Plugging the Leak

Turnover is a costly reality that every HR manager has to deal with, often costing a company as much as the yearly salary of the departing employee to replace him or her (Allen, Bryant, and Vardaman 48). In Retaining Talent: Replacing Misconception with Evidence-Based Strategies, the authors attempt to identify the underlying causes of turnover and how to improve employee retention. Additionally, they dispel myths regarding turnover causes. Their findings, therefore, are relevant to HR managers everywhere, since they tackle a difficult and expensive challenge that every industry faces.

The long-held assumptions about turnover made by numerous HR managers are that they are dangerous, counterproductive, and result in continuing to misunderstand the causes of employee turnover. The most preeminent of these assumptions is the nature of turnover itself. Instead of it being all bad, as many believe, turnover can be neutral in effect or even beneficial (51). Additionally, the reasons for turnover cannot be restricted to insufficient pay or an unsatisfactory work environment; in fact, a source of turnover is merely the perception of improved conditions or pay at an alternative opportunity (52). In fact, while organizational commitment and job satisfaction are the primary drivers of turnover within a company, the authors’ research has revealed that neither of these has to be inferior for an employee to begin looking for alternative employment. As long as the alternative job is perceived to offer greater satisfaction and greater commitment, then the employee is likely to leave for the new opportunity.

Intelligent Management

Though HR managers at most corporations are steeped in education and/or experience, it has been found that the vast majority of them have substandard knowledge bases. That is, most HR professionals are ignorant to, not only state-of-the-art HR research, but also of current best practices (Rynes, Brown, & Colbert 92). Given that these best practices consistently relate to superior worker performance, financial success, and organizational development (92), it is of paramount importance that HR managers stay current on new research and practice findings. In that spirit, the authors of Seven Common Misconceptions about Human Resource Practices investigated the disconnect between true and evolving best practices and what HR managers are actually aware of and able to implement.

To that end, the authors conducted a survey of 959 people. These respondents averaged 14 years of HR experience, which suggested to the authors that these people were, in fact, well-informed and experienced HR professionals. Thus, they should have been aware of best practices and have the latest research available to them. From their responses, the authors noticed seven different assumptions used by these professionals daily which contradict recent research findings. For example, an overwhelming majority believed conscientiousness was a better marker for predicting employee performance than intelligence, though research data conclusively proves this assumption is incorrect (93-94). Armed with this data, the HR professional should be able to make decisions and implement practices that enhance productivity and boost revenue.

Knowledge Predicts Success

Given the broad agreement among I/O psychologists that general cognitive ability is a reliable predictor of employee performance, it is vital that HR managers apply it; however, there is a surprising amount of resistance from HR managers to utilize it. Much of this hesitance, according to Dr. Frank L. Schmidt of the University of Iowa, has to do with semantic confusion regarding terminology. General cognitive ability is often referred to as “intelligence”, which has a general connotation and can be dismissed as being only one of many predictors.

Unlike specific abilities, such as psychomotor skills, social ability, and physical ability, general cognitive ability has a strong correlation with workplace performance (Schmidt 188). Likewise, the aptitude tests that most companies employ are actually different facets of the general cognitive ability itself. The composites that are created from their results do not produce a more accurate predictor of workplace performance than general cognitive ability. Furthermore, the aptitude testing used in screening potential employees, which relies on aptitude composites specific to the skill set needed for the job, fails to significantly predict performance. A study revealed that general cognitive ability outperformed verbal ability, reasoning, memory, motor ability, and four other aptitudes typically used in employee performance predictions significantly, having a higher best-case result correlation (.81 to .68 on average), higher low-case result correlation (.21 to .09), and median correlation (.52, over scores ranging from .39 to .47). HR managers, therefore, should rely heavily on general cognitive ability testing.

Works Cited

Allen, David G., Bryant, Philip C., and John Vardaman. “Retaining Talent: Replacing Misconceptions with Evidence-Based Strategies.” Academy of Management Perspectives 24:2 (2010): 48-64. PDF.

Rynes, Sara L., Brown, Kenneth G., and Amy E. Colbert. “Seven Common Misconceptions about Human Resource Practices.” Academy of Management Executive, 16:3 (2002): 92-103. PDF.

Schmidt, Frank L. “The Role of General Cognitive Ability and Job Performance.” Human Performance, 15:1/2 (2002): 187-210. PDF.