Comments
Agree that people might intuitively underweight turnover costs -- I think I was underweighting it before I did some brief research inti the existing soc sci / business literature.
From my post's abstract:
"Google and Google Scholar searches were conducted to identify research on these costs. One key finding was that direct hiring costs are much smaller than the less visible and measurable effects of turnover on an organisation’s productivity; once these costs are accounted for, turnover costs thousands of dollars per lost employee. Given that turnover rates may be around 20% annually in nonprofits, this can amount to substantial costs. There is also evidence from several meta-analyses that higher turnover is correlated with lower organisational performance, though the overall effects of turnover on performance may be very small."
https://www.animaladvocacycareers.org/post/hiring-and-turnover-costs
This is a cool tool!
Maybe it is my french/worker rights bias, but I do feel weird about the framing towards the workers. Shouldn't this be more for bosses to be incentivised to retain their workforce? "If you don't treat your employees well enough and they leave, it will cost you".
Thanks for the comment!
This model is mostly exposing costs that are visible to managers but not visible to employees, so my guess is that it's probably not that informative to managers. But it is probably somewhat helpful (particularly e.g. for new managers) and I agree that your framing is also valid one.