to be fully appreciated.
It is only in this context that the expense of staff is reasonable and in harmony with the budgetary constraints.