Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014, Volume .docx

Journal of Business Studies Quarterly
2014, Volume 5, Number 3
ISSN 2152-1034
THE IMPACT OF TALENT MANAGEMENT
ON RETENTION
Victor Oladapo, Strayer University
ABSTRACT
American businesses face the challenge of replacing 70 million
experienced and talented
workers over the coming decades as the Baby Boomer
generation retires. The challenge comes
at the same time as seismic shifts in the ethnic composition of
the American workforce, global
economic stagnation, historically high U.S. unemployment, and
global security threats. To

remain competitive, executive management must develop stable,
long-term talent management
strategies to attract, hire, develop, and retain talent. This study
sought to understand the
challenges and successes of talent management programs and
the reasons why some companies
choose not to have a program. This study also tested the
predictive power of job security,
compensation and opportunity on retention rates.
The data in this study found that for the organizations sampled
with a talent management
program (69% of those studied), participants overwhelmingly
recognized thestrategic value of
an effective talent management program despite significant
challenges to implementation.
Participants cited opportunity for job advancement as the most
significant factor affecting
retention rate. For the organizations sampled without a talent
management program (the
remaining 31% of those studied), while nearly all HR managers’
support talent management, the
primary reason given for the lack of a program is the absence of
executive management support.

The study further revealed that job security, compensation, and
opportunity for advancement
were not found to have predictive value for employee retention
rates.
Keywords: Talent Management, Employee Retention, Job
Security, Compensation
The Impact of Talent Management on Retention
During the last decade, a shortage has emerged of talent in the
workplace (Frank &
Taylor, 2004). As organizational leaders struggle to find
talented workers, leaders will be faced
with the dilemma of how to retain knowledgeable workers and
replace the 70 million Baby
Boomers who will be retiring from the workforce (Frank,
Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004). Companies
are now faced with the dilemma of how to address talent
management and reformulate strategies
20

especially in today’s global economy where every
organizational leader must continually invest
in human capital to combat the talent shortage (Temkin, 2008).
Human resources (“HR”) leaders will have to work closely with
senior management to
attract, hire, develop, and retain talent. Yet, HR leaders must
realize that the talent shortage
presents both socio-economic and cultural challenges as talent
crosses borders (McCauley &
Wakefield, 2006).Socio-economic challenges include the
changing demography, aging
workforce (i.e., Baby Boomers), lack of comprehensive
immigration legislation, global security
concerns the global economic doldrums, and off shoring and
outsourcing of jobs (Lockwood,
2006). Cultural challenges include cultural differences from
country to country, the power of
labor unions in different cultures, and management style
differences (Frank et al.). Organization
leaders must achieve long term stability from their talent
management strategies to remain
competitive in the global economy and not engage in short-term
approaches that result in

economic crisis, such as massive layoffs (Temkin, 2008).
Talent Management’s Growing Importance
For most of the 20th century, the primary concerns of mangers
in the workplace were
tangible resources, such as land, equipment, and money as well
as intangibles such as brands,
image, and customer loyalty (Dess & Picken, 1999). All their
efforts were directed towards the
efficiency of the two traditional factors of production-labor and
capital, but the times have
changed. In today’s economy, 50% of domestic product (GDP)
in developed economies is
knowledge based, which is centered on intellectual assets and
intangible people skills (Dess &
Picken). These changes have led organizations to develop a
highly integrated approach to talent
management as a necessity to ensure productivity, profitability,
and sustainable growth over time
(Perrine, 2005).To be able to successfully develop talent
management, organizational leaders
must understand the drivers of talent management: (a) the labor
pool, (b) retention, (c) the risk of

self-selection, and (d) the effect of hiring on retention.
Attracting, selecting, engaging, developing and retaining
employees are the five main
focuses of talent management. In order for companies to gain a
competitive advantage, the
demand for human capital will continue to drive talent
management (Towers Perrin, 2003).
Although pay and benefits initially attract employees, top-tier
leadership organizations focus on
retaining and developing talent (Lockwood, 2006). The talent
management process is used to
control certain events that each employee experiences in the
work place (Perrine, 2005).
Organizational strategies and talent management strategies will
continue to be driven by
workforce trends such as an increasingly global and virtual
workforce, different generations
working together, longer life expectancies and an empowered
and autonomous workforce that
have forever changed the workplace (Tucker, Kao, & Verna,
2005). Demographic changes have
also caused the workforce to continue to diversify--from age,

gender and ethnicity to lifestyles,
migration patterns and cultural norms (Ward-Johnson, 2007).
Retail organizations are already
taking advantage of changing workplace trends according to
Lockwood (2006, p. 2):
The Home Depot, Inc., the home improvement giant, focuses its
staffing initiatives on
older workers and partners with AARP for referrals; 15% of its
workforce is over 50.
21
Talent management strategies also provide the context for
diversity and inclusion. Proctor
and Gamble, for example, feels that getting the right mix of
people is a major part of
talent management and hires many of its leaders as university
recruits.
Anticipated skills shortage in the coming years is another factor
that is driving talent
management (Hickey & Dell, 2002) “While not all
organizations, industries and professions will

experience a lack of skills, organizations are already competing
for talent. For example, customer
service, health care, computer support and technology repair are
areas where there is an
anticipated acute talent shortage” (Lockwood, 2006). In
addition, as noted in the Society for
Human Resource Management’s (“SHRM’s”) 2005 Future of the
U.S. Labor Pool Survey
Report, the anticipated loss of talent in the next decade will
vary by organization size, sector and
industry (Collins, 2005). The study confirmed that large
organizations--as compared with small
and medium companies--are more concerned about loss of talent
from the retirement of the baby
boom generation (Rappaport, Bancroft, & Okum, 2003), public
and government organizations
are more concerned about the loss of potential talent than
private companies(Morton, 2005).
Key business strategies also drive talent management
(Morton).With the growing need
for global technical expertise, Ford Motor Company links
competency development to its
organizational strategic goals. Corporate branding, a key
organizational strategy, is

another business strategy that drives talent management.
Increasingly, firms are linking
their brand to employees and corporate behavior. At JPMorgan
Chase, for example, the
concept of leadership for all employees is part of its corporate
branding: ‘One Firm, One
Team, Be a Leader. (Lockwood, 2006, p. 3)
To sustain outstanding business results in a global economy,
organizations will rethink
and reinvent their approaches to talent management (Ashton &
Morton, 2005). Effective talent
management calls for strong participatory leadership,
organizational buy-in, employee
engagement and workplace scorecards with talent management
metrics (De Long & Davenport,
2003). Companies that master talent management will be well-
positioned for long-term growth
in workforce performance for years to come.
The Labor Pool
Even though the economic expansion and new job creation has
averaged 2.5% over the

last 10 years, the labor shortage will continue to be driven by
the inexorable pull of
demographics and a booming economy (Fischer, Sergevnin, &
Zadorskaya, 2001). “The growth
rate in the labor force will continue to shrink steadily and will
actually turn negative by 2015”
(Fischer et al., p. 21).
But this only reveals part of the story. Within critical age
categories of 25-44, the labor
pool is already shrinking, having an enormous effect on
professional, high technology and
service firms that traditionally draw their labor force from these
age groups (Stokes & Cochran,
1984). The 35-45 year old category also provides the prime
labor pool for executive talent in
large corporations, suggesting a critical gap in executive
recruiting and development for years to
come. Many firms are already scrambling to identify the new
pool of junior executives who will
one day run their firm (Taylor, 2002).
22

