When a Person Does One Job Over and Over Again
Many companies spend a great amount of time money investigating the causes of employee turnover—for example, through programs of exit interviews. Usually the intent behind such studies is to find out why people leave—the idea beingness that if a visitor can identify the reasons for terminations, it tin can work to hold terminations, and turnover, down.
While a company may obtain very valuable information from termination interviews, this kind of arroyo has two point defects:
1. It looks at only one side of the coin—the termination side. If a company wants to keep its employees, then it should as well study the reasons for retention 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 simply equally important as the reasons why they leave them. An obvious point in evidence is that one individual will stay in a job under weather that would cause another to starting time pounding the pavements.
As an analogy, consider the divorce rate. If i were really interested in doing something most it, he would have to understand why some people get divorced and why others stay married—the reasons for the two things are entirely different. Furthermore, the reasons for getting a divorce are non merely "just the opposite" of the reasons for staying in matrimony. He would have to do some real spadework on both sides of the fence to go a complete motion picture of the divorce miracle. Equally, in the corporate setting, there are definite rationales for terminating and definite (although sometimes unconscious) rationales for standing.
ii. This arroyo also tends to assume a perfect correlation betwixt chore dissatisfaction and turnover. Many a visitor works for depression turnover because it thinks a depression rate implies that its employees are pleased with their jobs—and, a fortiori, productive. This is non necessarily true, past whatever means. A depression rate may simply be the effect of a tight job market. Or perhaps the visitor has put gold 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. Nosotros shall show, in fact, that some carelessly conceived methods of maintaining a low turnover charge per unit can exist detrimental to the financial health of a visitor and the mental health of its employees.
To get a more integrated view of work-forcefulness stability, we mounted a report 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 moving picture that has emerged.
Why practice employees stay? The brief reply is "inertia." Employees tend to remain with a company until some strength causes them to leave. The concept here is very similar the concept of inertia in the concrete sciences: a body will remain as it is until acted on past a force.
What factors bear on this inertia? There are two relevant factors within the company and also two relevant factors outside the visitor.
First, inside the company, in that location is the issue of job satisfaction. 2d, there is the "company environment" and the caste of condolement an individual employee feels within information technology. 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 actual conditions he encounters on the task. The company'due south values derive from societal norms, formal decisions by the board of directors, and the policies and procedures of the managing group. A widening gap between these two vantages weakens inertia; a narrowing gap strengthens it.
Outside the company, one must consider an employee's perceived chore opportunities in other institutions. An employee's perceptions of his outside job opportunities are influenced past existent changes in the chore market and by self-imposed restrictions and personal criteria. Nosotros constitute that some employees refuse to consider work in other locations considering "I like the schools" or "I like my neighborhood." These reasons non only strengthen inertia to stay with their present organization, just likewise strengthen inertia to stay with any organization within the same schoolhouse district or neighborhood. All the same, if schools lose their entreatment because of drug issues or neighborhoods become run down or polluted, the inertia to stay in the surface area is weakened, and, consequently, outside chore opportunities become relatively more attractive.
Too, exterior the company, there are nonwork factors that directly affect inertia, such equally financial responsibilities, family unit ties, friendships, and customs relations. Some workers told united states of america, for case, that they would never leave their companies because they were born and reared in their nowadays locale. Others said they stayed because they had children in local schools, could not afford to quit, or had good friends at work. Many of these employees also reported low job satisfaction—and still they stay.
Does it thing whether an employee stays for job satisfaction or for ecology reasons? Yes, because it makes a significant deviation to the company whether an employee "wants to" stay or "has to" stay.
How tin can memory exist improved? A company might do this past reinforcing the "right" reasons for staying. By "correct," hither, nosotros mean a combination of job satisfaction and environmental reasons that jibes with the goals of the company. By "wrong" reasons, we would mean any combination of reasons for staying that is benign neither to the company nor to the employees. Thus if a visitor reinforces the right reasons for staying and besides abstains from reinforcing the wrong reasons, its turnover—as distinct from its turnover rate—might be more satisfactory.
