They Study These Works They Believe That Society Will One Day Balance Itself Again.
Many companies spend a peachy amount of time money investigating the causes of employee turnover—for example, through programs of exit interviews. Ordinarily the intent behind such studies is to find out why people get out—the idea being that if a visitor can identify the reasons for terminations, information technology tin work to hold terminations, and turnover, down.
While a company may obtain very valuable information from termination interviews, this kind of approach has two signal defects:
1. It looks at only one side of the money—the termination side. If a company wants to continue its employees, and so it should also report the reasons for memory and continuation, and work to reinforce these. From the viewpoint of a visitor's policies on employment and turnover, the reasons why people stay in their jobs are merely as important as the reasons why they leave them. An obvious point in evidence is that one private will stay in a task under atmospheric condition that would cause another to start pounding the pavements.
Equally an analogy, consider the divorce rate. If one were really interested in doing something about information technology, he would take to understand why some people get divorced and why others stay married—the reasons for the ii things are entirely different. Furthermore, the reasons for getting a divorce are not merely "just the opposite" of the reasons for staying in wedlock. He would have to do some existent spadework on both sides of the fence to get a complete picture of the divorce phenomenon. Equally, in the corporate setting, there are definite rationales for terminating and definite (although sometimes unconscious) rationales for standing.
2. This approach as well tends to presume a perfect correlation betwixt job dissatisfaction and turnover. Many a visitor works for low turnover because it thinks a low rate implies that its employees are pleased with their jobs—and, a fortiori, productive. This is not necessarily truthful, by any means. A depression rate may but be the effect of a tight chore market. Or peradventure the company has put golden handcuffs on its employees through a compensation scheme that emphasizes deferred benefits. In that location are many factors involved.
In itself, the fact that an employee stays on a payroll is meaningless; the company must also know why he stays in that location. We shall show, in fact, that some carelessly conceived methods of maintaining a low turnover charge per unit can exist detrimental to the fiscal health of a company and the mental health of its employees.
To go a more than integrated view of piece of work-force stability, we mounted a study to investigate the motivations to stay and proper ways to encourage it. (The study is described in the sidebar, "Background of the Written report.") This is the picture that has emerged.
Why exercise employees stay? The brief answer is "inertia." Employees tend to remain with a company until some force causes them to leave. The concept here is very like the concept of inertia in the physical sciences: a body volition remain equally it is until acted on past a strength.
What factors affect this inertia? There are ii relevant factors within the company and also 2 relevant factors outside the company.
First, inside the company, there is the upshot of job satisfaction. 2d, in that location is the "company environment" and the degree of comfort an individual employee feels within it. An employee's inertia is strengthened or weakened by the degree of compatibility between his own work ethic and the values for which the company stands. The employee's ethic derives from his own values and the bodily conditions he encounters on the job. The visitor's values derive from societal norms, formal decisions by the board of directors, and the policies and procedures of the managing group. A widening gap betwixt these ii vantages weakens inertia; a narrowing gap strengthens it.
Exterior the visitor, one must consider an employee's perceived job opportunities in other institutions. An employee'due south perceptions of his exterior job opportunities are influenced by real changes in the job marketplace and by self-imposed restrictions and personal criteria. We found that some employees refuse to consider piece of work in other locations because "I like the schools" or "I like my neighborhood." These reasons non simply strengthen inertia to stay with their present system, but also strengthen inertia to stay with whatever organization within the same school district or neighborhood. Notwithstanding, if schools lose their appeal because of drug problems or neighborhoods become run down or polluted, the inertia to stay in the surface area is weakened, and, consequently, outside job opportunities become relatively more than attractive.
Also, outside the visitor, in that location are nonwork factors that directly touch on inertia, such as financial responsibilities, family unit ties, friendships, and community relations. Some workers told us, for example, that they would never leave their companies because they were born and reared in their present locale. Others said they stayed because they had children in local schools, could not afford to quit, or had proficient friends at work. Many of these employees as well reported depression job satisfaction—and nonetheless they stay.
Does information technology matter whether an employee stays for job satisfaction or for environmental reasons? Yes, because it makes a meaning difference to the company whether an employee "wants to" stay or "has to" stay.