The rapid growth in the 45-54 and 55-64 year old groups
presents a different challenge.
Employee benefit costs continue to rise, since older workers
increasingly utilize benefit
programs, including health care, 401(k) participation and
traditional pension programs.
Opportunities for career advancement may be limited within this
pool, and keeping the
workforce motivated is highly challenging (Hansen, 2001). The
emergence of these two groups
makes the current labor market even more confusing for
traditional employers.
The sprout of the Internet based business and new technology
development of the early
1990’s led to what was known as “new economy,” a catchall
phrase that encompasses Internet-
based commerce and new technology, providing new and
alternative career paths for many
employees (“IBM Institute for Business Values,” n.d.). This
generation of employees, which is
referred to as generation Y, has caused the market valuations
for such new economy firms as

AOL and YAHOO to exceed the market valuations for the entire
U.S. automotive, steel and
railroad industries combined (Tucker et al., 2005). In effect,
traditional businesses are competing
for executive and professional talent with organizations that not
only can provide a lively
entrepreneurial work environment, but that can also provide the
potential for rapid wealth
creation through stock options and other nontraditional pay
programs (Hansen, 2001).
At the same time, there are significant attitudinal differences
between workforce
generations. Unlike Boomers, a large portion of Gen X and Y
children have grown up as
latchkey children in households where both parents worked
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). During the
wave of corporate downsizing in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
many of these children were
also disillusioned by the experience of seeing parents laid off
from organizations to which they
had dedicated a significant portion of their careers (Cascio,
1993). Thus, loyalty to an
organization is not seen as a rewarded value (Meyer & Allen).

On the contrary, the Gen X
employees are often skeptical of institutions and value
relationships and individualism (Tucker et
al., 2005). Gen Xers communicate easily through the Internet
and are rapidly aware of new
opportunities and developments. Thus, managing turnover and
retention becomes a diversity
issue in which organizational leaders have to create an
employment proposition that attract 22-
year-olds as well as to 60-year-olds, and everyone in between.
Retention
One of the primary concerns of many organizations today is
employee retention.
Retention is viewed as a strategic opportunity for many
organizations to maintain a competitive
workforce (De Long & Davenport, 2003; Schramm, 2006).
Attracting and retaining a talented
workforce keeps many vice presidents of HR thinking of
possibilities and opportunities
(Kaliprasad, 2006). Retention is improved when employees are
offered compensation and
benefits, have a supportive work culture, can develop and

advance and balance work and life
activities (Messmer, 2006).
“The war for talent” has almost become a cliché. The consulting
industry has responded
with countless articles, seminars and research studies. In the
past few years, several major studies
on employee retention have been completed, each purporting to
identify the “top five reasons
why employees leave” (Frank et al., 2004). While the studies
vary in their details, they all tell the
23
same story. Employees depart because their current employment
proposition--some mixture of
tangibles (pay and benefits), and intangibles (supervisor
relationship, work/life balance, work
content, career path, trust in senior management)--is
unsatisfactory, and they have the
opportunity to join another organization where, presumably,
that employment proposition is
better (Kaliprasad).

When talent acquisition and retention are a problem, the senior
team member consults
HR for answers (Patel, 2002). For HR professionals, this
provides a daunting challenge.
Traditionally, the HR profession has been built around silos of
expertise. Compensation experts
focus on market equity, incentive pay, retention bonuses and
stock options to solve retention
problems. Similarly, a benefits expert will focus on the
importance of flexible benefit plans
communicated brilliantly and delivered seamlessly. The
organizational design specialists address
work/life balance, supervisor training, and career development”
(Kates, 2006).
The best practice organizations treat employee retention as a
strategic problem (Farley,
2005). These organizations have well-defined plans that
prioritize the skills they wish to retain,
and the employment proposition best suited to the purpose
(Farley). The resources of the firm,
ranging from the executive team, HR, employee
communications, PR and line management are
teamed together to tackle the issue cooperatively (Patel, 2002).

The Risk of Self-Selection
Our labor shortage discussion underlines the complex dynamics
associated with labor
markets and turnover. Due to the fact that the causes of turnover
are diverse, “one size fits all”
approaches and unilateral approaches to retention can have
substantial unintended business
consequences, creating pools of self-selected employees
(Walker & LaRocco, 2002). This issue
is best illustrated by an extreme case. The U.S. subsidiary of a
foreign corporation dedicated to
high-technology factory automation systems was having
significant difficulty in hiring and
retaining skilled mechanical and electronic engineers. Pay was
observed to be fair, but not a
differentiator. On further investigation, several significant
organizational issues were uncovered,
including frustration with lack of direction, performance
management and cultural issues related
to a foreign parent company.
The single bright spot for the organization was an

extraordinarily rich traditional health
indemnity plan (Hansen, 2001). In fact, employee opinion
research showed that the health plan
was a primary reason why employees stayed, despite significant
frustration with other aspects of
the organization (Hansen). Ironically, the health plan became a
competitive disadvantage,
because it prompted this organization to self-select for
employees who were willing to tolerate a
high degree of organizational dysfunction in return for a rich
health plan--a work culture highly
unattractive to the best-of-breed engineers so badly needed by
this firm. In a different
environment, these same benefits could have been positioned as
a major selling point, or
reallocated into different programs more attractive to the
targeted audience (Bates, 2007). While
extreme, this example is by no means unique. Well-designed
cafeteria-style flex plans can create
unintended self-selection issues if other aspects of the
employment proposition are not justified.
http://web10.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+0381BDBF

%2D653A%2D4BC4%2DA799%2DC85C6CCF810C%40session
mgr7+dbs+aph%2Cf5h%2Ccmedm%2Cmth%2Cbwh%2Cawh%2
Cfph%2Cbth%2Ccph%2Ceric%2Cagh%2Czbh%2Chxh%2Chch%
2Cizh%2Csyh%2Clgh%2Clth%2Cmih%2Cfunk%2Cani%2Cnfh
%2Cagr%2Ctfh%2Crlh%2Cprh%2Ctih%2Cpbh%2Ciqh%2Culh%
2Cvoh%2Cser%2Cwdh%2Ctth+cp+1+0AF1&_us=%5F42&_uso
=%5F5&cf=1&fn=151&rn=151#toc
24
The Effect of Hiring on Retention
Effective retention practices start with good hiring practices--
qualified and motivated
people will stay longer. Poor hiring practices increase turnover
in two ways: new staff members
that are mismatched and disoriented will leave quickly;
experienced staff, on the other hand, can
become highly frustrated at the revolving door of newcomers
that places a continual burden on
their time and performance (Branham, 2005). Employee
orientation is a critical success factor in
hiring, and a large proportion of orientation is related to
communication and enrollment in
benefits (Branham). Never again will a firm have such a clear-
cut opportunity to communicate

the quality and value of benefits provided, or to demonstrate
concern for employee well-being
(Chambers, Foulon, Harnfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels,
1998). Yet a shocking number of
companies do not take advantage of this easy opportunity. Rich
benefit plans are a significant
competitive disadvantage if employees do not understand or
appreciate what they receive. A
rival firm could place a much higher proportion of total labor
dollars into base pay, potentially
drawing employees from other firms (Branham, 2005).
The Future of Talent Management
In view of workforce trends, such as shifting demographics,
global supply chains, the
aging workforce and increasing global mobility, forward-
looking organizational leaders must
rethink their approach to talent management to best harness
talent (Frank & Taylor, 2004). By
doing so, leaders will be positively positioned to succeed in a
highly competitive marketplace. In
addition, organizational culture, employee engagement and
leadership development have a

