Job Satisfaction Can Be Lost for All of the Following Reasons Except:
Many companies spend a peachy amount of time coin investigating the causes of employee turnover—for case, through programs of exit interviews. Normally the intent backside such studies is to detect out why people get out—the idea beingness that if a company can place the reasons for terminations, it can work to concord terminations, and turnover, downward.
While a company may obtain very valuable data from termination interviews, this kind of approach has 2 signal defects:
1. It looks at only ane side of the coin—the termination side. If a visitor wants to go along its employees, then information technology should also written report the reasons for retention and continuation, and work to reinforce these. From the viewpoint of a company's policies on employment and turnover, the reasons why people stay in their jobs are just as important as the reasons why they exit them. An obvious point in show is that 1 individual will stay in a chore under weather that would cause another to start pounding the pavements.
Equally an analogy, consider the divorce rate. If one were really interested in doing something almost it, he would have to sympathise 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 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 motion picture of the divorce phenomenon. Equally, in the corporate setting, there are definite rationales for terminating and definite (although sometimes unconscious) rationales for continuing.
2. This approach also tends to presume a perfect correlation betwixt job dissatisfaction and turnover. Many a company 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 not necessarily true, by whatever means. A low charge per unit may just exist the effect of a tight job marketplace. Or perhaps the company has put gold handcuffs on its employees through a compensation scheme that emphasizes deferred benefits. At that place 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 there. We shall testify, in fact, that some carelessly conceived methods of maintaining a low turnover rate can exist detrimental to the financial health of a company and the mental health of its employees.
To get a more integrated view of piece of work-force stability, we mounted a written report to investigate the motivations to stay and proper ways to encourage it. (The study is described in the sidebar, "Background of the Study.") This is the picture that has emerged.
Why practice employees stay? The brief respond 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 will remain as it is until acted on by a force.
What factors bear upon this inertia? There are two relevant factors within the company and likewise 2 relevant factors exterior the visitor.
First, inside the visitor, in that location is the issue of task satisfaction. Second, in that location is the "visitor environment" and the degree of condolement an individual employee feels inside 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 weather condition he encounters on the chore. 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 two vantages weakens inertia; a narrowing gap strengthens it.
Outside the company, 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 market and by self-imposed restrictions and personal criteria. We found that some employees decline to consider work in other locations because "I similar the schools" or "I like my neighborhood." These reasons not only strengthen inertia to stay with their present arrangement, but likewise strengthen inertia to stay with any arrangement within the same school district or neighborhood. However, if schools lose their appeal because of drug problems or neighborhoods become run down or polluted, the inertia to stay in the expanse is weakened, and, consequently, outside task opportunities get relatively more bonny.
Also, exterior the company, there are nonwork factors that directly affect inertia, such as financial responsibilities, family ties, friendships, and customs relations. Some workers told united states, for example, that they would never exit their companies because they were born and reared in their nowadays locale. Others said they stayed considering they had children in local schools, could non beget to quit, or had proficient friends at work. Many of these employees besides reported low job satisfaction—and yet they stay.
Does information technology matter whether an employee stays for job satisfaction or for environmental reasons? Yeah, considering it makes a pregnant difference to the company whether an employee "wants to" stay or "has to" stay.
How can retention be improved? A company might exercise this by reinforcing the "right" reasons for staying. Past "right," here, we mean a combination of job satisfaction and ecology reasons that jibes with the goals of the company. Past "wrong" reasons, we would mean any combination of reasons for staying that is beneficial neither to the company nor to the employees. Thus if a company reinforces the right reasons for staying and as well abstains from reinforcing the wrong reasons, its turnover—equally distinct from its turnover rate—might be more 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 can act 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 exist more effective over the long run than the ordinary, negative approach of merely reducing turnover.
Satisfaction & Environment
Our study has provided four profiles of employees that are especially useful in thinking through the twin problems of employee retentiveness and employee turnover. The two of import variables here are the employee's satisfaction with his job and the environmental pressures, inside and outside his company, that bear upon his determination to continue or terminate.
Reasons for task satisfaction include achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth, and other matters associated with the motivation of the individual in his job. Ecology pressures inside the visitor include work rules, facilities, java 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 relationship between job satisfaction and environmental factors for iv types of employees, and as well explains why each blazon stays.