How tin retentivity exist improved? A company might do this past reinforcing the "right" reasons for staying. By "right," here, we mean a combination of job satisfaction and environmental reasons that jibes with the goals of the visitor. By "incorrect" reasons, we would mean whatsoever combination of reasons for staying that is beneficial neither to the company nor to the employees. Thus if a visitor reinforces the correct reasons for staying and also abstains from reinforcing the wrong reasons, its turnover—every bit distinct from its turnover rate—might be more than satisfactory.
How does a company reinforce the right reasons? Companies can do this by providing conditions compatible with employees' values for working and living.
If managements concentrate on understanding why employees stay, then they tin can human action to reinforce the correct reasons and stop reinforcing the wrong reasons. In other words, they can take a positive arroyo to managing retention, which will exist more than effective over the long run than the ordinary, negative arroyo of simply reducing turnover.
Satisfaction & Environment
Our study has provided four profiles of employees that are particularly useful in thinking through the twin problems of employee memory and employee turnover. The ii important variables here are the employee'southward satisfaction with his job and the environmental pressures, inside and outside his visitor, that touch on his determination to continue or terminate.
Reasons for task satisfaction include accomplishment, recognition, responsibility, growth, and other matters associated with the motivation of the individual in his job. Environmental pressures inside the company include work rules, facilities, coffee breaks, benefits, wages, and the like. Environmental pressures outside the company include outside job opportunities, community relations, financial obligations, family ties, and such other factors. Exhibit I shows the human relationship between job satisfaction and ecology factors for four types of employees, and too explains why each type stays.
Exhibit I. Job Satisfaction and Environment
The turn-overs are dissatisfied with their job, take few environmental pressures to keep them in the company, and will leave at the first opportunity. While employees seldom get-go out in this category, they often end up here, having experienced a gradual erosion of their inertia. Consider, for example, an employee who a few years ago was highly motivated, had 3 children in college, and was close to beingness vested in the company retirement plan. Today, his children are graduated, he is vested, and he has lost involvement in his task. His inertia to stay has been profoundly weakened, and he may shortly get a turnover statistic.
The turn-offs are prime candidates for union activities; they tin hands generate employee-relations and productivity problems, and conceivably industrial espionage or sabotage. These employees are highly dissatisfied with their jobs and stay for mainly ecology reasons. For example, they may feel they are as well erstwhile to commencement again, or that they are financially dependent on the company benefit programs; or they may believe they can't go a job on the outside. Employees trapped in this category have two alternatives: (1) they can look for outside help (for case, from unions or the EEOC); and (2) they tin change their behavior and either "do exactly what they are told and no more" or decide to "go even with the company."
The turn-ons are highly motivated and remain with the company near exclusively for reasons associated with the work itself. This is near desirable from the visitor's viewpoint because these employees really want to stay and are non locked in by the outside surround. Even so, if managerial actions reduce job satisfaction (even temporarily), turnover may ascent dramatically. Since the inertia of the plough-ons is not strengthened past environmental factors, it is therefore not strong enough to brand them stay without continual job satisfaction.
The turn-ons-plus are the almost likely to stay with the company in the long run. These employees stay for job satisfaction plus ecology reasons. Fifty-fifty if task satisfaction temporarily declines, they will probably stay. The discussion "temporarily" is a key one, for if task satisfaction drops permanently, these employees become plough-offs. This transformation will non enhance the turnover statistics, but it will increase frustrations and impact work performance.
Move between classifications
The traditional arroyo to measuring and understanding terminations has focused on the turnovers. These employees generally stand for a relatively small percentage of the total employee population, and hence emphasizing them exclusively tends to ignore the reasons the bulk stay with the visitor. It besides ignores the dynamic processes past which an employee moves from one classification into another.
Consider a young engineer who originally joins the company because he really wants to work there. He moves into a new city where he has very few ties with the community. Equally he develops his career, he begins to build some meaningful work relationships—he becomes a plough-on. The longer he remains in the locale, the more than likely he is to become a plough-on-plus.
Only suppose a time comes when his motivation is low. Volition he leave? If benefit programs have created a fiscal dependency, if he has stock options that are non exercisable for two or three years, if he has children who are in expert schools, if he has just purchased his dream house—and then he probably will not go a turnover statistic. Nevertheless, he may become psychologically absent—a plow-off. The consequences may show up in alcoholism, chronic concrete or psychological illness, divorce, depression productivity and motivation, and perhaps unionization.