How does a company reinforce the right reasons? Companies can practice this past providing atmospheric condition compatible with employees' values for working and living.
If managements concentrate on agreement why employees stay, and so they tin human activity to reinforce the right reasons and stop reinforcing the wrong reasons. In other words, they can take a positive approach to managing retention, which will be more than effective over the long run than the ordinary, negative approach of simply reducing turnover.
Satisfaction & Environment
Our study has provided iv profiles of employees that are particularly useful in thinking through the twin issues of employee retention and employee turnover. The ii important variables here are the employee's satisfaction with his chore and the ecology pressures, within and outside his company, that touch his determination to continue or terminate.
Reasons for job satisfaction include achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth, and other matters associated with the motivation of the private in his job. Ecology pressures inside the company include piece of work rules, facilities, coffee breaks, benefits, wages, and the like. Environmental pressures exterior the company include exterior chore opportunities, community relations, financial obligations, family ties, and such other factors. Showroom I shows the relationship between task satisfaction and environmental factors for four types of employees, and too explains why each type stays.
Exhibit I. Job Satisfaction and Environment
The plough-overs are dissatisfied with their job, have few environmental pressures to proceed them in the company, and will leave at the first opportunity. While employees seldom start out in this category, they often cease up here, having experienced a gradual erosion of their inertia. Consider, for example, an employee who a few years ago was highly motivated, had three children in college, and was close to being vested in the company retirement plan. Today, his children are graduated, he is vested, and he has lost interest in his job. His inertia to stay has been profoundly weakened, and he may soon go a turnover statistic.
The turn-offs are prime candidates for union activities; they can easily generate employee-relations and productivity issues, and feasibly industrial espionage or sabotage. These employees are highly dissatisfied with their jobs and stay for mainly environmental reasons. For case, they may feel they are too old to first over over again, or that they are financially dependent on the company do good programs; or they may believe they can't get a job on the outside. Employees trapped in this category accept ii alternatives: (i) they can expect for outside help (for example, from unions or the EEOC); and (2) they tin can alter their beliefs and either "practise exactly what they are told and no more" or decide to "get even with the company."
The plow-ons are highly motivated and remain with the company almost exclusively for reasons associated with the piece of work itself. This is most desirable from the company'due south viewpoint because these employees really want to stay and are not locked in by the outside environment. However, if managerial actions reduce job satisfaction (fifty-fifty temporarily), turnover may rise dramatically. Since the inertia of the turn-ons is non strengthened by environmental factors, information technology is therefore not strong enough to make them stay without continual job satisfaction.
The turn-ons-plus are the most likely to stay with the company in the long run. These employees stay for job satisfaction plus environmental reasons. Even if job satisfaction temporarily declines, they will probably stay. The word "temporarily" is a fundamental one, for if job satisfaction drops permanently, these employees become turn-offs. This transformation will not heighten the turnover statistics, but information technology will increment frustrations and affect work operation.
Movement betwixt classifications
The traditional arroyo to measuring and understanding terminations has focused on the turnovers. These employees by and large represent a relatively pocket-sized percentage of the total employee population, and hence emphasizing them exclusively tends to ignore the reasons the bulk stay with the company. It also ignores the dynamic processes by which an employee moves from one nomenclature into another.
Consider a young engineer who originally joins the company considering he really wants to work there. He moves into a new urban center where he has very few ties with the community. As he develops his career, he begins to build some meaningful work relationships—he becomes a turn-on. The longer he remains in the locale, the more likely he is to go a turn-on-plus.
Just suppose a time comes when his motivation is low. Will he get out? If benefit programs have created a fiscal dependency, if he has stock options that are non exercisable for two or iii years, if he has children who are in skilful schools, if he has but purchased his dream house—and so he probably volition not go a turnover statistic. Withal, he may get psychologically absent—a turn-off. The consequences may prove upwardly in alcoholism, chronic physical or psychological illness, divorce, low productivity and motivation, and possibly unionization.
