1、 外文翻译 原文 The Effect of Employee Turnover on Hotel Profits: A Test Across Multiple Hotels Material Source: Cornell Hotel Hinkin Timothy We know that employee turnover costs money. Heres one way to estimate that cost. By Tony Simons And Timothy Hinkin Many hospitality managers are convinced that exces
2、sive turnover is a costly phenomenon, but it is difficult to develop specific turnover-cost numbers. That is not to say that researchers have not attempted to nail down the cost of turnover, but the fact remains that specific cost figures can be elusive. Because turnover costs are hard to calculate,
3、 it is equally difficult to assess the bottom-line financial value of turnover-reduction programs. The matter of determining a cost of turnover (or, more to the point, the value of preventing turnover) is also complicated by the industrys ambivalence toward the matter. Despite the disruption and cos
4、t of turnover, many managers still view employees as replaceable commodities-especially hourly employees. The “warm body” syndrome of hiring unselectively to fill a position remains in place, even though the results of this practice can have devastating effects on both internal and external customer
5、s. We have seen the industry make strides in this area in recent years, especially given low unemployment and increased competition for quality employees. Some hospitality organizations have begun to focus on retaining their employees. Companies such as aramark mortons of Chicago, and Southwest Airl
6、ines, to name just three, have developed specific programs to emphasize the importance of employee retention and development. This article provides a tool to help managers objectively estimate the cost of turnover, so that they can measure the dollar benefits of employee-retention programs and compa
7、re those benefits to the program costs. Researchers have built a case for the benefits to be gained from employee retention. In a recent article Huselid examined a sample of 968 firms from a wide range of industries and found a strong link between a decrease in employee turnover and an increase in s
8、ales, market value, and profItability. Similarly, Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger in their work on the service-profit chain demonstrated relationships between employee retention and increased productivity in a wide range of industries. Examining 76 hotels, Simons and McLean Parks found that employe
9、e turnover was a clear driver of hotel profitability. Turnover costs I. Hinkin and Tracey identified and examined many of the hidden costs associated with employee turnover at hotels. In that work, the authors interviewed over 40 employees and human-resources professionals connected with two hotel c
10、ompanies and used information to develop a computer program to calculate the costs associated with a voluntary departure of a single employee in a variety of positions. That model considered the separation costs; the costs of recruiting, selection, hiring; and lost productivity. As an example, they
11、found that for front-desk associates the cost of individual turnover was approximately 30 percent of the annual salary. For a front desk with 30 employees, an hourly wage of $12.00, and 50 percent turnover, the total annual cost of turnover for that position would exceed $150,000. Based on this info
12、rmation, they proposed that increases in employee wages (to encourage retention) may ironically reduce payroll costs at most hotels. Turnover costs II. Lets look at two primary concerns regarding the results laid out in the Hikin and Tracey article. First, many of the costs associated with employee