Exhibit I. Task Satisfaction and Environs
The turn-overs are dissatisfied with their job, have few ecology pressures to continue them in the company, and will get out at the first opportunity. While employees seldom start out in this category, they oft finish 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 shut to being vested in the company retirement programme. 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 shortly become a turnover statistic.
The turn-offs are prime candidates for union activities; they tin can easily generate employee-relations and productivity issues, and conceivably industrial espionage or sabotage. These employees are highly dissatisfied with their jobs and stay for mainly environmental reasons. For example, they may feel they are too former to start over again, or that they are financially dependent on the company benefit programs; or they may believe they can't go a task on the outside. Employees trapped in this category have two alternatives: (1) they can wait for exterior help (for instance, from unions or the EEOC); and (2) they can change their behavior and either "do exactly what they are told and no more" or decide to "get even with the company."
The turn-ons are highly motivated and remain with the company almost exclusively for reasons associated with the piece of work itself. This is nearly desirable from the company's viewpoint because these employees really want to stay and are not locked in past the outside environment. However, if managerial deportment reduce job satisfaction (even temporarily), turnover may rise dramatically. Since the inertia of the plough-ons is non strengthened by environmental factors, it is therefore not potent enough to make them stay without continual job satisfaction.
The turn-ons-plus are the about probable 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 volition probably stay. The word "temporarily" is a key ane, for if chore satisfaction drops permanently, these employees get turn-offs. This transformation will not raise the turnover statistics, but it volition increment frustrations and bear upon piece of work performance.
Motility betwixt classifications
The traditional arroyo to measuring and agreement terminations has focused on the turnovers. These employees generally represent a relatively small percentage of the total employee population, and hence emphasizing them exclusively tends to ignore the reasons the majority stay with the company. It also ignores the dynamic processes by which an employee moves from i nomenclature 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. As he develops his career, he begins to build some meaningful piece of work relationships—he becomes a turn-on. The longer he remains in the locale, the more than probable he is to become a plow-on-plus.
Only suppose a time comes when his motivation is low. Will he leave? If benefit programs have created a financial dependency, if he has stock options that are non exercisable for two or 3 years, if he has children who are in practiced schools, if he has just purchased his dream house—then he probably will not become a turnover statistic. Withal, he may get psychologically absent-minded—a plow-off. The consequences may show up in alcoholism, chronic concrete or psychological illness, divorce, low productivity and motivation, and perchance unionization.
Suppose, instead, that this same engineer has continued to find job satisfaction. He may still stay for some environmental reasons, and the combination of reasons will probably exist correct—both he and the company notice his employment fulfilling.
In neither case has he become a turnover casualty, but there is a dramatic difference betwixt the two situations in terms of morale and productivity. One management observer has phrased information technology this way: "Nosotros have too many people in our organization who are no longer with usa."
One purpose of our research is to empathize ameliorate the balance between job satisfaction and environmental reasons as it affects employee retention and to gain insight into ways to influence that rest.
Who Stays & Why?
I way to approach the question of residual betwixt job satisfaction and environmental reasons for staying is to look at the traditional demographic breakdowns, such as male person/female person, salary/wage, college/high school teaching, and other demographic contrasts, and also at employees' personal work ethics. Nosotros designed our research to answer questions like these:
- Do managers stay for reasons different from those of nonmanagers?
- Is the piece of work ethic of younger employees dissimilar 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 job?
- Why do managers over 40, who have not had a promotion in five years and don't similar their task, stay with the visitor?
Our respondents gave many reasons for staying. We take broken these down into reasons relating to the environment outside the company—the external environs—and reasons relating to the work surroundings itself, within the company—the internal environment. Further, nosotros take cleaved down the reasons relating to the internal surroundings into (a) motivational factors and (b) maintenance factors.
Showroom II represents these two breakdowns. Each row of symbols in the exhibit is divided into three parts:
Showroom Ii. Number of Motivational, Maintenance, and Environmental Reasons for Staying, Among 12 Employee Classifications
1. Motivational factors in the company environs.
2. Maintenance factors in the company surround.
three. Factors in the external surroundings.
To gear up Showroom 2, we took the 10 reasons for staying cited nigh ofttimes by the members of a specific employee grouping and assigned them to the three categories just listed. For case, employees with college degrees almost oftentimes cited vi relating to on-the-job motivation, three relating to task maintenance, and one relating to the environment external to the company.