Suppose, instead, that this same engineer has connected to detect job satisfaction. He may withal stay for some ecology reasons, and the combination of reasons volition probably be correct—both he and the company notice his employment fulfilling.
In neither case has he go a turnover casualty, only in that location is a dramatic difference between the 2 situations in terms of morale and productivity. Ane direction observer has phrased it this way: "We have besides many people in our organisation who are no longer with united states of america."
I purpose of our enquiry is to understand better the balance between job satisfaction and environmental reasons equally it affects employee retention and to gain insight into ways to influence that residuum.
Who Stays & Why?
One way to approach the question of balance betwixt job satisfaction and environmental reasons for staying is to look at the traditional demographic breakdowns, such as male person/female, bacon/wage, higher/high school education, and other demographic contrasts, and also at employees' personal work ethics. We designed our research to respond questions like these:
- Practice managers stay for reasons dissimilar from those of nonmanagers?
- Is the piece of work ethic of younger employees different from that of older employees?
- What kind of employees (male person, female, exempt, nonexempt, and so on) stay because they like their piece of work?
- What is the work ethic of those employees who stay because they similar their job?
- Why do managers over twoscore, who have not had a promotion in five years and don't like their job, stay with the company?
Our respondents gave many reasons for staying. Nosotros accept cleaved these down into reasons relating to the surroundings outside the company—the external environment—and reasons relating to the work environment itself, within the company—the internal environment. Further, we have cleaved down the reasons relating to the internal environs into (a) motivational factors and (b) maintenance factors.
Showroom 2 represents these two breakdowns. Each row of symbols in the showroom is divided into three parts:
Exhibit II. Number of Motivational, Maintenance, and Environmental Reasons for Staying, Amidst 12 Employee Classifications
1. Motivational factors in the company environs.
2. Maintenance factors in the company environment.
iii. Factors in the external environment.
To ready Exhibit II, nosotros took the ten reasons for staying cited most ofttimes by the members of a specific employee group and assigned them to the iii categories just listed. For case, employees with college degrees most frequently cited six relating to on-the-job motivation, three relating to job maintenance, and one relating to the environment external to the visitor.
The showroom shows that depression-skill manufacturing employees stay primarily for maintenance or environmental reasons, many relating to the nonwork environment. Seven of their top ten reasons relate to the external environment—for example, "I wouldn't want to rebuild the benefits that I have now" and "I have family responsibilities." Their two outstanding reasons for staying that chronicle to the internal environment are fringe benefits and task security. These employees will not remain on the payroll because of job satisfaction. To them, factors exterior the company are more important.
The reasons managers and professionals gave for staying were significantly different. As Exhibit II shows, managerial and professional employees stay primarily for reasons related to their work and the work surroundings; six of the top ten reasons they cited for staying were related to job satisfaction, iii to the visitor environs, and only one to the outside environment. These data suggest that managers and professionals are more likely to be turn-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 product process more than closely resemble the managers and professionals in their reasons for staying than they practice low-skill manufacturing people. However, almost organizations tend to treat all manufacturing employees alike in terms of benefits, working atmospheric condition, supervision, and pay. This report suggests that many skilled hourly employees would exist less dissatisfied and more productive if they were treated more well-nigh as managers are, rather than as low-skill bluish-collar workers are.
In the interest of assessing equal opportunity, we compared whites with nonwhites among 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 too tend to stay because of maintenance and environmental reasons, although, for this group, the motivational item "I savor my task" ranked eighth as a reason for staying, as compared with seventeenth for non-whites.
People with less than v years of company service were compared with those with five or more. Employees with shorter service stay for internal reasons, their inertia beingness strengthened by a combination of job satisfaction and the job setting. However, later on five years of service, environmental reasons begin to appear, while internal reasons tend to slip in relative significance. In other words, every bit in the example of the immature engineer, these employees join a company considering they want to. However, every bit they build family and economical responsibilities, these may displace internal reasons for staying.
