PS496 Unit 6 Engagement and Turnover Paper Example

Who Comes Back Next July: A PS496 Unit 6 Engagement and Turnover Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS496: Bachelor's Capstone in Industrial Organizational Psychology

Unit 6 Engagement and Turnover Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the cannery, the survey and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

Turnover at a Seasonal Plant

At our cannery near Stockton, most turnover is not quitting in the usual sense. About 620 seasonal workers are laid off when the pack ends in October and invited back the next summer. Those who return already know the equipment, the safety rules and the line leads. Those who do not must be replaced with new hires, who, as the interviewing paper in Unit 3 showed, quit early at much higher rates. Of 598 seasonal workers eligible to return this year, 347 did, a return rate of 58 percent. The plant manager's goal is 70 percent.

The Survey

In the last week of this season's pack, I surveyed seasonal workers on the clock, with forms in both English and Spanish. Of about 610 seasonal workers, 431 responded. The survey included five items on engagement, such as "I feel energetic at work" and "I get absorbed in what I'm doing," three on overall job satisfaction, one on whether the person planned to return next year and open comments.

Engagement and Satisfaction Are Not the Same

Rich et al. (2010) treat engagement as bringing one's body, feelings and attention fully into the job. In their research, engagement explained job performance and helping behavior better than job satisfaction, job involvement or intrinsic motivation did, and it carried the effects of things like fit between personal and organizational values and perceived organizational support on to performance.

Our data showed why the distinction matters. Satisfaction was fairly even across production areas, between 3.4 and 3.8. Engagement varied more, from 2.9 in the warehouse to 4.0 in receiving. People could be satisfied with the pay and schedule while feeling flat in the work itself.

Engagement by Area and Return Rates

The most useful analysis was at the level of production areas, because that is where line leads and supervisors shape daily experience. Harter et al. (2002) worked at the level of stores, branches and departments, pooling data from thousands of such units across dozens of companies. Where a unit's staff scored higher on satisfaction and engagement, output and profit ran higher, customers were happier, fewer people left and fewer got hurt, and the size of those links was large enough to be worth acting on.

I matched each production area's average engagement this season with its return rate from last season to this one. The two areas with the highest engagement, receiving and sorting, also had the highest return rates, 71 and 66 percent. The two lowest, the warehouse and the night shift filling area, had return rates of 44 and 47 percent. Both also had more recordable injuries per hour worked last season.

The areas where people came back were the areas where people felt something while they worked.

This comparison is rough. It uses only six areas, matches this year's engagement to last year's return, and does not control for differences in the work itself. But it was consistent with the comments.

What the Comments Said

Workers in receiving and sorting often mentioned their lead by name, the crew's humor and knowing what was expected. Workers in the warehouse and night filling area mentioned being moved between stations without notice, not knowing who to ask for help and long stretches of standing without breaks. Several night filling workers mentioned the supervisor's slow response to staffing calls, the same issue that appeared in that supervisor's 360 report in Unit 5.

The Psychology of Staying

Hom et al. (2017) reviewed a century of turnover research. Early work focused on practical ways to reduce quitting, and the field later built theories centered on dissatisfaction and job alternatives. More recent research has turned to why people stay, studying how attachments to coworkers, community and the job itself keep people in place, and how attitudes change over time.

That shift fits a seasonal workforce. Our returners are not choosing whether to quit; they are choosing whether to come back, after months away. Things that tie them to the plant over the winter, such as relationships with leads and crewmates, a sense of being expected back and early information about the next season, may matter as much as the experience during the pack.

Actions

The findings led to four actions.

First, area-level attention. The warehouse and night filling supervisors will work with their leads on the two issues mentioned most: notice before moving people between stations and a clear person to ask for help. Their 360 goals from Unit 5 already address staffing response.

Second, recognition. Each lead will thank returners by name at the start of next season and pair each new hire with a returner during the first week.

Third, staying in touch. In February and May, the plant will send a letter in English and Spanish to every eligible seasonal worker with the next season's dates, any changes and the name of their lead.

Fourth, measurement. The engagement survey will run at midseason and at the end of each season, and the return rate will be reported by area.

What the Returners Told Me

I also spoke with twelve returners, chosen from different areas, during the last week of the pack. Most had worked at least four seasons. Asked why they came back, almost none mentioned pay first. They talked about their lead, about knowing the line, about friends on the crew and about the plant being close to home. Asked what would keep them away, several mentioned the same thing: a season where they were moved around without warning and never knew who to ask. Two said they had nearly not returned this year after a bad stretch on night filling last fall. Their accounts fit Hom and colleagues' attention to why people stay, and they suggest that what happens in the final weeks of a season shapes the decision made months later.

Limits

The survey reached only workers still employed at the end of the season, so people who left early are missing. Return rates depend on factors outside the plant, such as other farm work, family moves and immigration rules. The area comparison is a correlation and cannot show that engagement causes return.

Conclusion

The cannery's returner gap lined up with differences in engagement across production areas. Rich and colleagues explain why engagement is distinct from satisfaction, Harter and colleagues show that unit-level engagement relates to outcomes such as turnover and accidents, and Hom and colleagues point to the importance of understanding why people stay. Focused attention in the two lowest areas, recognition of returners and contact over the winter aim to move the return rate toward 70 percent.

References

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268

Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988