The exhibit shows that low-skill manufacturing employees stay primarily for maintenance or environmental reasons, many relating to the nonwork environs. Seven of their top ten reasons relate to the external surroundings—for example, "I wouldn't want to rebuild the benefits that I have now" and "I take family unit responsibilities." Their two outstanding reasons for staying that relate to the internal environment are fringe benefits and task security. These employees will not remain on the payroll because of task satisfaction. To them, factors outside the company are more than of import.
The reasons managers and professionals gave for staying were significantly different. As Showroom II shows, managerial and professional employees stay primarily for reasons related to their work and the work environment; six of the superlative x reasons they cited for staying were related to chore satisfaction, three to the company surround, and only one to the outside environment. These data propose that managers and professionals are more probable to exist 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 production process more closely resemble the managers and professionals in their reasons for staying than they do low-skill manufacturing people. However, about organizations tend to treat all manufacturing employees alike in terms of benefits, working conditions, supervision, and pay. This written report suggests that many skilled hourly employees would be less dissatisfied and more productive if they were treated more nearly as managers are, rather than equally low-skill blue-collar workers are.
In the involvement 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 unmarried motivation factor amidst their top ten reasons. Caucasians also tend to stay because of maintenance and environmental reasons, although, for this group, the motivational item "I enjoy my job" ranked eighth as a reason for staying, every bit compared with seventeenth for non-whites.
People with less than five years of visitor service were compared with those with five or more. Employees with shorter service stay for internal reasons, their inertia being strengthened by a combination of task satisfaction and the job setting. All the same, later on five years of service, environmental reasons begin to announced, while internal reasons tend to sideslip in relative significance. In other words, as in the example of the immature engineer, these employees join a company because they want to. However, as they build family unit and economic responsibilities, these may displace internal reasons for staying.
A like relationship was found in educational levels. People with a available's (or higher) 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 environment on people at various skill levels.
Exhibit III shows the pct 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 different skill levels place on environmental factors:
Exhibit III. The Effects of Environmental Factors on Employees at Various Skill and Job Satisfaction Levels
- Depression-skill employees experience bound principally by benefits, family responsibilities, the difficulty of finding another job, personal friendships with coworkers, loyalty to the company, and simple fiscal pressures.
- Moderate-skill employees feel roughly the same, but they seem somewhat less sensitive to environmental factors. Loyalty to the visitor, still, was cited more frequently.
- Managers offer quite a dissimilar profile. They stay mainly for reasons related to their jobs themselves and community ties; the difficulty of finding another chore, family unit responsibilities, and visitor loyalty exert relatively less influence on them.
Hence in that location seem to be real differences in the importance the three groups attach to ecology factors. Additionally, we might note that managers are more willing to look for new jobs, even though this may be difficult, whereas the low-skill workers tend to be unwilling to do 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 different degrees of job satisfaction. These data indicate that very dissatisfied employees go on to stay considering of financial considerations, family responsibilities, lack of outside opportunities, age, and, to some extent, "corporate enculturation" (they wouldn't want to look for a job or have to learn new policies). Such reasons for staying are self-defeating and hardly could be considered right. These plough-offs have not all the same affected turnover statistics, simply all the same they may be having just every bit severe, or fifty-fifty a more than severe, effect on the company. These employees encounter themselves as so locked in by the environs that they have little alternative simply to stay; and, therefore, the possibility of reduced productivity or behavior combative to the system is great.
Historically this locked-in, turned-off condition has been considered feature of manufacturing or unskilled-labor categories, primarily. Still, recent reports of increased wedlock involvement at the managerial level advise that it is occurring at college levels of the organization also. Ane written report shows that alienation is not limited to the hourly ranks, just may occur at any level of an arrangement.1
Why Dissatisfied People Stay
We gained some insight into why an employee stays with a company when he is dissatisfied with his chore, supervisor, benefits, pay, so on. We found that employees who said, "I don't like my task," or, "I don't enjoy working with my supervisor," stay primarily for maintenance and environmental reasons, mostly related to financial and family responsibilities. The simply "inside the company" reasons high on the list related to do good programs and job security. These employees are excellent examples of personnel who have non affected the turnover statistics but who may accept left the company, psychologically, long ago.