A similar relationship was found in educational levels. People with a bachelor'southward (or higher) caste 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 conventionalities that educational level represents a meaningful distinction amongst employees, nosotros examined the influence of maintenance and external environment on people at various skill levels.
Exhibit III shows the percent of employees, by skill category, who selected various environmental reasons for staying with their companies. These figures highlight the varied degrees of significance people with unlike skill levels place on environmental factors:
Exhibit III. The Effects of Environmental Factors on Employees at Various Skill and Chore Satisfaction Levels
- Low-skill employees feel bound principally by benefits, family responsibilities, the difficulty of finding another chore, personal friendships with coworkers, loyalty to the visitor, and unproblematic financial pressures.
- Moderate-skill employees feel roughly the aforementioned, but they seem somewhat less sensitive to environmental factors. Loyalty to the company, however, was cited more often.
- Managers offering quite a different profile. They stay mainly for reasons related to their jobs themselves and community ties; the difficulty of finding another job, family responsibilities, and visitor loyalty exert relatively less influence on them.
Hence there seem to be existent differences in the importance the iii groups attach to environmental factors. Additionally, we might note that managers are more than willing to expect for new jobs, even though this may exist difficult, whereas the low-skill workers tend to be unwilling to exercise this. It 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 environmental factors for employees with unlike degrees of task satisfaction. These data indicate that very dissatisfied employees continue to stay considering of financial considerations, family unit responsibilities, lack of exterior opportunities, age, and, to some extent, "corporate enculturation" (they wouldn't want to look for a job or have to acquire new policies). Such reasons for staying are cocky-defeating and hardly could exist considered right. These plough-offs have not yet affected turnover statistics, but still they may be having only as astringent, or even a more severe, upshot on the company. These employees encounter themselves as so locked in past the environment that they have petty alternative merely to stay; and, therefore, the possibility of reduced productivity or behavior antagonistic to the organization is great.
Historically this locked-in, turned-off status has been considered feature of manufacturing or unskilled-labor categories, primarily. However, recent reports of increased matrimony interest at the managerial level propose that it is occurring at higher levels of the organization besides. I study shows that alienation is non limited to the hourly ranks, but may occur at whatsoever level of an organization.1
Why Dissatisfied People Stay
We gained some insight into why an employee stays with a visitor when he is dissatisfied with his job, supervisor, benefits, pay, so on. We constitute 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, mostly related to financial and family responsibilities. The only "within the company" reasons high on the list related to do good programs and job security. These employees are fantabulous examples of personnel who have non affected the turnover statistics but who may have left the visitor, psychologically, long ago.
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 go out interviews; notwithstanding, of the employees we studied, many who made such statements are even so with the companies about which they complain. These are the turn-offs.
Moreover, it suggests that these employees do not have every bit much chore mobility as many companies assume. The onetime cliche that "if you don't like the chore, you are free to leave" is about as naive equally telling a monkey in a zoo that if he doesn't like his bananas, he should go back to the jungle. The reinforcement that environmental factors give to the inertia of these alienated employees must be quite powerful, and it will probably take a potent strength to suspension their inertia—in farthermost cases, belch.
Information technology might be concluded at this point that level in the arrangement, race, tenure, education, and degree of job satisfaction determine why people stay. Notwithstanding, we found a factor more stiff than any of these—namely, the work ethic of the people involved in the study.
An Employee's Work Ethic
Man beings be at different levels of psychological evolution, and these levels are expressed in the values they agree respecting their work. One useful categorization of levels and piece of work values appears in the sidebar, "Values for Working."
Exhibit Four tabulates the top 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 considering 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 too found that the tribalistic or egocentric employees are located primarily in the low-skill manufacturing functions and that manipulative or existential employees are located primarily in management, enquiry, or professional person positions.