significant impact on talent retention (Frank & Taylor, 2004).
Taking the factors into
consideration, an integrated approach to talent management
offers a pathway toward sustaining
outstanding business results (Ashton & Morton, 2005).
Offering enormous business value, talent management is
complex and continually
evolving. Influenced by external factors such as the economy,
global expansion, mergers,
and acquisitions, critical success factors for effective talent
management include
alignment with strategic goals, active CEO participation and HR
management. Over time,
common themes around talent management are emerging, such
as the role of line leaders
in the development of talent. Overall, the main recurring themes
are CEO involvement,
culture, management, processes and accountability (Lockwood,
2006).
Anticipated workforce changes and cost-effective ways to
access talent are keys to the
next generation of talent management (Heinen & O’Neill,
2004). Predictive workforce

monitoring will lead to effective strategic talent decision-
making. Factors such as flexible talent
sourcing, customized and personalized rewards, distributed and
influential leadership, and
unified and compassionate workplace cultures will be important
for successful talent
management (Frank & Taylor, 2004). Companies will
increasingly utilize different types of
employment relationships, and nonstandard employment models
will continue to evolve. Free
agency employment relationships--contracting for the best
talent on an as-needed basis--will
become more common (Kaliprasad, 2006). To benefit from the
knowledge, skills and corporate
memory of mature workers, phased retirement will become
prevalent. Keeping workers engaged-
-particularly the next generations--may call for HR to redesign
the workweek, benefits packages
http://web10.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+0381BDBF
%2D653A%2D4BC4%2DA799%2DC85C6CCF810C%40session
mgr7+dbs+aph%2Cf5h%2Ccmedm%2Cmth%2Cbwh%2Cawh%2
Cfph%2Cbth%2Ccph%2Ceric%2Cagh%2Czbh%2Chxh%2Chch%
2Cizh%2Csyh%2Clgh%2Clth%2Cmih%2Cfunk%2Cani%2Cnfh
%2Cagr%2Ctfh%2Crlh%2Cprh%2Ctih%2Cpbh%2Ciqh%2Culh%
2Cvoh%2Cser%2Cwdh%2Ctth+cp+1+0AF1&_us=%5F42&_uso
=%5F5&cf=1&fn=151&rn=151#toc

25
and reward programs (Hansen, 2001). Scenario planning and
talent-match databases will become
essential planning tools (Taylor, 2002).
Scope of Talent Management
The scope of talent management fall into five major categories:
recruitment, performance
management, succession planning, training and development
and retention. Each of the five
components plays a significant role in talent management, but
are viewed as a complete set of
processes an organization must employ to successfully manage
the talent needed to execute the
business strategy (“A Framework for Talent Management,”
2007; see Table 1). The five
categories that shape talent management form a process an
organization must employ to identify,
acquire, deploy, develop, and manage the employees needed to
successfully gain a competitive
edge (“A Framework for Talent Management”).

With the challenges that every organization are now facing or
will face in the immediate
future, organizations must realize that the right people will not
simply come to their
organizations, and that the right people must be proactively
sought by those organizations with
their recruitment strategy. Organizational leaders must develop
a learning organization that will
continue to allow the employee to develop self, deploy a
performance management system that is
fair, transparent and allow for continuing coaching and
feedback, create an environment that
allows for leadership development through succession planning,
and use all means to retain
employees (Kaliprasad, 2006).
Table 1
Talent Management Process
Talent Management Process
Organizational achievements Employee
Recruitment Right employees

Performance management Performing the right job
Succession planning Right time
Training and development Right place
Retention Right skills and ability
Note. From “A Framework for Talent Management,” 2007,
Workforce Management, 86(12), pp. 7-8.
Methodology
The objective of this study was to identify a causative
relationship between an
independent variable (talent management) and a dependent
variable (employee retention), but
because researchers have no complete control over the
independent variables, their relationship
can be more suggestive than proven (Gay & Airasian, 2003). In
view of workforce trends, such
as shifting demographics, global supply chains, the aging
workforce and increasing global
mobility, forward-looking organizational leaders must rethink
their approach to talent
management to best harness talent (Frank & Taylor, 2004). An
integrated approach to talent

management offers a pathway toward sustaining outstanding
business results (Ashton & Morton,
26
2005). Our study sought to measure these relationships in order
to help establish the efficacy of
such programs.
The causal comparative method was used, because we were
trying to find out how having
talent management program affects retention (Cooper &
Schindler, 2003).Groups are not
randomly assigned to treatments and participants are not
randomly assigned to groups. We could
have used statistical controls for confounding influences if we
had gathered data on confounding
variables and used them as covariates in our analysis, but we
decided that was beyond the limit
of our immediate concerns.
Selection of Subjects
According to the quantitative research approach, the survey

technique was the most
appropriate to select participants for our study. The survey was
constructed to address the issues
surrounding talent management programs compared to the
retention rate before and after
deployment of the program. With the sample population being
the organizations with talent
management programs already in place, approximately 200
emails were randomly sent directing
potential participants to the online survey. Potential participants
included human resources
personnel, such as HR generalists, managers, and directors.
The research sample included HR personnel from 36
organizations out of the targeted
200 organizations with the majority of the respondents located
in the Southeast (45.7%) and with
the next two largest regions being the northeast (22.9%) and the
Midwest (17.1%). The survey
respondents included senior HR personnel at the targeted
organizations, including HR
generalists, managers and directors.
Instrumentation

Survey questionnaires were used to evaluate the talent
management and retention as well
as to analyze how the retention in the organization hadchanged
since those organizations
implemented talent management programs compared against
their retention rate when the
organizations had no talent management program in place.
Questionnaires are a useful research
tool when a large ѕаmple or even a population needs to be
surveyed. Eасh person was аѕked to
respond to the same set of questions, providing an efficient way
of collecting responses from a
large ѕаmple. Other advantages of questionnaires are that they
require less skill and sensitivity to
administer than interviews and they reduce the possibility of
interviewer bias. Therefore, our
study wasbased on the questionnaires investigation. The two
main purposes of the questionnaires
were recognized to be: to draw ассurate information from the
respondent; to provide a standard
format within which fасts, comments and attitudes could be
recorded.