Suppose, instead, that this same engineer has connected to detect job satisfaction. He may notwithstanding stay for some environmental reasons, and the combination of reasons will probably be right—both he and the company find his employment fulfilling.
In neither case has he go a turnover casualty, but there is a dramatic difference betwixt the two situations in terms of morale and productivity. I management observer has phrased information technology this way: "We take too many people in our organisation who are no longer with us."
Ane purpose of our research is to understand ameliorate the residual between chore satisfaction and environmental reasons as it affects employee retention and to gain insight into ways to influence that balance.
Who Stays & Why?
Ane way to approach the question of balance between task satisfaction and environmental reasons for staying is to look at the traditional demographic breakdowns, such equally male/female, salary/wage, higher/high schoolhouse education, and other demographic contrasts, and also at employees' personal piece of work ethics. We designed our research to respond questions like these:
- Do managers stay for reasons different from those of nonmanagers?
- Is the work ethic of younger employees different from that of older employees?
- What kind of employees (male, female, exempt, nonexempt, and so on) stay because they like their work?
- What is the work ethic of those employees who stay considering they like their task?
- Why do managers over forty, who accept not had a promotion in five years and don't like their job, stay with the visitor?
Our respondents gave many reasons for staying. Nosotros accept broken these downward into reasons relating to the environs outside the company—the external environment—and reasons relating to the work surround itself, inside the visitor—the internal surround. Farther, we have broken down the reasons relating to the internal surroundings into (a) motivational factors and (b) maintenance factors.
Exhibit II represents these two breakdowns. Each row of symbols in the showroom is divided into iii parts:
Exhibit Ii. Number of Motivational, Maintenance, and Environmental Reasons for Staying, Among 12 Employee Classifications
1. Motivational factors in the company environment.
2. Maintenance factors in the company environment.
3. Factors in the external environs.
To set up Exhibit 2, we took the ten reasons for staying cited most frequently by the members of a specific employee grouping and assigned them to the three categories only listed. For example, employees with higher degrees well-nigh frequently cited half-dozen relating to on-the-job motivation, three relating to job maintenance, and one relating to the surroundings external to the company.
The exhibit shows that low-skill manufacturing employees stay primarily for maintenance or environmental reasons, many relating to the nonwork environment. 7 of their summit x reasons chronicle to the external surroundings—for example, "I wouldn't want to rebuild the benefits that I have now" and "I have family responsibilities." Their 2 outstanding reasons for staying that chronicle to the internal environment are fringe benefits and job security. These employees will not remain on the payroll considering of job satisfaction. To them, factors outside the company are more important.
The reasons managers and professionals gave for staying were significantly different. As Exhibit Two shows, managerial and professional employees stay primarily for reasons related to their work and the piece of work surroundings; half dozen of the top ten reasons they cited for staying were related to job satisfaction, three to the company environs, and only one to the outside environment. These information suggest that managers and professionals are more than likely to be plow-ons, while low-skill manufacturing people are very likely to be turn-offs.
The moderately skilled manufacturing employees and the clerical people who are not directly involved in the production process more closely resemble the managers and professionals in their reasons for staying than they do low-skill manufacturing people. Even so, most organizations tend to treat all manufacturing employees alike in terms of benefits, working conditions, supervision, and pay. This study suggests that many skilled hourly employees would be less dissatisfied and more than productive if they were treated more than near as managers are, rather than equally depression-skill blue-collar workers are.
In the interest of assessing equal opportunity, nosotros compared whites with nonwhites amid hourly employees. Nonwhite minorities cited maintenance and environmental reasons for staying more frequently, without mentioning a single motivation factor among their top ten reasons. Caucasians besides tend to stay because of maintenance and environmental reasons, although, for this grouping, the motivational item "I enjoy my job" ranked eighth as a reason for staying, as compared with seventeenth for not-whites.
People with less than 5 years of visitor service were compared with those with five or more than. Employees with shorter service stay for internal reasons, their inertia being strengthened by a combination of job satisfaction and the job setting. However, after five years of service, ecology reasons begin to appear, while internal reasons tend to skid in relative significance. In other words, every bit in the instance of the immature engineer, these employees join a company because they want to. However, as they build family and economic responsibilities, these may displace internal reasons for staying.
A similar relationship was plant in educational levels. People with a bachelor's (or college) degree stay because of motivation and maintenance reasons, whereas people without a college degree tend to stay for maintenance and environmental reasons.
