If you think you're too small to make a difference, You've never been in Bed with a mosquito.

" - Anita Roddick Employee attrition is one of the critical problem which is faced by an HR manager during these days. In an ideal situation an employee consider multiple comfort level while working in a office for e.g. employer's goodwill in the market, remuneration, future growth, working condition, co-workers, current role's scope in the market & most important future stability with the organization. In a survey, approximate 70% of the working population in India is not happy at all due to one of the aspect (as mentioned aforesaid) which is not fulfilled while working in a organization which caused higher attrition rate. In broad term, attrition is a situation which employer face when employee left the organization due to job dissatisfaction, new opportunity in the market, retirement & natural cause (death/illness). Now a days this is one of the most important question which is asked by higher authority to HR people."Why our attrition rate is higher than other company". Earlier it wasn't important for the organization, whether their employees are committed or not, but now the time has been changed. The company cannot afford to lose its best employee to competitors. Therefore, HR team conducts EXIT interview when an employee left the job to get the information about one's decision to leave an organization. It is a paramount consideration for a HR team to think, why people are vacating their positions. Still Human Resource team face the challenge due to wrong information provided during EXIT interview. Reason for Leaving:The reason are various behind leaving an organization & any attempt to find one comprehensive explanation for this phenomenon would be futile. Though the rising attrition within industries is a well-discussed topic but very few HR executives have been able to pinpoint the 'exact' reason for this growing trend. A recent Hewitt 'Attrition & Retention' survey shows one of the top reasons for talent attrition to be "external inequity in compensation". They also show that 27% of the employees in their EXIT interview mentioned compensation as the primary reason. It comes no surprise to many that money is an important factor but what besides this, there are several factors that influence an employee's decision to leave. Those days are gone when salary was the sole motivator for an employee to leave an organization. According to a survey there are three main reasons that are followed by other common reason: * In equity in compensation * Limited career opportunities * Role stagnation Common reasons experienced by HR manager are discussed here: * * * * Mismatch of job profile. Job stress and work-life imbalances Odd working hours/Early morning-night shifts Job hopping

* Lack of authority provided to accomplish ones task * Monotony of job The list can be endless but the reason why employees leave the organization is vary according to the nature of the business. The work should give to them the level of the employees and the nature of the responsibility he/she can handle. Therefore it's very challenging task for an HR expert to cope up with this situation and retain talent with an organization. Associated cost with high Attrition: Talent loss: * It includes the cost of lost knowledge, skills and contacts that the person who is leaving is taking with them out of your door. Recruitment cost: * The cost of advertisements; agency costs; employee referral costs; internet posting costs. * Calculate the cost of the manager who has to understand what work remains, and how to cover that work until a replacement is found. * cost of the various candidate pre-employment tests to help assess candidates' skills, abilities, aptitude, attitude, values and behaviors. Training cost: * It includes the cost of orientation in terms of the new person's salary and the cost of the person who conducts the orientation. * It also consists of the training. * Calculate the cost of various training materials needed including company product manuals, computer or other technology equipment used in the delivery of the training. Motivational cost: * It refers to the cost arises because of motivating the other employees to retain them in the organization in terms of increasing their salary and time. Lost Productivity Costs: * As the new employee is learning the new job, the company policies and practices, etc. they are not fully productive. Use the following guidelines to calculate the cost of this lost productivity. How To Retain Employees: Retaining employees has always proved to be fruitful across many industries rather than to search for new & efficient talent. So to gain the fruit of this tree, different companies devise different strategies for retaining their employees. simply hiking ones salary in an endeavor to retain your valuable employee will serve no purpose as today's workforce has a lot going during his/her decision making process and its certainly not restricted to just pay. * Insurance schemes for the employees and some of there family members

* * * * * *

Leased accommodation Transportation facilities to &from office. Personal healthcare like medical attention for self & family Recognition of merits & rewards Participation in decision making Memberships of prominent social clubs.

Conclusion: To devoid organization's growth, HR manager should give close attention to why attrition is occurring in the present. To ignore why people are leaving the organization is to ignore the organization greatest assets its people. People in organization are needed to perform the task; but they are not just machine but more than that. They are organization dreams, hopes, ambitions, creativity and innovation. And to retain these valuable assets is one of the surest ways to build an organization rather than just to go in global markets. And this is the only way an organization can lower its attrition rate.

