Doctoral research

Literature Review

Theresa Rice

Walden University

Literature Review: Employee Retention

Employee retention is an important aspect to any organization. Turnover and attrition create several obstacles not only within day to day operations, but also within an organizations ability to adequately fulfill its desired goals and objectives. Identifying the reasoning behind why individuals choose to leave a position or seek out new employment is a key point in tackling the issue of retention. Bandura & Lyons (2014) offer insight through the avoidance of short-term fixes. Addressing why employees leave the authors utilize a 2012 SRHM job satisfaction survey which listed five key criteria regarding ones decision to leave or move on; (1) opportunities to use skills and abilities, (2) job security, (3) compensation and pay, (4) communication between employees and senior management, (5) relationship with immediate supervisor (p.31). The identified criteria can serve as a key criteria. Organizations want to hold on to their best employees, provide incentive, and motivate employees to put forth their best effort. Turnover, especially high turnover incurs additional costs in advertising and interviewing, on-boarding, loss of productivity, and increased workloads among remaining staff (p. 30). Taylor, Murphy, & Price (2006) addressed the issue of retention utilizing Goldratts’s Theory of Constraints (TOC). Goldratt’s TOC revolves around the weakest link controlling an entire process and progresses to developing series of steps which address what to change and how to make that change (p. 653). Applying this theory the causes leading to turnover identified by Bandura & Lyons (2014) can be linked to Downs (2015) development processes to retain star performers.

Downs (2015) developmental processes play an integral role in the retention of star talent. Although not all employees fall into the category, developing a program that encourages such performance is desirable. These processes include assessments, formal learning, applies learning, job shadows and rotations, stretch assignments, specials events, program launch activities, and engagement (internal newsletters, dedicated intranet pages, or podcasts) (pp. 353-354).

Impact

A goal of implementing and evaluating a training program is measured through employee engagement and retention. Retention being the primary basis of revamping a current training program. Beynon, Jones, Pickernell, & Packham (2015) evaluated training impact on small and medium enterprises. Although the private sector is inherently different than the public and non-eprofit sector. They all strive to retain and attract the best possible staff. Additionally, their note that enterprise is characterized with increased efficiency demands and gains, lower costs, and enhanced effectiveness (p. 141) is not isolated to just the private sector. Training then facilitates this movement while engaging employees. Were evidence suggests that enterprises which offer training benefit from employees who become pro-socially motivated to exert effort on behalf on their organization, as well as, generally positive attitudes regarding training being offered to them (p. 143). Beynon, et. al. were able to conclude that when training programs were incorporated have a positive relationship with employee loyalty (p. 151). In addition to a positive relationship between employees and organizational loyalty. There should also be a positive impact on the organization. This can be measured in reduced and more effective on-boarding, reduced costs, and improved performance. Duguay & Korbut (2002) suggest that a well-designed and implanted training plan consists of minimized on-boarding and time-to-first contribution (p. 223). A two phase approach is recommended as it addresses requirements and actions attributes to initial hire and progresses to skill mastery within individual functions (p.223).

Evaluation

Overall impact of a training program is integral to program success. However, so it evaluation. Evaluation also becomes an important factor. Bunker & Cohen (1978) identify frequent questions answered through an evaluation process (p. 5).

· Is the problem amenable to a training solution?

· Which training method is most appropriate for the material and target population?

· Was the course material learned? Did the training result in the desired immediate demonstration of changed behavior?

· What changes could be made to improve the training program?

· Are there particular types of trainees for whom training is more (or less) effective?

· What are the implications of the induced behavior change relative to meeting long-range organizational objectives?

Krein and Weldon (1994) address these same questions in a more generalized fashion. Noting that evaluation should look at four priorities; (1) reaction to training, (2) learning from training, (3) application, (4) measurement of results (pp. 63-65). As almost thirty years separates both articles the same principles hold within the evaluation process of a training program. Evaluation also aids in an approach of such a program being an investment. This point is reiterated by Buckner and Cohen (1978) that monetary cast of human capital is difficult to define and measure. However, one assessment put evaluation costs at a tenth of development costs (p. 11).