Skill & nonmotivational factors
Given the traditional managerial belief that educational level represents a meaningful distinction among employees, nosotros examined the influence of maintenance and external surround on people at various skill levels.
Exhibit Iii shows the percentage of employees, past skill category, who selected various environmental reasons for staying with their companies. These figures highlight the varied degrees of significance people with dissimilar skill levels place on ecology factors:
Showroom Three. The Effects of Environmental Factors on Employees at Various Skill and Job Satisfaction Levels
- Depression-skill employees experience bound principally by benefits, family unit responsibilities, the difficulty of finding another job, personal friendships with coworkers, loyalty to the company, and unproblematic financial pressures.
- Moderate-skill employees feel roughly the same, but they seem somewhat less sensitive to ecology factors. Loyalty to the company, however, was cited more than frequently.
- Managers offer quite a different profile. They stay mainly for reasons related to their jobs themselves and community ties; the difficulty of finding some other task, family responsibilities, and visitor loyalty exert relatively less influence on them.
Hence there seem to be real differences in the importance the 3 groups adhere to environmental factors. Additionally, nosotros might note that managers are more than willing to look for new jobs, even though this may be hard, whereas the low-skill workers tend to be unwilling to practise this. Information technology seems that "perceived outside opportunities" should be interpreted narrowly with respect to the low-skill classification.
Job satisfaction
Exhibit Iii also shows the significance of ecology factors for employees with dissimilar degrees of job satisfaction. These data indicate that very dissatisfied employees go along to stay because of financial considerations, family responsibilities, lack of exterior opportunities, age, and, to some extent, "corporate enculturation" (they wouldn't desire to wait for a task or have to acquire new policies). Such reasons for staying are self-defeating and hardly could be considered right. These plow-offs accept not withal affected turnover statistics, just all the same they may be having but as severe, or even a more astringent, effect on the company. These employees meet themselves every bit so locked in by the environment that they have footling alternative just to stay; and, therefore, the possibility of reduced productivity or beliefs antagonistic to the organization is groovy.
Historically this locked-in, turned-off condition has been considered characteristic of manufacturing or unskilled-labor categories, primarily. Still, recent reports of increased marriage interest at the managerial level suggest that information technology is occurring at higher levels of the organization too. One study shows that alienation is not express to the hourly ranks, simply may occur at whatever level of an arrangement.one
Why Dissatisfied People Stay
We gained some insight into why an employee stays with a company when he is dissatisfied with his job, supervisor, benefits, pay, and so on. We found that employees who said, "I don't like my job," or, "I don't enjoy working with my supervisor," stay primarily for maintenance and environmental reasons, more often than not related to financial and family responsibilities. The only "inside the company" reasons high on the listing related to benefit programs and task security. These employees are excellent examples of personnel who have non affected the turnover statistics only who may have left the visitor, psychologically, long agone.
This finding illustrates the fact that the reasons people stay are not necessarily the opposite of the reasons why people leave. One often hears negative statements most supervisors and jobs in exit interviews; however, of the employees we studied, many who made such statements are nonetheless with the companies almost which they complain. These are the plow-offs.
Moreover, it suggests that these employees practice not take as much job mobility as many companies assume. The old cliche that "if yous don't like the job, you lot are costless to leave" is about as naive as telling a monkey in a zoo that if he doesn't similar his bananas, he should go back to the jungle. The reinforcement that ecology factors give to the inertia of these alienated employees must be quite powerful, and it will probably have a stiff forcefulness to break their inertia—in extreme cases, discharge.
It might be concluded at this point that level in the organization, race, tenure, teaching, and degree of job satisfaction make up one's mind why people stay. Nevertheless, we plant a cistron more than potent than any of these—namely, the work ethic of the people involved in the report.
An Employee'due south Work Ethic
Human beings exist at different levels of psychological development, and these levels are expressed in the values they concur respecting their work. I useful categorization of levels and piece of work values appears in the sidebar, "Values for Working."
Exhibit 4 tabulates the summit x reasons employees stay, based on their psychological level. Information technology shows a startling dichotomy. Employees possessing relatively loftier tribalistic or egocentric values stay mainly because of environmental reasons, whereas employees with relatively high manipulative or existential values stay primarily for inside-the-company reasons, many of which are motivational. We besides found that the tribalistic or egoistic employees are located primarily in the low-skill manufacturing functions and that manipulative or existential employees are located primarily in management, research, or professional positions.