The research questions could have been formulated in a number
of ways. The researcher
understands that the selection of questionnaire methods is very
critical to the success of the
survey. A questionnaire is essentially a data capturing
instrument. It lists all the questions to
which the researcher wants the respondents to answer and it
records the response of the
interviewee. The questionnaire was designed to have open-
ended, closed-ended, dichotomous
questions and multiple-choice questions.
27
Open-ended questions are asked to obtain unprompted opinions,
which are categorized as
qualitative data. In other words, no predetermined set of
responses exists, and the participant is
free to answer however the participant chooses (Pannell &
Pannell, 1999). Open format
questions are effective to solicit subjective data or when the
range of responses is not tightly
defined (Pannell & Pannell). An obvious advantage is that the
variety of responses should be

wider and more truly reflect the opinions of the respondents.
The method increases the likelihood
of receiving unexpected and insightful suggestions when
predicting the full range of opinion is
impossible. A questionnaire usually concludes with an open
format question asking the
respondent for ideas for changes or improvements (Pannell &
Pannell).
Fixed response questions force the respondent to choose one or
more responses from a
number of possible replies provided in the question (Pannell &
Pannell, 1999). Closed ended
questions usually provide quantitative data (Pannell & Pannell,
1999). Two broad groups of
closed questions include: dichotomous and multiple choice.
Dichotomous questions allow only
two possible answers: yes or no, true or false, and so forth. The
dichotomous questions are the
simplest of all closed questions. Multiple choice questions
present a list of possible responses
from which the respondent may choose. Multiple choice
questions must be designed саrefully to
incorporate all possible answers. By offering an “other, pleаѕe

specify” category, that саn be
collated, that wаѕ not originally conceived, or responses that do
not fit neatly into the imposed
structure(Pannell & Pannell, 1999).
The type of questions that were used in this investigation was a
mixture of both open and
closed questions. The majority of the questions were closed
ended questions, because closed
format questions offer many advantages in both time and
money. By restricting the answer set, it
is eаѕy to саlсulate percentages and other hard statistiсаl data
over the whole group or over any
subgroup of participants. Closed format questions also make it
eаѕier to trасk opinion over time
by administering the ѕаme questionnaire to different, but similar
participant groups at regular
intervals. Closed format questions allow the researcher to filter
out useless or extreme answers
that might oссur in an open format question.
Central Research Questions:
R1.What are some of the challenges that your organization

faced in the war of talent?
R2. What are the factors that are driving retention rate in your
organization?
R3. What reasons do organizational leaders give for
implementing a talent
management plan?
R4. What has been the outcome of deploying talent
management programs?
Supporting Questions:
R5. What is the level of agreement (or rank order) of
Challenges, Retention, Program
in Place, and Decide to Implement survey questions?
R6. Does Retention predict Retention Total Scores?
R7. Does Opportunity predict Retention Total Scores?
R8. Does Compensation predict Retention Total Scores?
R9. Does Job security predict Retention Total Scores?
28
The participating HR personnel answered an 18-question online

survey about various
factors, talent management program characteristics, resources,
programs, and practices that may
impact employee retention. Survey data was collected utilizing
two types of closed-ended
questions. The first type of questions asked the organizational
respondents to rank the various
factors by levels of importance with regards to causality or
effect on a certain attribute. The
second type of question asked the organizational respondents to
rank how strongly they agreed or
disagreed with a number of statements regarding talent
management programs within their own
organizations.
Procedures
The data was collecting through the web/online. The
questionnaire was posted online
with a link where the respondent could just click on the link to
answer the survey. The survey
targeted HR managers, HR directors, and vice presidents of
HRs. The e-mail messages were
designed to invite potential candidates to participate in the web-

based survey by providing a
unique password that protects against multiple responses by the
same respondent. The survey
was administered through a secure server to protect the privacy
of the respondents.
Primary and secondary data was collected to describe the impact
talent management has
on retention. The research instruments were administered
personally to managers and human
resources personnel to ensure that all entries were filled to
avoid invalidating the process. In the
survey portion, the respondents were asked to rate their answers
according to the Likert scale.
The interview questions included bасkground information,
positioning, brand central idea,
сommuniсаtion, management and employers skills. For
secondary data, information was
obtained from magazines and websites. The survey did provide
data to populate a very rich
databаѕe, which enables researchers to give possible answers
that are important for management
recruitment and retention.

Results
In a competitive marketplace, talent management is a primary
driver for organizational
success (Lockwood, 2006). Companies doing the best job of
managing their talent deliver far
better results for shareholders. Companies scoring in the top
quintile of talent-management
practices outperform their industry’s mean return to
shareholders by a remarkable 22 percentage
points. Talent management isn’t the only driver of such
performance, but it is clearly a powerful
one (Chambers et al., 2001). Retaining knowledgeable
employees is a key goal of senior
management and one of the primary motivators for having a
talent management program.
Although pay and benefits initially attract employees, top-tier
leadership organizations focus on
retaining and developing talent (Lockwood, 2006). Improving
an organization’s retention rates
represents a significant opportunity for an organization to
improve its bottom line and it serves as
one of the primary focuses of a well-designed talent
management program.

While there are a number of factors that affect the retention
rates of valued employees, it
is widely believed that the most important factor is the way in
which an organization and their
HR department administers its talent management program.
Awareness of exactly how important
these programs are to an organization and an understanding of
how the various aspects of talent
29
management programs impact retention are both useful for
management as they seek the
determine the costs and benefits of implementing various HR
programs. The present study
sought to investigate the perceptions of HR managers on the
usefulness of talent management on
retention within their organizations.
In particular, this study sought to determine the quality and
effectiveness of talent
management programs by examining: i) Organizational
attitudes towards talent management

programs; ii) Employee retention and the causes of employee
turnover (negative retention); iii)
Organizational experience with having a talent management
program and their organizational
outcomes after having implemented the talent management
programs; iv) Finally, the predictive
ability of the various aspects of talent management programs on
retention were measured.
Attitudes Toward Talent Management
Organizations and their HR departments have direct control
over a number of variables
that may be important to retaining valued employees. It is
sensible to assume that their choices
with regard to the variables under their control may be driven
by their viewpoint of the
effectiveness of these variables on retention rates as opposed to
the costs of implementing them.
Management and HR departments both need to be convinced of
the efficacy of talent
management on retention before these policies can be
implemented.
The overall sample of HR personnel regarded corporate strategy

as the primary reason
why their organization did not have a talent management
program, indicating that HR personnel
perceived that explicit corporate policy that did not value talent
management or a policy that did
not allocate the requisite resources or money towards a talent
management programs were the
biggest impediments to utilizing those programs within their
organizations. The perspective that
talent management is not worth the cost is at odds with
prevailing corporate wisdom. Research
shows that organizations increasingly focus on talent
management. Moving from reactive to
proactive, companies is working hard to harness talent.
According to SHRM’s 2006 Talent
Management Survey Report, 53% of organizations have specific
talent management initiatives in
place. Of these companies, 76% consider talent management a
top priority (Lockwood, 2006).
The number of organizations in America convinced of the
usefulness of these types of programs
is only slightly over half of all organizations. This means that a
meaningful consensus has yet to
be reached on this topic and that more research needs to be done

in order to convince the talent
management hold-outs of the value of such programs.
In the view of the HR departments in this study, corporate
strategy and leadership
commitments are the top reasons why talent management is not
a strategic priority for their
organizations. The belief in talent and its impact onthe bottom
line are at the heart of talent
management. To be effective, the talent mindset must
beembedded throughout the organization,
starting with the CEO (Lockwood, 2006). Quite simply, if the
senior management of an
organization buys into the talent management concept, it will be
entrenched into the fabric of the
corporate culture. Alternatively, if senior management is not a
believer, the firm’s scarce
resources will be allocated to other pet projects.
30

