Trying to work out whether your organisation’s wastage profile is better or worse than that of your competitors is not an easy task. It is worth making the attempt, however, as it could highlight areas where your organisation is doing particularly well or badly in wastage terms. This, in turn, could lead to an examination of the causes for the apparent anomalies, and to the uncovering both of good practices that could be applied more widely, and problem areas that could respond to HR or other initiatives. This paper outlines three broad ways of doing this:
There are several published sources of labour turnover information. The more useful of these are listed below:
IPD labour turnover survey results, published by CIPD [www.cipd.co.uk] each autumn.
The CBI [www.cbi.org.uk] also publish an annual Absence and Labour Turnover Survey.
National management salary survey, published by Remuneration Economics [www.celre.co.uk], with the Institute of Management. This used data from 19,444 managers employed by 328 organisations.
National management salary survey — smaller business review, published as above. This contains information gathered from 2,229 managers in 112 companies with a turnover of under £25 million.
Skill needs in Britain Survey, published on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills. This uses data obtained via telephone interviews with over 4,000 organisations.
The Local Government Employers’ Organisation [www.lge.gov.uk] publishes data gathered from surveys of particular groups of staff — eg the annual teacher resignations and recruitment survey.
Computer staff salary survey, published regularly by Computer Economics [www.computereconomics.com]. This uses data gathered from surveys of IT specialists employed in computer installations.
Although it can be very comforting to compare one’s organisation to others, there are some caveats which need to be understood.
The definitions used may not always be the same. A small difference in wording could lead to a big difference in the wastage rate quoted.
The time period used in the data gathering exercise may not be appropriate for your organisation — calendar year versus financial year, for example.
The way employees are grouped may not lend itself to comparisons with your organisation.
External comparisons may lead to a false sense of security. If your organisation’s wastage rate has increased markedly from the previous year, a problem is indicated — no matter how favourably it compares with your competitors’ rates.
Fellow managers in other organisations can be a rich source of information about comparative wastage rates, and could be a particularly useful source for comparative data in similar businesses, or in a particular geographical area. Bear in mind:
the caveats contained in the section above
the need to respect confidentiality
the requirement to give information as well as to receive it.
Your organisation’s own records or information systems may help you with comparative information. An examination of source of recruitment and destination on leaving data, for example, could allow tentative conclusions to be drawn regarding whether your organisation is a net gainer or loser in terms of joiners and leavers. This information could be particularly valuable when considering key, highly valued employees.