Exhibit IV. Number of Reasons Why Employees Stay, for Different Levels of Work Values
Although not all the implications are clear at this point, it seems credible that corporate managers, in deciding on policies and philosophy, in reality have been talking to themselves about themselves. That is, they tend to adopt policies and theories of homo motivation that appeal to their own private value systems, under the assumption that all employees have similar values. For instance, many a manipulative director presumes that coin and large, status-laden offices motivate other people in the same way they collection him to his present level of success. He may accept climbed the corporate ladder, but every bit our results clearly evidence, for many employees the ladder does non fifty-fifty be.
This is not meant as a criticism of managerial value systems, but equally a clarification of reality. One can await leaders, whatever their values, to adopt policies which most appeal to their own value system. An individual makes a decision based on what he thinks is correct. What is correct depends on his values.
To put the matter another way: nearly managers are following the Golden Dominion, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you lot." Assuming all people have the same values, then what is right for the managing director is right for the employee. Still, since values of people are not the aforementioned, what is right to the manager is often wrong for the employee. If we were to write a Platinum Rule, we should say, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." This rule has obvious value for a director who seeks to reinforce right reasons for staying, at various value levels, and to avoid reinforcing wrong reasons.
We further explored job retention and values by linking information on values and reasons for staying. This enabled usa to determine the values of those people who stay because they like their jobs and those who said that their jobs were not reasons for staying.
We establish that employees who stay because they like their jobs tend to be relatively manipulative and existential; and those who continue for reasons not straight associated with their jobs tend to be tribalistic and egocentric. Nosotros likewise found that the tribalistic and especially egocentric workers were relatively more dissatisfied with motivation factors than were employees with other value systems. The to the lowest degree dissatisfied employees had existential values, followed by the manipulative and conformist employees. This is not also surprising, considering the fact that the free enterprise arrangement tends to reward conformist and manipulative values, and existential people stay just equally long as they are happy.
Environment & values
Exhibit V demonstrates once more the hidden ability of environmental factors. Information technology presents the percentage responses of employees scoring the highest (ninetieth percentile or greater) in each value system—that is, the employees who fit most conspicuously into each value system.
Exhibit 5. Value Systems and Environmental Factors
The data show a dichotomy between employees with relatively loftier manipulative or existential values (Levels 5 and seven) and other employees, especially those with relatively high tribalistic or egocentric values (Levels 2 and 3). Almost without exception, people of Levels 5 and 7 place less emphasis on external environmental reasons for staying than do people with other values.
Thus whereas age, length of service, type of work and skill level, race, and education depict who stays, and for what reason, the underlying value system explains why. But can we, as managers, really use these facts to improve employee retentiveness? Is there a positive approach to keeping people that is more than effective than focusing on the negative chemical element of turnover? Our position is "Yes, there is."
Toward Managing Retention
Because managers have habitually concerned themselves with turnover, it volition be difficult to break the addiction. Yet, managers must finish the rituals of finding out why people go out and offset investing resource in the positive direction of retention. If managers reinforce the right reasons for employees staying and avoid reinforcing the incorrect reasons, they cannot only improve traditional turnover statistics but set goals for memory. However, they must begin to empathise and respect employees as individuals with values that differ from their ain.
Equally a prerequisite to the development of a program to manage retention, certain difficult questions must be answered:
- Why exercise employees stay?
- What are their values for working and for living?
- What are their ages, sexes, marital statuses, so on?
- What are the correct and wrong reasons for employees staying in their jobs?
- How dissatisfied is dissatisfied?
Nosotros have obtained some quantitative insight into the first 3 questions, only the last two may non have a quantitative solution. What is "right" or "wrong," and how far an employee may be pushed before he is forced to leave, are moral questions. For these nosotros offer our value judgments.
Ideally, information technology seems that the goal of managing retention would be to create weather uniform to the turn-ons-plus—that is, some remainder betwixt job satisfaction and environmental reasons. This raises some questions. For example, if employees who practise non like their jobs stay because of the "locked-in" features of do good programs, should managers not consider changing benefit programs to reduce inertia?
To begin with, managers might make pensions highly portable, a measure that would tend to reduce inertia but raise costs. To balance this, it would and then be necessary to improve the weather for satisfaction then that people stay because they want to, not because they must.