This finding illustrates the fact that the reasons people stay are not necessarily the opposite of the reasons why people get out. 1 oft hears negative statements about supervisors and jobs in leave interviews; notwithstanding, of the employees we studied, many who made such statements are however with the companies near which they complain. These are the plow-offs.
Moreover, information technology suggests that these employees do non have as much job mobility as many companies presume. The old cliche that "if you don't like the job, you are free to leave" is nearly every bit 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 accept a strong force to break their inertia—in extreme cases, belch.
It might exist concluded at this point that level in the organization, race, tenure, education, and degree of task satisfaction decide why people stay. All the same, we institute a factor more strong than any of these—namely, the work ethic of the people involved in the written report.
An Employee's Work Ethic
Man beings exist at unlike levels of psychological evolution, and these levels are expressed in the values they agree respecting their piece of work. Ane useful categorization of levels and work values appears in the sidebar, "Values for Working."
Exhibit 4 tabulates the summit ten reasons employees stay, based on their psychological level. It shows a startling dichotomy. Employees possessing relatively high tribalistic or egocentric values stay mainly considering of environmental reasons, whereas employees with relatively loftier manipulative or existential values stay primarily for inside-the-company reasons, many of which are motivational. We likewise found that the tribalistic or egocentric employees are located primarily in the depression-skill manufacturing functions and that manipulative or existential employees are located primarily in management, research, or professional person positions.
Exhibit IV. Number of Reasons Why Employees Stay, for Different Levels of Work Values
Although not all the implications are articulate at this indicate, information technology seems apparent 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 human motivation that appeal to their own individual value systems, under the assumption that all employees have similar values. For instance, many a manipulative director presumes that money and large, status-laden offices motivate other people in the same way they drove him to his present level of success. He may have climbed the corporate ladder, simply as our results conspicuously show, for many employees the ladder does non even be.
This is not meant equally a criticism of managerial value systems, only every bit a description 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 right. What is correct depends on his values.
To put the matter another way: most managers are following the Golden Dominion, "Do unto others as you would accept them do unto y'all." Assuming all people have the same values, then what is right for the manager is right for the employee. Notwithstanding, since values of people are not the same, what is correct to the manager is oftentimes wrong for the employee. If we were to write a Platinum Rule, we should say, "Do unto others equally they would take you lot practice 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 further explored chore retention and values past linking data on values and reasons for staying. This enabled the states to determine the values of those people who stay because they similar their jobs and those who said that their jobs were not reasons for staying.
Nosotros institute that employees who stay considering they like their jobs tend to exist relatively manipulative and existential; and those who continue for reasons not directly associated with their jobs tend to exist tribalistic and egocentric. We also found that the tribalistic and especially egocentric 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, considering the fact that the free enterprise system tends to reward conformist and manipulative values, and existential people stay only as long every bit they are happy.
Environment & values
Showroom 5 demonstrates again the hidden power of ecology factors. It presents the percentage responses of employees scoring the highest (ninetieth percentile or greater) in each value organization—that is, the employees who fit most clearly into each value system.
Showroom Five. Value Systems and Environmental Factors
The data testify a dichotomy between employees with relatively loftier manipulative or existential values (Levels v and 7) and other employees, particularly those with relatively loftier tribalistic or egoistic values (Levels 2 and 3). Near without exception, people of Levels v and 7 place less accent on external environmental reasons for staying than practice people with other values.
Thus whereas age, length of service, type of work and skill level, race, and teaching depict who stays, and for what reason, the underlying value organization explains why. But can nosotros, equally managers, really use these facts to improve 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 "Yes, there is."
Toward Managing Retention
Because managers accept habitually concerned themselves with turnover, it will be hard to break the addiction. Yet, managers must terminate the rituals of finding out why people leave and start investing resources in the positive management of memory. If managers reinforce the right reasons for employees staying and avoid reinforcing the wrong reasons, they cannot only improve traditional turnover statistics but set goals for retention. Still, they must brainstorm to sympathise and respect employees equally individuals with values that differ from their ain.
As a prerequisite to the evolution of a programme to manage retention, sure difficult questions must be answered:
- Why practice employees stay?
- What are their values for working and for living?
- What are their ages, sexes, marital statuses, then on?
- What are the correct and wrong reasons for employees staying in their jobs?
- How dissatisfied is dissatisfied?