Employee Retention
In addition to ranking attitudes towards talent management
programs, HR department
personnel expressed their views on the relative causes of
employee turnover. The data confirms
Lockwood’s findings that although pay and benefits initially
attract employees, it is not the
primary reason given for retaining them. There have been a
handful of studies on this topic over
the past few years and while the studies vary in their details,
they all tell the same story.
Employees depart because their current employment
proposition--some mixture of tangibles (pay
and benefits), and intangibles (supervisor relationship, work/life
balance, work content, career
path, trust in senior management)--is unsatisfactory, and they
have the opportunity to join
another organization where, presumably, that employment
proposition is better (Kaliprasad). All
of the reasons listed for why employees leave organizations fall
under the purview of talent
management and understanding employee hot buttons should
provide insight into where

organizations could deploy resources to reduce turnover.
The opportunity for advancement, job security and
compensation were the top three
reasons given by the survey respondents for leaving an
organization in order of relative
importance. The fact that compensation was not the most
important factor corroborates other
studies and validates the proposition that an effective talent
management program should address
opportunity for advancement as well as job security and that
merely having a competitive
compensation scheme is not an adequate employee retention
program. Clearly there are other
more important factors other than compensation that
organizations should focus on improving in
order to reduce turnover.
Implementing a Talent Management Program
In addition to ranking attitudes towards talent management
programs and retention, the
study examined the programs that are already in place within
the organizations that responded to

the questionnaire. In particular, the study asked if an
organization had a specific talent
management program and asked the respondents about their
views on the efficacy of these
programs.
The majority of the respondents’ organizations did in fact have
a talent management
program in place. Furthermore, the respondents indicated that
they generally agreed that the core
tenants of talent management were valued by their organization
and were deemed important. In
particular, the respondents agreed that retention is a leadership
priority; that retaining workers
depends on talent management; and that their organizations are
committed to promotion from
within (which was the primary reason given previously for
turnover). Interestingly, the data
revealed that respondents did not think that their organizations
offered job security, which was
listed previously as one of the major causes for turnover,
suggesting that these organizations
could stand to improve their current talent management
programs. Finally, the respondents did

not agree that their organizations offered comparable
compensation to similar firms in their local.
Given that the compensation is listed as one of the lesser
reasons for employee turnover, it makes
sense that being strictly competitive in this area might not be a
particular priority for an
organization given that there are other more important retention
factors.
31
Respondents were equally divided on whether their
organizations knew how to measure
talent performance and productivity while they overwhelmingly
believed that emphasis on
effective talent management will pay off in the long run. This
would seem to indicate that there
has been significant progress made with regards to convincing
HR personnel of the value of
these concepts; however more improvement is still needed in
attaining agreement on
implementation strategies.

Talent Management’s Predictive Ability
Due to its intuitive appeal, the researcher sought to determine if
the responses from some
of the specific questions regarding each of the different aspects
of talent management could
predict the retention composite score calculated earlier in the
study using regression analysis.
The responses to the questions did not predict the retention
composite score in a statistically
significant way. This does not mean that there is no link
between the variables, only that the way
that we defined the variables and gathered the data in our
specific study did not have any
predictive ability.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As changing demographics have inexorably altered the business
landscape, it is generally
accepted that organizations are currently dealing with the
daunting task of replacing
knowledgeable and talented workers. Furthermore, the
consensus is that there has become a

shortage of talent in the workforce and that companies will have
to actively wage war for talent
in order to get the right people with the right skills into their
organizations. Many American
companies are already suffering a shortage of executive talent.
Three-quarters of
corporateofficers surveyed said their companies had
“insufficient talent sometimes" or were
"chronically talent-short across the board" (Chambers, et al.,
1998). Due to these issues, senior
management focuses a substantial portion of their resources on
attracting, hiring, developing, and
retaining talent in order to remain competitive. Human resource
(“HR”) departments are at the
center of these personnel acquisition and retention efforts by
being responsible for coordinating
talent management programs, although buy-in is required across
the organization in order for
these programs to be effective. Broadly defined, talent
management is the implementation of
integrated strategies or systems designed to increase workplace
productivity by developing
improved processes for attracting, developing, retaining and
utilizing people with the required

skills and aptitude to meet current and future business needs.
The data and analyses contained in
this research suggest a number of valuable and insightful
conclusions regarding the impact of
talent management.
HR personnel surveyed recognize that retaining key employees
is vital to the health and
profitability of their organizations and they overwhelmingly
believe that effective talent
management will pay off in the long run for their organizations.
Various programs within
organizations are always competing for scarce resources and
management must always seek to
find the right balance between cost and benefit and in the
opinion of the HR personnel that
responded to our survey, the benefits outweigh the costs when it
comes to talent management.
Although there seems to be unanimity regarding the theoretical
usefulness of these programs,
there appears to be some room for improvement for the
implementation of talent management

32
programs as organizations are equally divided among those who
understand how to measure
talent performance and those who don’t.
There are slightly more organizations with talent management
programs than those
without. In our study, we found a higher percentage of
organizations using talent management
(approximately two thirds) than previous studies where this
number was barely above one half
(Lockwood, 2006).HR department personnel firmly agreed that
retaining workers is dependent
upon having talent management programs and they also agreed
that the organization had to
internalize and embrace the basic aspects of talent management
as well. Despite the fact that HR
department personnel tend to agree that talent management
systems are an essential ingredient in
successful organizations, many organizations (nearly one third
according to our research) still do
not have talent management programs. For organizations
without talent management systems,

the primary reason given for this absence is the lack corporate
strategy or the lack of corporate
leadership. This would indicate that although HR personnel
have near complete buy-in to the
concept of talent management, senior management on the other
hand would seem to be divided
on the efficacy of these programs.HR personnel recognize that
there are multiple factors that are
important with regards to the retention of employees. The most
significant of these, in their view,
is the opportunity for advancement as well as job security with
compensation falling further
down the list.
Future Research
The current study was exploratory and descriptive in nature, and
therefore helped to
define some of the parameters and patterns of the perceptions of
HR personnel regarding what
matters in employee retention. Future research should extend
the examination of this study to
more definitively answer several important questions.

Further research is suggested to inspect what, if any programs
or practices help improve
the present factors that HR personnel perceive to be
fundamental to employee retention. Our
study focused on our ideas on what may help improve employee
retention, but it did not address
their ideas. In particular, research is recommended to determine
how best organizations (those
with the lowest turnover) can facilitate the meeting of employee
needs and improve retention.
Additionally, the current study does not directly assess all of
the potential factors relevant
to employee retention, but uses the preconceived ideas of the
researcher. In too many cases the
answer “other” was used indicating that perhaps a wider number
of potential factors should be
included in the analysis.
Further research is also recommended to examine the usefulness
of talent management
programs on other important aspects within the programs
themselves. Since the war for talent
focuses on four main facets, it would be similarly useful to
measure the impact of talent

management on attracting, hiring and developing employees as
well as on retaining employees.
Another idea that might be explored would be to compare and
contrast the experiences of
different organizations that utilize talent management systems
against those that do not. In our
study we combined the attitudes and perceptions of HR
personnel regardless of whether they had
33
a talent management program in place or not. Separating the
two groups might provide insight as
to whether perception and reality are similar.
Moreover, it would be useful to examine the dissonance
between the HR personnel’s
agreement in the usefulness of talent management programs
versus their self-perceived inability
to correctly measure talent performance. It would be interesting
to know why they do not seem
able to correctly measure talent performance when it is deemed
critical to the organization.

Finally, investigating the reasons why management does not
have the same conviction
with regards to the usefulness of talent management programs
that the HR department has would
be beneficial. HR personnel are in near unanimity regarding the
usefulness of talent management
programs, yet a large percentage of companies fail to implement
these programs. Understanding
the underlying reasons for management’s resistance to these
concepts might open the door for
more widespread adoption of talent management programs.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Dr. Victor Oladapo is the recipient of the Doctor of Business
Administration degree in
Management from Argosy University and the Masters of Public
Administration from Troy
University. He is an adjunct faculty member at Strayer
University. Dr. Oladapo’s expertise
comes in the field of healthcare management, human resources
management, business and
Management.