Another influence on inertia is the location of a visitor. For case, a corporation that locates a new factory, offices, or laboratories in towns that are not highly attractive or requires the relocation of many employees has weakened inertia; thus employees are more likely to leave when they become dissatisfied with their work. Some compensatory maneuver may be called for. Again, corporations which locate plants in pocket-size towns, and draw primarily from the people who were born and reared in those communities, are building in inertia that tends to increase memory and decrease turnover—perhaps too much so.
For some other aspect, consider corporations with headquarters in New York City. They may notice their employees have very low inertia because it is like shooting fish in a barrel for people to but get off the subway at a different stop, or even get off the elevator at a different floor, and find themselves in a unlike corporation. That is, they can change jobs without irresolute their outside environment. In this case, inertia to stay with the present employer may be very weak, but there might exist strong inertia to stay in the aforementioned general locale. Naturally, in working toward this residual, companies volition have to devote some careful thought to the question, "How dissatisfied is dissatisfied?" for its employee groups. Suppose one sets up a scale of task satisfaction from +10 (very satisfied) to –10 (very dissatisfied). Will an employee get out when the level is –5? Theoretically, perhaps, he volition; but realistically, the answer depends on the strength of inertia.
For instance, if the "golden handcuffs" are set with diamonds, in the course of stock options which are exercisable at some distant betoken in the futurity, then inertia is strengthened—that is, until the options are exercisable. At the engagement of do, his inertia will drop to a very low signal, other things being equal; and even if his level of chore dissatisfaction has remained constant, information technology may at present be great enough to intermission the present inertia level. Once inertia to stay has been cleaved and the person is in motion on his way out of the company, it volition take great force to counteract his momentum to leave.
Ane can too notice examples where an employee has stayed with a company well beyond a point where he has a sense of accomplishment and meaning in his work and is waiting but for early retirement. He has probably become a trouble to the organization, to himself, and to his family. Lucrative early-retirement programs (sometimes known equally late discharge programs) have become increasingly pop as a means to break inertia, frequently to the benefit of both parties.
The effects of inertia, of course, are not limited to the employee, but likewise extend to his or her spouse. Information technology is not uncommon to find an employee returning to the home town because the spouse is dissatisfied with the present locale.
In seeking remainder, so, it would be useful for a company to review all benefit, pay, location, and other ecology factors, too equally job satisfaction, to determine whether people are staying for the right or wrong combinations of reasons—ever keeping in listen that what is correct and wrong to management may not accept the same degree of rightness and wrongness to the employee.
Ultimately, rightness and wrongness, whatsoever their specific definitions for individuals in a given company, will crave the provision of a work environment that is broadly uniform with the employees' personal goals and their values for working and living. Managers need to recognize that the "average employee" is only a concept, and develop personnel programs, policies, and procedures that are responsive to the disparate values of employees.2 But then is it possible to develop strategies and reinforcements for employees to stay for reasons that are right for both the system and the individual.
Toward Existential Direction
A new work ethic is emerging in this society. If organizations resist recognition of the change in values for working, stick with a single approach to people, retain the concept of the boilerplate employee, and continue to snap on golden handcuffs, so:
- The new generation may not even enter those organizations, only create its own (or have over existing ones).
- Present employees who are locked in and turned off may seek third-political party intervention to guarantee their right to chore satisfaction, or their existent freedom to go out.
Most organizations historically have been and still are created and perpetuated past manipulative and conformist philosophies. If management wants employees to stay for reasons that are correct for the individual, the corporation, and the society, it must develop existentially managed organizations that truly accept and respect people with differing values. The approach we have taken in this article, while admittedly a "showtime cutting" at simply ane attribute of the problem, may exist useful to managers who have recognized the need for broader views of employment policy.
1. Alfred T. DeMaria, Dale Tarnowieski, and Richard Gurman, Director Unions? (New York, American Management Association, Inc., 1972).
ii. See our commodity, "Shaping Personnel Policies to Disparate Value Systems," Personnel, March–Apr 1973, p. 8.
A version of this article appeared in the July 1973 issue of Harvard Business concern Review.
Source: https://hbr.org/1973/07/why-employees-stay
0 Response to "They Study These Works They Believe That Society Will One Day Balance Itself Again."
Postar um comentário