Showroom 4. Number of Reasons Why Employees Stay, for Unlike Levels of Work Values
Although not all the implications are articulate at this betoken, it seems credible that corporate managers, in deciding on policies and philosophy, in reality accept been talking to themselves about themselves. That is, they tend to adopt policies and theories of human being motivation that entreatment to their ain individual value systems, nether the assumption that all employees have similar values. For example, many a manipulative manager presumes that money and large, status-laden offices motivate other people in the same fashion they drove him to his present level of success. He may accept climbed the corporate ladder, simply as our results conspicuously show, for many employees the ladder does not even exist.
This is not meant equally a criticism of managerial value systems, simply equally a clarification of reality. One can look leaders, whatever their values, to adopt policies which most appeal to their own value arrangement. An individual makes a conclusion based on what he thinks is correct. What is correct depends on his values.
To put the thing another way: most managers are post-obit the Golden Rule, "Practise unto others equally you would have them do unto you." Assuming all people have the same values, and so what is correct for the manager is correct for the employee. However, since values of people are not the same, what is right to the manager is often incorrect for the employee. If we were to write a Platinum Rule, nosotros should say, "Do unto others as they would accept you do unto them." This rule has obvious value for a managing director who seeks to reinforce right reasons for staying, at various value levels, and to avoid reinforcing wrong reasons.
Nosotros farther explored job retention and values by linking data on values and reasons for staying. This enabled united states of america 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 found that employees who stay because they similar their jobs tend to be relatively manipulative and existential; and those who go on for reasons not directly associated with their jobs tend to be tribalistic and egocentric. We also found that the tribalistic and especially egoistic workers were relatively more dissatisfied with motivation factors than were employees with other value systems. The least dissatisfied employees had existential values, followed by the manipulative and conformist employees. This is not too surprising, because the fact that the free enterprise organisation tends to advantage conformist and manipulative values, and existential people stay merely as long equally they are happy.
Environment & values
Exhibit V demonstrates once again the hidden power of environmental factors. It presents the percentage responses of employees scoring the highest (ninetieth percentile or greater) in each value system—that is, the employees who fit almost clearly into each value system.
Exhibit V. Value Systems and Environmental Factors
The data evidence a dichotomy between employees with relatively loftier manipulative or existential values (Levels 5 and 7) and other employees, especially those with relatively high tribalistic or egoistic values (Levels 2 and 3). Well-nigh without exception, people of Levels 5 and vii place less emphasis on external environmental reasons for staying than do people with other values.
Thus whereas age, length of service, blazon of piece of work and skill level, race, and didactics describe who stays, and for what reason, the underlying value system explains why. But tin we, equally managers, really use these facts to ameliorate employee retention? Is there a positive approach to keeping people that is more effective than focusing on the negative element of turnover? Our position is "Yeah, at that place is."
Toward Managing Retention
Because managers have habitually concerned themselves with turnover, it will exist hard to suspension the addiction. Nonetheless, managers must end the rituals of finding out why people leave and starting time investing resources in the positive management of memory. If managers reinforce the correct reasons for employees staying and avoid reinforcing the wrong reasons, they cannot merely better traditional turnover statistics merely set up goals for retentivity. However, they must begin to empathize and respect employees as individuals with values that differ from their ain.
As a prerequisite to the development of a plan to manage retention, certain difficult questions must exist answered:
- Why do employees stay?
- What are their values for working and for living?
- What are their ages, sexes, marital statuses, and so on?
- What are the right and wrong reasons for employees staying in their jobs?
- How dissatisfied is dissatisfied?
We have obtained some quantitative insight into the first 3 questions, but the concluding 2 may not 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, it seems that the goal of managing retention would be to create weather compatible to the turn-ons-plus—that is, some balance between task satisfaction and environmental reasons. This raises some questions. For example, if employees who do not like their jobs stay because of the "locked-in" features of benefit programs, should managers not consider changing benefit programs to reduce inertia?
To brainstorm with, managers might brand pensions highly portable, a measure that would tend to reduce inertia just raise costs. To balance this, it would so be necessary to improve the conditions for satisfaction so that people stay because they want to, not considering they must.