Do you leave a company before your seat gets warm? Many young workers "job hop" their way through their twenties, but is there now a backlash toward this trend?

Traditionalists may view job hoppers as "unreliable," he says, but "that's an old paradigm."

Your grandfather's generation strove for the company's gold watch; you strive to get into the next pre-IPO company that's going make you a goldmine by age 30. You're determined to catch the next big wave, even if it means switching jobs as often as some people switch the oil in their cars. Is this kind of "job hopping" jeopardizing young employees in the long run? A joint Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition poll has found that people who switch jobs frequently are seen as lacking "clear career direction" and are motivated by compensation. Has there been a backlash? Who's in the driver's seat? Angela Camara, a spokesperson for the SHRM, points out that while young workers consider it commonplace to jump around, "Most employers are still saying we want some stability." Though the work place has generally become more flexible, employers "haven't fully warmed up to job hopping," she says. Seven out of 10 job seekers polled online by The Wall Street Journal believe that a person would have to change jobs once every two or three years to be considered a job hopper. The majority of HR professionals, on the other hand, define a job hopper as someone who changes jobs once a year or once every two years.

Either way, job seekers and HR professionals agree on why people switch jobs frequently: 49 percent of HR professionals and 44 percent of job seekers believe that people switch jobs frequently in search of higher compensation. Not all survey respondents buy into the notion that "someone who changes jobs more than once a year has a broader work experience," or exhibits "greater flexibility in a fast-changing world." John Putzier, the president of FirstStep, Inc., a human resources improvement company, agrees with Camara. "HR people still have a traditional view on job stability," he says. "The employers are not in the driver's seat, and that drives them crazy." Putzier says that "intermediate" workers - those with three to seven years of experience - are likely to switch jobs more frequently. "A fresh entry-level person is still trying to get his or her sea legs after three years, they've gotten some training. They aren't overpriced yet, and they don't have a basis for comparison." Demand for skilled talent When Paul Manzon graduated from Boston College in 1995, his family assumed he'd settle down at a good company for several years. Now 27 and on his third job, Manzon says, "If you spend more than three years at a company you're dead!" According to Manzon, a too-long tenure could translate into a learning stalemate. "Now, the idea is that you do two years, you learn a skill, and you take it somewhere else." Manzon was attracted to his current position at an e-retailing company, because he wanted to work for a "hot startup," and stay connected to the online world. "The fear is that you will become obsolete," he explains. Although the "e-explosion" has seemingly fueled the job-hopping trend, it's really a function of the economy and the demand for skilled talent, says Putzier. Job hopping won't hurt employees as long as they have a skill that's in demand. Traditionalists may view job hoppers as "unreliable," he says, but "that's an old paradigm." He warns that employers who take a negative view toward job hoppers will limit their availability of people to hire. Putzier advises young workers to focus on the skills they are acquiring by switching jobs. "Don't get bogged down in titles and career paths," he says. Hop strategically Alicia Van Arsdale, recruiting coordinator at Interwoven, a Silicon Valley company that makes software for web sites, says she's not too concerned when she interviews someone who has switched jobs every two years. If it's less than a year, however, she may hesitate. "I think a year-and-a-half is safe to be at a job," Van Arsdale says. When she's confronted with a candidate who has spent just a year or less at a job, she wants to know how that person will change if she going to make an offer. "We are not interested in hiring people for a year. We are looking for someone to give us a commitment," she says. As an alternative to job hopping, Van Arsdale advises restless young grads to stay longer at companies by arranging to move internally, as opposed to quitting once the challenge is gone. "If you're at a good company, you'll want to move from department-to-department, where you will gain more skills." Van Arsdale says many companies will be amenable to this kind of arrangement because, "A company - if it finds a good person - is not going to want to lose that person." Job hoppers who need to convince employers they are serious about staying with the company can soothe employers' hesitations by offering to start off with a lower salary and fewer options, then arrange to move up after a year, suggests Van Arsdale. Workers with a job-hopping history can also reassure employers by emphasizing the various skills they have picked up in various positions. Manzon says money will not be the only motivator for him when it's time to switch jobs again. Prior to taking the MobShop position, he was offered a position with a compensation package at another company that was "three times what I believe I'm worth." He turned down the company because it was too "old world."

He now feels sufficiently challenged in his position: "Companies like this - they'll make you a VP at 27. Age means nothing - it's all what you know."