Why is staff turnover considered bad?

[SHGR]

I've read a lot of threads on this board. The collective wisdom of nurses here is amazing. However, there seems to be a common theme that I have been trying to figure out. Every time there is a job/career/management/interview related thread, people mention asking about staff turnover, implying that it is across-the-board bad.

See, I work in what I consider to be a stagnant environment. There is glacially low turnover. There are some staff who have been here a loooooong time, and interactions with them leave me with the impression that a lot of them dislike working here, but that it is just kind of comfortable and mediocrity is tolerated and oh, well. You know, lots of sick calls, management making excuses for chronic poor performance (when management is there at all), things like that.

One day an email came out that we should congratulate so-and-so for having worked there for 20 years. I thought, so shouldn't that mean she would be really super good at what she does by now? Know it inside and out, really own it.

I mean, people move on in normal workplaces, right? Fresh opportunities? Promotions, transfers, growth? What's wrong with working in a place two years and moving on?

[CuteNurseUnl]

High turnover often signals a bad working environment. Not only does it warn off potential employees from deciding to apply there, it also impacts their reputation among other organizations/people who may wonder why they can't retain staff or why people don't want to work there.

I agree with this. One of the two hospitals I externed at had a high turnover rate: Training was almost non-existent and you're just a body to cover shifts. It just also seems like no one cares to excel and that it's just all a paycheck to them. Moreover, there was a deep divide between the doctors and nurses. The doctors were extremely arrogant (with interns, sadly, following their example) and the nurses defiant and combative (with externs including me, following their example). A lot of the people I know that were hired aren't very happy there at all and are biding their time until they can find a better hospital to work at.

When my externship was finished, I didn't stay with that hospital, but went to a far better one within the system where striving for excellence was the norm and the respect between doctors and nurses is greatly reciprocated.

[hiddencatRN, BSN, RN]

So, a stagnant, dead work environment is one thing, but a place that has a high turnover rate should raise red flags about WHY it has a high turnover rate. What about the environment is so awful that people will forgo stability, seniority, familiarity, comfort, a chance to really grow in that position, etc, to move on to something else? As others have mentioned, it takes time to grow in to a role to really be functioning at your best in it, and there are plenty of emotional and psychological (and economic) benefits to a known environment as well.

As far as asking about the turnover though, future employers could easily lie about it. I was told in an interview that the unit's turnover rate was very low, when the reality is they have frequent mass exoduses, losing large chunks of staff in waves (there have been 3 waves in the less than 2 years I've been there). The director even said it with a completely straight face, and boy do my coworkers and I have a good laugh about that every time the next wave hits. So I honestly don't bother asking this question in interviews anymore, but try to get the information from unofficial channels.

[RNperdiem, RN]

If the person doing the hiring does a bad job, then the newcommers might not be any better in their attitudes than the stagnant employees, just newer.

[llg, PhD, RN]

2012 National Healthcare & RN Retention Report - NSI Nursing ...

Thank you for the link, NRSKarenRN. You do that so often -- adding some data ... a link ... etc. It's good to have you around.

[itsnowornever, BSN, RN]

OK, I see that, but is there a point where people who seem like they clocked out for good a long time ago are more of a drain than the new person that could be hired and oriented, who would bring a fresh perspective (and be paid less per hour as well).

Today was an especially bad day, so I'm feeling more negative than usual about having to pick up behind other staff....then got hauled into the office because I'm enabling them to not do their jobs (??!)

Bottom line, from a business stand point it's a bad thing. It's costs a TON of money.

[JZ_RN]

There should be staff willing to stay. Constant new staff means constant training and few "experts" and it also indicated a poor work environment, which, in my experience, means poor care from some of the other staff members.

If it smells like crap, looks like crap... well... it's probably crap.

[That Guy, BSN, RN, EMT-B]

I see it as this. There are two types of unhappy workers.

1. The type that rolls over and deals with it and stays put

2. The type that says "I quit" and move on to something bigger and better.

If you have a lot of number 2 then you really should look at why it is so bad. Sure a lot of people use med/surg as a stomping ground to gain experience, but I could see why staying longer has its benefits too, as long as the working environment is acceptable.

[Asystole RN]

Having no turnover is considered a negative since there is little to no new fresh staff bringing in new perspectives and ideas. A high turnover rate is expensive to the facility and considered a sign of a poor work environment.

A healthy organization should have a low turnover rate of around 5-15% depending on the nature of the business.

[KeyMaster]

Some of the perspectives on turnover are generational. Once upon a time long-term loyalty to a company or position meant that the employee was rewarded for their seniority: additional compensation, benefits, promotions and a valuable retirement pension. "Job-hopping" was a bad thing because it showed a lack of loyalty or buy-in to the company. Experience was valued, recognized and rewarded. We grew up with the message that if you worked hard, put your nose to the grindstone and served the company well the company would take care of you later. My parents worked for the same company for over 30 years - they retired with better benefits than I have now as a full time hospital employee.

Nowadays long-term employees can be viewed as stagnant, complacent or as lacking initiative. The rewards for long term service are no longer as beneficial as they used to be, so why should anyone stay in one place? A couple of years here and there at different positions can be a plus on a resume because it indicates varied experience and a wider variety of abilities. It is the new norm.

[Wet Noodle]

OK, I see that, but is there a point where people who seem like they clocked out for good a long time ago are more of a drain than the new person that could be hired and oriented, who would bring a fresh perspective (and be paid less per hour as well).

Bottom line, from a business stand point it's a bad thing. It's costs a TON of money.

It costs a ton of money to take on a new employee, but it costs nothing to carry an unproductive employee, even counting salary, benefits, and overhead? Was that a non sequitur?

Ideally, all facilities would give employees learning opportunities and growth potential, so swapping experienced employees would be a zero-sum event, other than becoming oriented to a new facility's processes and procedures. The gain would be bringing in new perspectives and ideas-a beneficial cross-fertilization.

If you change departments within a hospital (e.g., from peds to ICU), isn't there a big retraining cost there? Does that mean that people should simply grow old working in the department they started in when they were 25?

[hiddencatRN, BSN, RN]

It costs a ton of money to take on a new employee, but it costs nothing to carry an unproductive employee, even counting salary, benefits, and overhead? Was that a non sequitur?Ideally, all facilities would give employees learning opportunities and growth potential, so swapping experienced employees would be a zero-sum event, other than becoming oriented to a new facility's processes and procedures. The gain would be bringing in new perspectives and ideas-a beneficial cross-fertilization.If you change departments within a hospital (e.g., from peds to ICU), isn't there a big retraining cost there? Does that mean that people should simply grow old working in the department they started in when they were 25?

There's a big difference between turnover that brings fresh ideas and allows for professional growth, and the high turnover of a unit that can't retain talent. I see most people in this thread arguing that high turnover is a problem employers should address in terms of work environment and staff morale, not that all employees should blindly cleave to their employer for better or worse for the duration of their career.

[amoLucia]

I've known facilities that had WAITING LISTS for new hires. Their only turnover was due to employees relocating too far away, retiring, or dying. These places also had stellar reputations in the community and excellent surveys.

But things and times do change and many of the previous postings are so true. This topic of 'staff turnover' conjures up other issues of seniority, longevity, tenure, 'lifers', loyalty, committment, recognition and other thoughts, all good, bad and/or indifferent. And they're all argueable in today's uncertain employment environment.

I believe the bottom line is the bottom line for employers. And thi$ is what directs employers as they create workplace environements

that are employee-friendly or not, ie employee-retentive or not.