5 ms·
3 years is deceptive - in an exponentially growing company, the majority of employees are fresh, pushing the average tenure low. The relevant number is "length
by brilee 4y ago
3 years is deceptive - in an exponentially growing company, the majority of employees are fresh, pushing the average tenure low. The relevant number is "length of tenure at time of severance", which I believe skews much higher. Any company seeing 30% churn is having a bad, bad time.
- dadoge 4y ago“Length of tenure at time of severance” That is such a better metric, why is this not used more often
- naniwaduni 4y agoIt has its own almost-opposite problem in only counting employees who did leave.
- askafriend 4y agoWell you can also just count current employees' tenure. That fixes the problem and is qualitatively consistent IMO.
- ivalm 4y agoThat’s how you get 3 years because everyone is new.
- askafriend 4y agoYou're right - my mistake.
- jrumbut 4y agoThen you get into the field of survival analysis, where you get methods that can handle this problem (called right censoring IIRC). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimat...
- matt-attack 4y agoExactly. If half your workforce is happy and has been there 20 years, that’s entirely non reflected in such a figure. There must be a better metric.
- neves 4y agoI thinkit is impossible to get this number
- piva00 4y agoWhat do you mean? Every employer I've worked for had data for the starting date of their employees, when someone leaves you have an end date of employment. It's a pretty simple metric to calculate.
- michaelcampbell 4y agoI think by "this number" they mean "a better metric", maybe?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]