13、turnover are drawn from the fixed-cost pool of salaried-employee time. For example, the human-resources manager who spends several hours each day interviewing prospective employees is salaried and would be on the premises anyway. Second, though the original work drew on many informants and so has re
14、asonable validity, many of the specified costs derive from productivity losses that are difficult to estimate reliably. One cannot say, for example, that a new employee will be exactly 50 percent as productive as the employee he or she replaces, and one cannot know precisely how long it will take to
15、 get to a prescribed level of competence. While the model provides valuable information, Hinkin and Traceys research focuses on hidden costs and does not directly examine the relationship between employee turnover and overall hotel profitability. We seek to fill that gap by offering in this article
16、a complementary approach to estimating turnover costs. We examine operational and financial records across a large sample of hotels. The current work examines actual financial performance and employee-turnover information at 98 hotels during the first half of 1999. We also examine the possible diffe
17、rences in turnover effects for different price tiers of hotels and the relationship between hotel size and turnover. A Different Estimate We drew data from 105 hotels throughout the United States as part of a larger study. The hotels ranged from 72 to 652 rooms, employed between 14 and 505 employees
18、, and ranged in ADR from $46.73 to $165.53. We secured financial performance information about all but one of the hotels, and six of the hotels experienced increases or decreases in total personnel counts greater than 50 percent during the period studied. We excluded those seven properties from furt
19、her analysis, and analyzed full information on 98 hotels. For each hotel we collected the following information: the number of rooms, the number of employees, the employee-turnover rate (combined voluntary and involuntary), gross operating profits (GOP), and ADR for the period between January 1 and
20、June 30, 1999. We analyzed the data using a correlation matrix and continuous moderated linear regression techniques as described by Aiken and West.6 This combination of approaches allows for examination of both simple, direct effects-in this case, the relationship between turnover rate and GOP-and
21、of the extent to which the expense of turnover varies with a hotels price point. Contingency model. Moderated regression is a form of analysis that explores whether the impact of a predictor (in this case, employee turnover) on an outcome (in this case, GOP) depends on a contingency (in this case, A
22、DR). That is, is employee turnover more costly at luxury hotels than at economy hotels? Examining this contingency will allow for a more precise estimate of the cost of turnover at a given hotel. The first step in the analysis is to adjust GOP to account for the effects of hotel size and ADR. Large
23、hotels generally have a relatively high GOP, for instance, and we show that large hotels also tend to have lower employee turnover as compared to smaller properties. It would be a mistake, however, to attribute a large hotels high GOP strictly to lower employee turnover, given that large hotels simp
24、ly have more rooms to sell than do smaller ones. To correct this problem, we used statistics to hold constant the effects of a hotels size and ADR. Essentially ,we allow ADR and hotel size to explain as much of GOP as they can, and then leave employee turnover to explain whatever changes remain in G
25、OP? The analysis in Exhibit 2 shows the effect of turnover at the samples average ADR, and it also shows that turnover is more costly at high-price hotels than at moderate-tier properties. This point is made by the highly significant interaction term that looks at the product of employee turnover an