Another influence on inertia is the location of a company. For instance, a corporation that locates a new factory, offices, or laboratories in towns that are non highly bonny or requires the relocation of many employees has weakened inertia; thus employees are more than likely to exit when they become dissatisfied with their work. Some compensatory maneuver may be called for. Over again, corporations which locate plants in modest towns, and draw primarily from the people who were born and reared in those communities, are building in inertia that tends to increase retentiveness and decrease turnover—perhaps too much so.
For another attribute, consider corporations with headquarters in New York Urban center. They may find their employees accept very low inertia because it is easy for people to simply get off the subway at a dissimilar stop, or even get off the elevator at a different floor, and find themselves in a different corporation. That is, they can change jobs without changing their outside environs. In this example, inertia to stay with the present employer may be very weak, merely there might be strong inertia to stay in the same general locale. Naturally, in working toward this residual, companies will have to devote some conscientious idea to the question, "How dissatisfied is dissatisfied?" for its employee groups. Suppose one sets up a scale of chore satisfaction from +10 (very satisfied) to –10 (very dissatisfied). Will an employee leave when the level is –5? Theoretically, peradventure, he volition; but realistically, the answer depends on the strength of inertia.
For case, if the "gold handcuffs" are set with diamonds, in the class of stock options which are exercisable at some distant indicate in the future, and then inertia is strengthened—that is, until the options are exercisable. At the date of practice, his inertia will drop to a very low point, other things being equal; and even if his level of job dissatisfaction has remained abiding, it may at present be great enough to break the present inertia level. Once inertia to stay has been broken and the person is in motion on his way out of the company, it volition accept corking force to counteract his momentum to go out.
1 tin also find examples where an employee has stayed with a company well beyond a point where he has a sense of achievement and significant in his work and is waiting merely for early retirement. He has probably go a problem to the organization, to himself, and to his family unit. Lucrative early-retirement programs (sometimes known as late discharge programs) have go increasingly popular as a means to break inertia, often to the benefit of both parties.
The effects of inertia, of course, are not limited to the employee, merely besides extend to his or her spouse. It is not uncommon to find an employee returning to the home town considering the spouse is dissatisfied with the present locale.
In seeking balance, then, information technology would be useful for a company to review all benefit, pay, location, and other environmental factors, as well as job satisfaction, to make up one's mind whether people are staying for the right or wrong combinations of reasons—e'er keeping in heed that what is correct and wrong to management may not have the aforementioned degree of rightness and wrongness to the employee.
Ultimately, rightness and wrongness, whatever 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 "boilerplate employee" is only a concept, and develop personnel programs, policies, and procedures that are responsive to the disparate values of employees.2 Merely 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 gild. If organizations resist recognition of the alter in values for working, stick with a single approach to people, retain the concept of the boilerplate employee, and keep to snap on golden handcuffs, then:
- The new generation may not even enter those organizations, only create its own (or take over existing ones).
- Present employees who are locked in and turned off may seek third-party intervention to guarantee their right to job satisfaction, or their real freedom to leave.
Almost organizations historically have been and notwithstanding are created and perpetuated by manipulative and conformist philosophies. If management wants employees to stay for reasons that are right for the individual, the corporation, and the club, information technology must develop existentially managed organizations that truly have and respect people with differing values. The arroyo we have taken in this commodity, while admittedly a "outset cut" at only one aspect of the problem, may be useful to managers who have recognized the need for broader views of employment policy.
1. Alfred T. DeMaria, Dale Tarnowieski, and Richard Gurman, Manager Unions? (New York, American Management Association, Inc., 1972).
two. Run across our article, "Shaping Personnel Policies to Disparate Value Systems," Personnel, March–Apr 1973, p. 8.
A version of this article appeared in the July 1973 consequence of Harvard Concern Review.
Source: https://hbr.org/1973/07/why-employees-stay
0 Response to "When a Person Does One Job Over and Over Again"
Post a Comment