34
References
A Framework for Talent Management. (2007). Workforce
Management, 86(12), 7-8.
Ashton, C., & Morton, L. (2005, July/August). Managing talent
for competitive advantage.
Strategic HR Review, 4(5), 28-31.
Bates, S. (2007). Trend reports: Global pressures widen HR’s
horizons.Retrieved August 7,
2007, from http://www.shrm.org
Branham, L. (2005). The 7 hidden reason employee leave. How
to recognize the subtle signs and
act before it is too late (1st ed.). NY: AMACOM.
Cascio, W. F. (1993). Downsizing: what do we know? What
have we learned? Academy of
Management Executive, 7, 95-104.

Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Harnfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.
M., & Michaels, E. G. (1998). The
war for talent. The Mckinsey Quarterly, (3), 44-58.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Harnfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.
M., Michaels, E. G., Axelrod,
E.L., & Welsh, T.A. (2001). War for talent, part two. The
Mckinsey Quarterly, (2), 9-11.
Collins, J. (2005, June). 2005 future of the U. S. labor pool
survey report. Retrieved September
5, 2007, from http:/www.shrm.org
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research
methods (8th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Irvin.
De Long, D. W., & Davenport, T. (2003, Fall). Better practices
for retaining organizational
knowledge: Lessons from the leading edge. Employee Relations
Today, 30(3), 51-63.
Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (1999). Beyond productivity. New
York: AMACOM.

Farley, C. (2005, Spring). HR’s role in talent management and
driving business results.
Employee Relations Today, 32(1), 55-61.
Fischer, R. J., Sergevnin, V. A., & Zadorskaya, D. A. (2001). A
new paradigm for police officer
retention: Intellectual capital v. the law enforcement officer.
Illinois Law Enforcement
Executive Forum, 1(3).
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race
for talent: Retaining and
engaging workers in the 21st century. HR. Human Resources
Planning, 27(3), 12-27.
Frank, F. D., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). Talent management: Trend
that will shape the future. HR.
Human Resources Planning, 27(1), 33-42.
35
Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research:
Competencies for analysis and application

(7th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Hansen, F. (2001, Sep/Oct). Currents in compensation and
benefits. Compensation and Benefits
Review, 33(5), 6-26.
Heinen, J. S., & O’Neill, C. (2004, Summer). Managing talent
to maximize performance.
Employment Relation Today.
Hickey, J., & Dell, D. (2002). Sustaining the talent quest.
Retrieved September 1, 2007, from
http://www.theconferenceboard.com
IBM Institute for Business Values. (n.d.). Closing the
generational divide: Shifting workforce
demographics and the learning function. IBM Global Business
Services. Retrieved
September 5, 2007, from http://[email protected]
Kaliprasad, M. (2006, June). The human factor 1: Attracting,
retaining, and motivating capable
people. Cost Engineering, 48(6), 20-26.

Kates, A. (2006). (Re) Designing the HR organization. Human
Resources Planning, 29(2), 22-
30.
Lockwood, N. R. (2006, June). Talent management: Driver for
organization success. Research
Quarterly,1-13. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from
http://www.shrm.org
McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006, Winter). Talent
management in the 21st century: Help
your company find, develop, and keep its strongest workers.
Journal for Quality &
Participation, 29(4), 4-7.
Messmer, M. (2006). Four keys to improved staff retention.
Strategic Finance, 88(4), 13-14.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the work
place: Theory research and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morton, L. (2005). Talent management imperative: Strategies
for execution.Retrieved September
4, 2007, from http://www.theconferenceboard.com

Pannell, P. B., & Pannell, D. J. (1999). Introduction to social
surveying: Pitfalls, potentials
problems and preferred practices. Sbstainability and Economics
in Agriculture GRDC
Project, 1-15. Retrieved August 4, 2008. Retrieved from
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/seameth3.htm
Patel, D. (2002, March). Managing talent. HR Magazine, 47(3),
112.
Perrine, P. (2005). Integrating talent management. Human
Resources Management, 36(2).
36
Rappaport, A., Bancroft, E., & Okum, L. (2003). The aging
workforce races new talent
management issues for employers. Journal of Organizational
Excellence, 23(1), 55-66.
Schramm, J. (2006, Sep). Future focus: Targeting retention. HR
Magazine, 51(9).

Stokes, G., & Cochran, R. (1984, September). The relationship
between national level of
unemployment and the rates of admission to mental hospitals in
England and Wales.
Journal of Psychiatric and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 19(3),
117-125.
Taylor, C. R. (2002, December). Focus on talent. T+D, 56(12),
26-33.
Temkin, S. (2008). Managers feel strain of economic crisis.
Business Day, 20.
Towers Perrin. (2003). Working today: Understanding what
drives employee engagement.
Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.towersperring.com
Tucker, E., Kao, T., & Verna, N. (2005). Next-generation talent
management: Insights on how
workforce trends are changing the face of talent
management.Retrieved September 5,
2007, from http:/www.hewitt.com
Walker, J. W., & LaRocco, J. M. (2002). Perspectives: Talent

pools: The best and the rest.
Human Resource Planning, 25(3), 12-15.
Ward-Johnson, F. (2007, July). Why retaining diverse
employees is key today. Public Relations
Tactics, 14(7), 15-17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Consumer FoodAnnual Food Spending ($)Annual Household
Income ($)Non mortgage household debt ($)Region: 1 =
NE 2 = MW 3 = S 4 = WLocation: 1 = Metro 2 =
Outside
Metro890956697231801156843594570521110706526871614911
14112740412183911138556318218866111561979064218991126
94259818774119127574241576611135147204527685116314380
46854511762252408280571143224140569981138052968448061
16674492461359211734741491408811291126703158761180264
87531671411856755555167831110345714832140711869450980
19114118821464037817118678519271441511143318476917295
11961959062166871192865795214161118206583551953811164
08816941518711127576952214651111774096132011773957796
22057111538388276189611457932264797911116796592801112
87769924273301116232911089876119621540701990811817147
23817819111212877427313401186425980549631112400603346
63211918554114185931278624068015202129775582631486126

77152008217131230593964312179121321170309132211274084
64505602121158176140338741214233808331147812335231899
27621226302164726631290936592411355121265265923513212
95596281112613126112423353149121043165134151961212630
64621214331245783655355021295516291011376121026270727
13287129551576341185721101435654916136218955596621162
72110197573501843221112345644710871219320611360219089
51526490221123007997917270211148466733151452111215753
59156112172044079589752155793912865762111723754821250
82193536399802177614584566712142613822385762198306678
71178211238677852936218673558251416721109445702290182
19910642631276821992875881174232142643434321323217971
41243210092182905302120151211266966991925021727249719
20838219784583991606521918750477940721586639112204092
19456518861166822627034797146229518623485201221096878
70417002228865536203200422922651577159222249133476117
70422697660968177992281525128181672228872501318763228
06259238108152288954734411814228444526452246922614835
30917139224563343551061222818550630211873133912905615
73531743648721183633195225045916478311129072805212383
11040356954222183146933934324696315626388331437131118
69550213557631130557760581731878357937185913113031633
43255313136813647917950315549403811425731410826309265
81316314414212247031770054579290653174794055131757319
09350369640431986354422243343180435183626213329552736
00363743292865187329631327987480031726132387536519135
79321074675152106593268884497423711325479489234594326
94943769212213210650759473335732518841423336413253114
01891779132469136772582932805659690195943211304536542
30663281125906724032869665962032586937254101573237763
35681414332118295693403213087888221756541109865963527
86341576238407188674111617786271189441989547710229304
11629364443316874181855887135424411397287954115494111
24354778125524146353982519494411006349536121954184266
01021378741743649139223564111747510524553411539770500
12025416842548941621741967860570410641128525762531228