Another aspect of evaluation is its ability to allow for continuous improvement of a program utilizing the principles set forth by Bunker & Cohen (1978) and Krein & Weldon (1994). Prescott (1975) offers a trouble shooting solution developed in response to improving performance and operational problems (p. 32). The methodology developed is versatile in its application and can be manipulated to fit an organizations priorities. The basis of this methodology involves identifying operational problems, identifying cause(s), and identifying and relating critical jobs/duties/tasks to the root causes (p. 33). By doing such organizations are able to apply a trouble shooting approach which allows for identification, root cause, relatable position/personnel, known deficiencies, cost benefits, planning and implementation (p. 34). This Process aids in curating an evaluation process through a standardized and applicable framework that can be applied to a wide range of issues which may be encountered.

Conclusion

An effective training program is dependent on a number of variables. The literature provided addressed issue regarding its impact within organizations, evaluation considerations, and the adoption of e-learning platforms. Impact aims to measure the value of training and whether or not it is an effective tool for retention and reducing turnover within organizations. Literature points to programs increasing employee loyalty as well as developing more engaged employees.

Evaluation is essential as a continuous process. It allows for established measurable goals, adjustments, and improvements within the training process. As training is difficult to measure in terms of cost and return on investment. Its effect within organizations and in measurements associated with human capital is tangible.

Finally, as research on the subject of training programs and plans within organizations has progressed to more specific in single function research. It is difficult to find contemporary examples of standardized training programs or standing up initial programs. Instead there is focus on specific practices, designs, or methodologies.

References:

Bandura, R. P., & Lyons, P. R. (2014). Short-Term Fixes Fall Short When it Comes to Keeping

the Best Employees. Human Resource Management International Digest Vol. 22 No. 5,

29-32.

Beynon, M. J., Jones, P., Pickernell, D., & Packham, G. (2015). Investigating the Impact of

Training Influence on Employee Retention in Small and Medium Enterprises: a

Regression-type Classification and Ranking Believe Simplex Analysis on Sparse Data.

Expert Systems Vol. 32 No. 1, 141-154.

Bunker, K. A., & Cohen, S. L. (1978). Evaluating Organizational Training Efforts: Is Ignoring

Really Bliss? Training and Development Journal , 4-11.

Desai, M. S., Richards, T., & Eddy, J. P. (2000). A Field Experiment: Instructor-Based Training

vs. Computer-Based Training. Journal of Instructional Psychology Vol. 27 No. 4, 239-

242.

Downs, L. (2105). Star Talent: Investing in High-Potential Employees for Organizational

Success. Industrial and Commercial Training Vol. 47 No. 7, 349-355.

Duguay, S. M., & Korbut, K. A. (2002). Designing a Training Program which Delievers Results

Quickly! Industrial and Commericial Training Vol. 34 no. 6, 223-228.

Krein, T. J., & Weldon, K. C. (1994). Making a Play for Training Evaluation. Training and

Development , 62-67.

Long, L. K., Dubois, C. Z., & Faley, R. H. (2008). Online Training: The Value of Capturing

Trainee Reactions. Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 20 No. 1, 21-37.

Newton, R., & Doonga, N. (2007). Corporate E-Learning: Justification for Iimplementation and

Evaluation of Benefits. A Study Examining the Views of Training Managers and

Providers. Education for Information, 111-130.

Prescott, B. (1975). The Trouble Shooting Approach to Training . Industrial and Commericial

Training Vol. 7 No. 4, 32-35.

Taylor, L. J., Murphy, B., & Price, W. (2006). Goldratt's Thinking Process Applied to Employee

Retention. Business Process Management Journal Vol. 12 No. 5 , 646-670.