Staff Turnover just as one Threat to Knowledge Loss
Urbancová Hana, Linhartová Lucie
Abstract The content focuses on work turnover like a potential menace to knowledge loss. Work turnover brings about an organizations inability to assure knowledge continuity. In this examine, induction utilized to identify elements within companies that determine employees' get out of from organizations. The verifiability of these elements was examined by means of relationship and regression. Subsequently, the presented factors behind employee yield were particular as potential threat to knowledge damage. In the current knowledge economy, workers in an business are considered the key competitive edge and the most critical asset. If an employee leaves an organization, they get the knowledge they have acquired with them. The losing of knowledge is actually a potential risk to an agencies existence, particularly if an employee with valuable understanding leaves to join a competition. Therefore , this kind of paper works with knowledge continuity as a likely means of removing this threat. Dependencies among selected qualitative variables had been tested to ascertain their effect on organizations. The analysis concludes by simply indicating that, today‘s knowledge-based companies must be aware from the main triggers and consequences of worker fluctuation in order to maintain all their competitiveness much more economic crisis. Keywords and phrases: Turnover, staff, knowledge, know-how continuity, competitive advantage
1 . INTRODUCTION
Employee turnover is considered to be one of the persisting problems in organizations (Armstrong, 2009; Reiß, 2008). Particularly if it requires quality personnel who have worked well for the organization for many years, large performers and experienced and constant individuals (Branham, 2005, Katcher, Snyder, 2007; Somaya, Williamson, 2008). The turnover ensures that another organization may gain a new know-how employee who can become the competitive benefits. The loss of knowledge thus is a threat for the former organization, which enhances the significance of knowledge continuity. The available resources state two main means of knowledge going out of organizations. Beazley (2003) and Stam (2009) state that the primary danger for the coming 25 years is in particular the aging inhabitants and the retirement of good age groups; this really is supported by record data coming from U. S. organizations. The second way of expertise loss can be turnover of labour (Beazley, 2003; Eucker, 2007). Your aging population in respect to Stam (2009) represents two main risks pertaining to organizations, the underemployment of older employees and the decrease of knowledge. Based on the U. T. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Harvard Supervision Communication Page, 2003), the void of knowledge copy is generally a challenge intended for existing American companies. With downsizing, the growing range of motion of labour and broader use of random workers, an increased percentage of turnover is known as a reality for most of companies. Company managements have to consider how to cope with the actual leaving of their employees pertaining to competitors or perhaps Journal of Competitiveness | Issue 3/2011
their retirement. It is one of the essential factors influencing know-how continuity in fact it is necessary to get rid of its implications by means of expertise management and knowledge continuity management. The purpose of the article is always to identify factors determining proceeds in organizations and to identify their relevance. By supporting the tested factors it is possible to eliminate staff turnover and so reduce the loss in knowledge once employees leave. A partial goal is to check dependencies among selected qualitative variables with regards to knowledge continuity ensuring, which in turn eliminates the threat expertise loss, in the act of worker turnover and confirm their very own validity or perhaps reject all of them at the selected significance level.
2 . THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FROM THE WORK
Proceeds or inter-company...
References: 1 . Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2002). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume. 82, 150-169. 2 . Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong´s guide of hrm practice. London, uk: Kogan Page, ISBN 978-0-7494-5242-1. 3. Beazley, H., Boenisch, J. & Harden, Deb. (2002) Continuity Management: Preserving Corporate Understanding and Production When Employees Leave. Wiley: September. 5. Benet-Martinze, Versus. & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Illustres across cultures and cultural groups: Multitrait multimethod examines of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Individuality and Sociable Psycholog y, Vol. 75, 729-750. 5. Branham, D. (2005). The 7 invisible reasons personnel leave. Nyc: AMACOM. 6th. Branham, T. (2000). Keeping the people who a person in business: twenty-four Ways to Hold on to Your Most beneficial Talent. UNITED STATES: AMACOM. several. Branham, L. (2000). Half a dozen Factors That Push Good Employees Outside. Kansas City Superstar, Vol. almost eight. 8. CIPD - Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2004). Fluktuace a retence zaměstnanců. [E-text type]. Retrieved from http://www.personalista.cz/index.php?ID=33& basket=b78c3e42f202e5f773f9fa5074e52209. on the lookout for. Čábelová, T. (2007). Společnostem v Česku se nedaří snižovat vysokou fluktuaci zaměstnanců. [E-text type]. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/cz/cs/tiskove-zpravy-2007/spolecnostem-vcesku-se-nedari-snizovat-fluktuaci-zamestnancu.jhtml. 10. Disman, M. (2008). Jak ze vyrábí sociologická znalost. Praha: Karolinum. 14. Eucker, T. (2007). Learning the impact of tacit knowledge loss. Knowledge Management Assessment, Vol. 7.
12. Ryan gosling, S. D, Rentfrow, L. J, & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very short measure of the Big-Five persona domains. Diary of Study in Personality, Vol. thirty seven, 504–528. 13. Hackman, T. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work upgrade. Reading, MOTHER: Addison-Wesley. 18. Hayes, In. (1998). Základy sociální psychologie. Praha: Portál. 15. Herbane, B., Elliot, D., & Swartz, Electronic. (1997). Contingency and Empieza: Achieving Brilliance through Organization Continuity Organizing, Business Rayon, Vol. forty five, 19-25. 16. Hutchinson, T., & Purcell, J. (2003). Bringing guidelines to life: the vital part of front side line managers in people supervision. London, CIPD. 17. Steve, O. L., Naumann, D. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Change to the Integrative Big-Five Attribute Taxonomy: Record, Measurement, and Conceptual Problems. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 114-158. 18. Katcher, B. L., & Snyder, A. (2007). 40 reasons personnel hate thein managers. New York: AMACOM. 19. Meyer, T. P, & Allen In. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational dedication. Human Resource Management Assessment, Vol 1, 61-89. twenty. Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau (1993). J. W. Řízení lidských zdrojů. Praha: Grada Submitting. 21. Reiß, CH. Fluktuation. (2008). [E-text type]. Retrieved by http://www.personaler-online. de/typo3/nc/personalthemen/suche-in-artikeln/detailansicht/artikel/fluktuation. html. twenty-two. Smith, M., & Sherwood, J. (1995). Business Continuity Planning. Computer systems and Security, Vol. 14, 14-23. 23. Somaya, Deb, & Wolliamson, I. To. (2008). Rethinking the " War intended for Talent”. MIT Sloan Managing Review, 29-34. 24. Stam, CH. (2009). Knowledge plus the Ageing Employee: A Research Plan. European Meeting on Mental Capital, Haarlem, The Netherlands. 25. Stýblo, L. (1993). Personální management. Praha: Grada.
Info: Ing. Hana Urbancová Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management Department of Supervision Kamýcká 129, Praha 6 – Suchdol, 164 00 Tel: +420 224 382 026 Email: [email protected] czu. cz E. Lucie Linhartová Czech College or university of Your life Sciences in Prague, Teachers of Economics and Supervision Department of Management Kamýcká 129, Praha 6 – Suchdol, 164 00 Email: [email protected] czu. cz
JEL Classification: J53, J63 Diary of Competitiveness | Issue 3/2011