41101145695625907418496614001093416689505321710641156
96727741779341984169981216074112529668911768941102106
74311999541886864782144894164263898717864411109664867
58394110086504218689412587270761753441124925178420284
42845654135220374268015329123342426339498043494342780
25220528579429717728412234942602646238201654256184593
81053842102177771618516428338597117980429048421061978
64240173646299354210906534031817742151487129066964288
30667592097242848157616287674211358762211373421055378
20259204269695516424795421321961171214824235433409325
96942732650647107504284585989822940421176652884259704
2990873629711242
FinancialCompanyTypeTotal RevenuesTotal AssetsReturn on
EquityEarnings per ShareAverage YieldDividends per
ShareAverage P/E
RatioAFLAC672512945417.12.080.90.2211.5Albertson's414690
521921.42.081.60.6319Allstate6201068091820.13.5610.3610.6
Amerada Hess7834079350.20.081.10.6698.3American
General63362806207.12.1931.421.2American
Stores419139853612.21.011.40.3423.5Amoco7362873248916.7
2.763.11.416.1Arco
Chemical2399541166.21.146.12.840.4Ashland71431977779.53.
82.31.112.4Atlantic
Richfield7192722532221.85.413.82.833.8Bausch &
Lomb51916277360.892.61.042.6Baxter
International56138870711.51.062.31.1347.2Bristol-Myers
Squibb5167011497744.43.1421.5224.1Burlington
Coat1177777512.31.180.10.0212.9Central Maine
Power395422992.40.167.80.979.6Chevron7419503547318.64.95
32.2815.2CIGNA61493510819913.74.8821.111.4Cinergy343538
85813.31.595.11.822.4Dayton
Hudson12775714191181.71.20.3316.2Dillard's1681755929.22.3
10.40.1615.7Dominion
Resources37678201937.92.156.82.5817.7Dow
Chemical2200182404023.67.73.63.2411.6DPL31356358513.91.
25.30.9114.3E. I. DuPont

DeNemours2466534294221.32.082.11.2327.9Eastman
Chemical24678577816.33.6331.7616Edison
International392352510112.31.734.2113.6Engelhard2363125866
.10.331.90.3861.8Entergy39562270014.21.036.91.825.4Equitabl
e6966615143812.32.860.50.213.4Ethyl71064106753.60.715.60.
512.6Exxon71372429606419.43.372.81.6317.1FPL
Group363691244912.23.573.71.9214.4The
GAP16508333833.71.30.70.222Georgia
Gulf29666132282.391.10.3211.8GIANT
Food4423115227.91.182.40.7826.9A &
P41026229956.91.661.20.3517.8Great Lakes
Chemicals2131122705.51.191.30.6240.5Green Mountain Power
Company31793268.31.577.31.6114Hannaford
Bros.4322612279.91.41.50.5426.6Hercules218662411473.182.2
114.5Houston Industries368731841581.666.61.513.7Jefferson-
Pilot625782313114.53.472.31.0413.3Johnson &
Johnson5226292145326.72.411.50.8524.1Liberty6660318511.13
.341.80.7712.7The
Limited19189430110.60.792.30.4826.7Lincoln
National64899771750.40.213.11.96300.2Lubrizol216741462192
.662.61.0114.5Lyondell
Petrochemical73010155946.23.583.90.96.4Mallinkrodt5186829
8814.82.471.70.6616May Department
Stores112685993020.53.112.41.216.2McKesson5208575608111.
591.20.526Mercantile
Stores1314421787.93.532.11.1916.3Merck5236372581236.63.7
41.71.6926.6Millennium
Chemicals23048432612.62.472.90.68.3Mobil7659064355916.84
.013.12.1217.2Monsanto27514107747.20.481.10.590.7Morton22
388280512.31.4810.3625.2Murphy
Oil72138223812.32.942.61.3518Mylan
Laboratories555584813.50.820.90.1622.4NALCO
Chemical214341441252.12.6118.3Nevada
Power3799233910.11.656.81.614.2NIPSCO32587493714.11.534
.10.914.4Olin22410194617.432.81.214.5Orion
Capital615913884164.151.50.69.8Owens &

Minor531177139.40.61.40.1821.7Pacific
Corporation36278138805.20.684.61.0834.2J. C.
Penney130546234937.72.13.82.1326.9Pennzoil72654440615.83.
761.6117.1Pfizer5125041533627.91.71.10.6835.4Pharmacia &
Upjohn56710103805.80.613.11.0856.2Phillips
Petroleum7154241386019.93.6131.3412.4Poe &
Brown612919425.11.481.50.3516.3PPG27379686828.53.942.31.
3314.7PP&L
Resources33049948511.41.87.71.6712Progressive64190756018.
75.310.30.2417Rohm &
Haas23999390019.82.132.20.6313.4Ruddick4230088512.51.021
.80.3217Schering-Plough56778650751.21.951.50.7424.6Sears,
Roebuck1412963870020.32.991.80.9217.4Stryker598098520.51.
280.30.1127.2Sun7105314667182.72.8113Sunamerica62114356
3714.71.80.90.319.5Texaco7466672960020.94.873.11.7511.5Th
e TJX
Companies17389261026.31.750.60.098.2Torchmark6228310967
17.52.391.70.5914.2Tosco713282597510.91.370.80.2423Travel
ers63760938655514.92.540.90.417Ultramar Diamond
Shamrock71088255959.51.943.51.116.1Union
Carbide26502696428.84.531.60.7910.7United States Surgical
Corporation5117217267.51.210.50.1629UNOCAL76064753028.
92.6520.815.5UNUM640771320015.22.591.30.5617USX-
Marathon7157541056512.61.582.40.7619.8Valero
Energy7575624939.62.031.20.4217.2Warner-
Lambert58180803130.71.041.40.5135.7WEIS
Markets418199729.21.8730.9416.9Wellman2108313194.80.971.
80.3520.5Winn-Dixie
Stores413219292115.31.362.70.9827.2WITCO221872298141.55
2.91.1224.9Zenith Nation Insurance660112527.81.573.7117
HospitalHospitalGeog.
RegionControlServiceBedsAdmissionsCensusOutpat.
VisitsBirthsTot. Exp.Payroll
Exp.Personnel11212107713107869823125683122061792211134
71606519814922210771272235579917623121511230283562225
65102715709361326231041111424338100367103552446210503