26、d ADR. For each dollar increase in ADR, each percentage point of employee turnover costs an additional $525 in annual GOP. Thus, while a typical hotel in the sample might face a cost of $7,550 GOP per percentage point of employee turnover, a hotel with an ADR of $125 can be estimated to face a cost
27、over four times that amount for each percentage point of turnover. Conversely, the results suggest that a property with an ADR of $65 would face a relatively small annual cost for each point of turnover. Costs and Benefits As we said, many large hospitality companies are making concerted efforts to
28、control employee turnover. Companies may enhance pay, benefits, or incentive systems. They may undertake to train managers in how better to respond to the needs expressed by line employees. Companies may systematically survey employee attitudes and reward managers for the extent to which they can fo
29、ster a satisfied and committed workforce. Properly administered, most of those approaches have a good potential for reducing employee-turnover rates. Given that such programs cost money, a shrewd manager will ask whether the payoff in reduced turnover actually outweighs the cost of the turnover-redu
30、ction program. This article provides a way to calculate the cost-benefit ratio, or the return on investment, for programs designed primarily to reduce employee turnover. An additional regression analysis, using a count of employee terminations rather than a global turnover rate, provides additional
31、insight. After controlling for ADR and total employee base, we found a per-employee dollar cost of approximately $5,000 for the typical employee at a typical hotel in our sample. That figure would be lower for economy hotels and higher for high- ADR hotels. Of particular interest is the finding that
32、 although large hotels and those with high ADRs may have lower rates of turnover, the cost of each point of turnover for those hotels is considerable. This result is consistent with the findings of Hinkin and Tracey, who noted that as jobs become more complex and more difficult to master, the cost o
33、f turnover increases dramatically. High-rate hotels often invest heavily in their employees in the form of training and pay, they typically have complex operating systems, and they attract sophisticated guests who require high levels of service. It makes good business sense for moderate to high-rate
34、 hotels especially to invest in retaining their employees. According to our data, a drop in turnover of even 1 or 2 percent would justify a considerable expenditure at this type of hotel. Economy tier hotels, on the other hand, need to examine turnover-reduction expenditures closely and perhaps focu
35、s on finding effective, but inexpensive programs. A Picture of a Single Company This study has limitations. For one, it was conducted in a single hotel company, and it is possible that the results would be different with another sample. The magnitude of the relationships lead us to believe that stro
36、ng relationships would almost certainly be found in another hotel sample, but exact dollar figures would likely vary. This issue is of special concern because our sample tended to cluster in the middle tier, and our estimates for the luxury segment are largely extrapolations from the trends we saw i
37、n our data. It would be worthwhile to validate these results in a sample of luxury hotels. All methods of study have limitations, and the wisest path is to draw conclusions based on the results of multiple studies using diverse methods. Thus, Hikin and Traceys detailed analysis of single-position tu