We have obtained some quantitative insight into the first three questions, simply the last two may not have a quantitative solution. What is "correct" or "wrong," and how far an employee may be pushed before he is forced to leave, are moral questions. For these we offering our value judgments.
Ideally, it seems that the goal of managing retention would exist to create conditions compatible to the turn-ons-plus—that is, some remainder between job satisfaction and environmental reasons. This raises some questions. For example, if employees who practice non like their jobs stay because of the "locked-in" features of benefit programs, should managers not consider changing do good programs to reduce inertia?
To begin with, managers might make pensions highly portable, a mensurate that would tend to reduce inertia only raise costs. To balance this, it would then be necessary to improve the atmospheric condition for satisfaction then that people stay because they want to, not because they must.
Some other 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 non 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. Once more, corporations which locate plants in minor towns, and draw primarily from the people who were born and reared in those communities, are edifice in inertia that tends to increment retention and decrease turnover—possibly too much so.
For another aspect, consider corporations with headquarters in New York City. They may find their employees have very low inertia because it is easy for people to only get off the subway at a different stop, or even get off the lift at a unlike floor, and find themselves in a unlike corporation. That is, they can modify jobs without changing their outside environment. In this case, inertia to stay with the nowadays employer may be very weak, just at that place might be stiff inertia to stay in the aforementioned general locale. Naturally, in working toward this balance, companies volition have to devote some careful idea to the question, "How dissatisfied is dissatisfied?" for its employee groups. Suppose one sets up a scale of job satisfaction from +10 (very satisfied) to –10 (very dissatisfied). Volition an employee leave when the level is –5? Theoretically, perhaps, he will; just realistically, the answer depends on the strength of inertia.
For example, if the "golden handcuffs" are set with diamonds, in the form of stock options which are exercisable at some distant point in the futurity, then inertia is strengthened—that is, until the options are exercisable. At the date of exercise, his inertia volition drop to a very low point, other things being equal; and even if his level of job dissatisfaction has remained abiding, information technology may now be bully plenty to pause the present inertia level. In one case inertia to stay has been cleaved and the person is in motility on his way out of the company, information technology will have great force to annul his momentum to leave.
Ane can also find examples where an employee has stayed with a company well beyond a point where he has a sense of achievement and meaning in his work and is waiting only for early retirement. He has probably become a problem to the organization, to himself, and to his family. Lucrative early on-retirement programs (sometimes known as late discharge programs) have go increasingly popular every bit a means to break inertia, often to the benefit of both parties.
The effects of inertia, of class, are non express to the employee, merely also extend to his or her spouse. Information technology is not uncommon to observe an employee returning to the home town considering the spouse is dissatisfied with the present locale.
In seeking residue, then, it would be useful for a company to review all do good, pay, location, and other ecology factors, as well equally 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 right and wrong to management may not have the aforementioned caste of rightness and wrongness to the employee.
Ultimately, rightness and wrongness, whatever their specific definitions for individuals in a given company, will require the provision of a work environment that is broadly compatible with the employees' personal goals and their values for working and living. Managers demand 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.two But then is information technology possible to develop strategies and reinforcements for employees to stay for reasons that are right for both the organisation and the individual.
Toward Existential Management
A new piece of 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 proceed to snap on gilt handcuffs, then:
- The new generation may non fifty-fifty enter those organizations, but create its ain (or take over existing ones).
- Present employees who are locked in and turned off may seek third-party intervention to guarantee their correct to task satisfaction, or their real freedom to exit.
Most organizations historically take 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 gild, it must develop existentially managed organizations that truly accept and respect people with differing values. The arroyo we take taken in this article, while admittedly a "first cutting" at simply ane attribute of the trouble, may exist useful to managers who take recognized the need for broader views of employment policy.
one. Alfred T. DeMaria, Dale Tarnowieski, and Richard Gurman, Manager Unions? (New York, American Management Association, Inc., 1972).
2. See our article, "Shaping Personnel Policies to Disparate Value Systems," Personnel, March–April 1973, p. 8.
A version of this article appeared in the July 1973 issue of Harvard Business organisation Review.
pattersongived1963.blogspot.com
Source: https://hbr.org/1973/07/why-employees-stay
Post a Comment for "Job Satisfaction Can Be Lost for All of the Following Reasons Except:"