38、rnover at six hotels is complemented by our broader-brush study. Each analysis directs some light into the shadows left by the other. Hinkin and Tracey lay out the mechanisms by which turnover costs hotels money, and the present study finds, across many hotels, that employee turnover really does sho
39、w up in the hotels bottom-line profits. The large size of the effect-around $20,000 per percentage point for a hotel with ADR of $ IOO-shows that well-conceived employee retention programs are likely to pay for themselves for most hotels. The finding that the effect is substantially stronger in high
40、-rate hotels than less-expensive ones shows that hotels in upper-tier segments should be especially concerned about the issue-even where turnover rates may already be comparatively low. 译文 员工离职对酒店利润的影响 :一个横跨多个酒店的研究 资料来源 :餐馆的管理 作者： 西蒙斯 托尼 赫坚 蒂莫西 我们知道员工离职会花费成本。这里有一种估计成本的方法。 许多酒店管理者相信，过多的离职率是一个损失惨重的现象，
41、 但很难 得到明确的离职成本数据。 这并不是说，研究人员并没有试图确定下来的 离职 的成本，但事实仍然是，具体的成本数字可 能 难以捉摸。 因为 离职 成本难以计算，同样难以评估 离职 减少方案的 最低 经济价值。 业界 对于 确定 员工离职 的费用问题（或者，更重要的是， 降低离职率 ）也很 复杂 的 矛盾心理 。 许多 管理者不顾离职 的干扰和成本 ， 仍然 把雇员作为更换的商品 ，尤其是小时工雇员。尽管这一做法的结果能对内部和外部客户 产生严重的 影响 ，但是暂时无选择地 雇用 员工 填补职位 空缺的现象 仍然存在。 近年来，我们已经看到了行业在这方面做的进步，特别是考虑到低失业率和增加
42、 高标准员工 的竞争。有些 服务 组织开始注重保留自己的员工。如芝加哥的 艾玛克莫顿 和西南航空公司 ， 已制定了具体方案，强调员工保留和发展的重要性。本文提供了一个工具来帮助管理者客观 地 估计 员工离职 成本，使他们能够衡量雇员保留 的经济 效益和比较 其成本 。 研究人 员已经建成了 一个从留住员工中获得利益的方案 。 在最近 ，作者 休斯里德 对 968 家 公司 进行 抽样调查 ，找到一个存在在减少员工离职和增加销售、市场价值、利润之间的强有力的联系。 同样，赫斯克特和施莱辛格在其服务利润链 上 证明 了 广泛的行业雇员之间 和 保持 并 提高生产力的关系。检查 76 家酒店，西 蒙
43、斯 和 麦克莱恩 发现，员工离职是酒店盈利能力明显的驱动 器 。 离职费用 一 赫坚 和 特雷西 确定和审查 许多与酒店员工离职相关的隐藏的费用。为了 这项工作，笔者采访了 40 名员工，并与公司 联手 两个酒店人力资源专业人士，利用信息来开发一个计算机程序来计 算出一个单一的员工 在 各种相关阵地自愿离职 的 成本。该模型考虑了离职费用，招聘费用，选拔，聘用，以及生产力损失。作为一个例子，他们发现，前台员工的个人 离职 费用约为年薪的 30%。对于一个只有 30 名 员工，一个小时工资 12.00 美元，而 离职率 百分之五十的前台，每年总费用将超过 15 万美元。 基于这些信息，他们建议，
44、 对于增加员工工资（鼓励保留）可能大部分酒店 拒绝减少工资册费用。 离职 费用二。 让我们来看看两个关于 赫坚 和 特雷西 文 章得出 的主要问题。首先，与员工离职相关的许多费用均来自 拿薪水雇员时间的 固定成本。例如，人力资源经理每 天面试花费几个小时 。总之，准 员工 的 薪水， 应该是放在首位 。其次，虽然原工作借鉴了许多具有合理的有效性 的信息提供者 等方面，生产力的损失 还 是难以估算出 一些 可靠 的 指定 的 成本。 但是 我们不能说，一个新雇员将 取代 整整 50%和他一样具有生产力的人 ，并不能确切知道多久才可以实 现 指定 的能力水平。尽管这种模式提供了有价值的信息， 赫坚
45、 和 特雷西 的研究主要集中在隐性成本，不直接研究 员工离职与 酒店 整体 盈利能力的关系。 我们寻求填补这篇文章中提供 具有 补充性的办法来估计 员工离职成本 的 不足 。我们研究样本酒店 的 业务和财务记录。 在 目前的工作期间， 我们 考察 98家酒店的 1999 年上半年 的 实际财务业绩和雇员 离职 信息。我们还检查了在不同的价格层次的酒店 ，酒店规模与员工离职 可能存在 的 差异。 一个不同的估计 我们 得出的数据 来自美国各地的 105 家酒店 这一 个更大的研究 群体 。 那些酒店 有 14 至 505 间房间，有 72 至 652 个员工 ，并 且其股价 介于 46.73 美
46、元 至165.53 美元 之间 。但 在 研究期间 ， 我们获得的所有的酒店 的其中 一 家酒店， 财务执行情况以及经验丰富的酒店总量的增加或减少数大于百分之 50。我们排除进一步分析这七 个对象 ，并分析 98 家酒店的 全部信息。 对于每一个酒店，我们收集了以下信息：房间数目 、 雇员人数 、 雇员流失率（ 包括 自愿和非自愿） 、总经营利润 和 1999 年 1 月 1 日至 1999 年 6 月 30 日期间 的股价 。 我们分析数据使用 了 相关矩阵线性回归和艾肯和 与韦斯特的 持续放缓 线性回归分析 。结合这 两 种方法的结合 进行 检查既简单， 又有直接影响 ， 在这种情况下，离
47、职 率 与总营业利润 之间关系 ，转交费用随酒店价格的变化的程度而 各不相同。 权变模式。 线性 回归是一种分析 预报因子 （在这种情况下，员工流失） 的冲击对结果（在此情况下， 总营业利润 ） 是否取决于意外情况 (在这种情况下，股价 )的 形式。也就是说， 员工离职在豪华型酒店比 经济型酒店 多 ？研究这 一情况需要在某一特定的酒店更精确的估计离职成本。 分析的第一步是调整 总营业利润 占酒店的规模和 股价 的影响。 一般 大型酒店 都有比较高的，而我们 可以 证明 它 。大酒店 和小酒店的 员工离职 相比较 也往往有较低的性能。 但是，严格地说来， 这将是一个错误，大酒店高 的总营业利润
48、可以 降低员工流失率， 那是 因为有更多的大型酒店客房销售比小 的酒店多 。要纠正这个问题，我们经常使用统计 得出 一间酒店的规模和 股价 的影响。从本质上讲，我们可以用股价和 酒店大小来解释， 总营业利润 多 是 因为 它们和总营业利润一样 ，解释 员工离职 是否对总营业利润有直接的影响。 我们分析的是离职 在样本的 股价中 的影响，它也表明， 离职成本 在高价位酒店的成本比在中等层次的 酒店高 。 这一点是由高度显 示 的 是 在员工离职与 股价之间的关系 。 股价 每 增加 一个美元， 员工离职 每一个百分点 ， 成本 有 525 美元。因此，虽然在样品 中 典型的酒店可能会面临员工 离
49、职每一个百分比 ， 7550美元 总营业利润， 据估计， 在 一个有 125 元 股价的 酒店 ， 可以估计能 面对 超过成本的四倍 多的离职成本百分点 。相反，结果表明，与 65 美元 股价相比， 将面临一个相对较小的每 年离职的 费用。 成本和效益。 正如我们所 说，许多大型餐饮公司正在共同努力，以控制员工离职。公司可以提高工资，福利，或奖励制度。他们可能进行培训，如何更好地回应一线员工提出的需求管理。公司可以系统地对员工的态度进行调查和奖励管理人员，他们可以营造一个满意，忠诚的员工。这些适当管理方法大多数是减少雇员流失率的良好潜力。由于这些计划的成本较高，一个精明的管理者会问是否离职成本减少的收益超过了实际的营业额减少方案的费用。 本文提供一种方法来计算成本效益比或为了减少员工离职的方案投资回报。一个额外的回归分析，是提供额外的见解，而不是用一个全球性的周转率计算 的雇佣关系终止。在控制股价和总员工基础后，我们发现在我们的样本典型的酒店约 5,000 元，每名雇员为典型的雇员美元的成本。这个数字将会降低经济型酒店和高股价的酒店的成本。 特别有趣的是，调查结果显示，虽然高的大酒店可能随着凭证有不较低的离职成本，每家酒店的离职成本对这些问