32857114090591335016813730636818164212201556315988721
38109325733920107774411375347651888857354545826919742
84218063648102091615127681319121440159542537734317339
89924095615941011148182721339772571156956642331111156
16172717925169113565084241126314629543027170430152007
08520313631109280543302630208489709325146213069871233
43128204962778289586761564177562960002112030012300347
16611163421172171638362015791763116784268466073264841
41720633505186214441825821917022324501449666166715431
96312368280112310221465679973128575520631247544912444
42501231754189995921631935247502955119932831812589325
22621236113011429017822758808032191954236212209466111
17214614941073133866810912461122810444140956491313116
48649017671256318326482815507451206253009300266212739
24915451102168967519280667532762122577631509165415836
00802194460728631236106881446848220179440138757929296
31806671423522199526094134643543062178776177373702045
38825159514083152119795531191539941686105672467101251
32521602730271606050329444125833863352131111215367351
26849639181443422126413395179267091202615384486780204
73522124612264175140152141212831263615134336221556128
11461683301517122809635161723371325686032577807079320
29638121120550274364610508232034652939111674265474142
94682271936770616534436944012141412260253818851074856
96341171042411313204147180476361421296991239110714211
13151280418492458762108848435751525431213441653924318
53133194141031564211983441211687566115663094965620722
12867045111315158532159337314421312975236616534613288
26624865330961747351674713124587331247877311076344228
08879348121311151961891151552989109394477448414911123
31466181186591139840559331650111468129115190441724559
35113110323122830661031628108473735212133123052883560
01732084810389263531111861054110876176106456185243739
43541211774469154571047594340621388605557211495994761
11901131740014174505965673128611142165173393175175810
32620116557312488508295002629821070568583312425682101

37461057236214615075932112855116937898714300631471747
96032133925122467999794733881366132125513780185146454
22431431185663014566232148128390378796525396627024411
30933486633211919899114859861308832233853788564332601
24749359550201518139243653211559893106192386251410552
34004810016632162631452460236900371432372514399133016
73211051456434715212615701747833768341594706292921055
56330146272119369321258995012512100413278822235949116
17032147194017450574152227411191322713112212411031833
21610900554218572331531475144335733914830662420573311
24497311731035951217716913380412247432135214974207110
75426411550976177117047532136672842231814307905592624
52081576321194535682484135204210417721712773111094586
42677035642832801567832128511624139599315116812779656
47617697932117580801092000487936508328006875803123421
25929800282461878379081331140287652319202232493463088
23115040434134681425471235708331221479416800215171379
54948433280746211007404861259111185141467612239017967
60114160690511618861118082347104090808636232448712116
06584809176977645492189555258813110638705053424451245
29942047289132408591132251046632569949012199331345308
14145162967925297911111336306761722531284556632206484
79213113827641291790713293610177234932218841126085800
31929164136634019422157326392418121321215432966712815
83928952214414971735357295177147700198962212258187138
89248496843474516412319722110562516410322558943323178
37545982211005335621721058065357828592663992111868184
13187453701765373378982010022137521169265331478396818
81908617225811013424854112456109270010382258336129810
23226417854077490872348711261033114952132731031273336
55231187100456253410433111453872001608377892511053326
28831958500528326378510634114918971126977603494623156
43210731242759237500536043428086410833240104915004479
21716610932112995077864109306358597226115561103111491
58912313721169147387040347111321716175448469667934413
02391123212567203961074408278877943895973113131153615

68241705703554313390439114112129714071106555107333447
27318491151117016093014630049373172102116312691666566
37601430772602621173417134773623806034253307225128851
18331243566712716191249443013208085491193122061499180
00212601475561112034162125659688860295811376233012152
12199275127420580160226728551471122511541433732240304
31637751235412415031310510128621939948126212452115117
64100278892351739566043281253311603228472917933926343
11304377126311262368919457144398361121862157512732129
61401817213974112751565435837819161285316713737551611
94625699239458100322262012953118476991205331313645622
11842157113051124979311798886971445034244277031312411
57201814010254704680422395535132232100510789350208215
33160133232100227168134050178747685202134221375118211
86184144779102559479251330135221123409391361720369221
51603701362114571698734030483922023227861709563123137
51126319776254362424334619661981345274513852116077981
08875111071680843031081513952169281461646513523545218
21057614022115336111746983325424702127065021412122601
63306566620508503500080814223234213280048612032501432
21479484839526258369955313247427281442219732475392333
90092462343160188865408714521144021004335550588331127
53051474173012146121511114612570243510536814711134719
02631628749842071807818347430901481426123378416129088
01040095554213581491111414080745446033931187152425761
50121115203086326781301370653522841513215094438149959
16885384114515232126110112147866071143155709785352312
15334233444102321091110800884394811241543122285151380
02791117394336155321853233386790650926229124874151563
21357149002452790791026143322724091779157312189107617
10027683177843381583311394014515906144736847108614531
59341603108282027391161277901496943716031216411327974
24320129907256261161721105752856988059224891423004609
16271111466856927365562488552458464716371173568401144
37861482917611647413148408163289471017624186574207416
57213501748423119653421221738178041422321662126025705

23006270338412948167241741426318567404168016082409168
22253196343848065844779153169221152537366658247103886
31658374117022131714275231162753116513169670732162517
11414314381128750146643490259935381721312691150814417
20471106847312863978917313179404443839633763945211190
39517434118132171851696980718063919295617532112229388
26589863726355102723621761226532464951167014183772314
41771319724812462150352152416424229178131169534863648
34447384831156839617912140716466274134581122714828754
58822561801311606504933024696354167213477311811411171
22098681336930381180765198614771821328012662838130602
63084102183132100767255742063902695106184131370897418
15340686880866303729391855311234085395607311893177010
26039218651138016647302314122849241842981383516187521
14984798020959517285609521266785188521112726063163261
21714397721292607189221612730315958436423025941027319
02222192161170149230313661809063019111126013943203138
40429939765942580137919212135012132296100323096458458
98110819313112178948385585196446491217445831947212064
56784107027601398362067151419571170208929243693871725
77425216196721334156961871026411946168045781181593197
72119063957724425454579859336391055198512122441104001
53218878399199511170724485167454838582472501883420051
1733524797145145652228104
Title
ABC/123 Version X
1
Communication Process
COM/295 Version 4
1
University of Phoenix MaterialHospital Worksheet
Complete the following table.

· Reviewthe steps of the communication model on in Ch. 1 of
Business Communication. (See Figure 1.3).
· Identify one personal or business communication scenario.
· Describe each step of that communication using your personal
or business scenario. Use detailed paragraphs in the boxes
provided.
Hospital
Geog. Region
Control
Service
Beds
Admissions
Census
Outpat. Visits
Births
Tot. Exp.
Payroll Exp.
Personnel
Identify Qualitative or Quantiative
Level of Measurement

For quantative column, evaluate the mean
Interpret the mean in plain non-technical terms
For quantative column, evaluate the median

Interpret the median in plain non-technical terms.
For quantitative columns, evaluate the standard deviation and
range

Interpret the standard deviation and range in plain non-technical
terms
Additional Insight
Use the Excel =AVERAGE function to find the mean
Use the Excel =AVERAGE function to find the median
Use the Excel =STDEV.S function to find the standard deviation
For range (maximum value minus the minimum value), find the
maximum value using the Excel =MAX function and find the
minimum value using the Excel’s =MIN functrion
Copyright © XXXX by University of Phoenix. All rights
reserved.
Copyright © 2015 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Title
ABC/123 Version X
1
COM/295 Version 4
2
University of Phoenix MaterialFinancial Worksheet
provided.
Company
Type
Total Assets
Total Reserves
Return on Equity
Earnings Per Share
Average Yield
Dividents per Share
Average P/E Ratio

range
terms

Additional Insight
reserved.
Title
ABC/123 Version X
1
COM/295 Version 4
1
University of Phoenix MaterialConsumer Food Worksheet

provided.
Annual Food Spending ($)
Annual Household Income ($)
Non mortgage household debt ($)
Region: 1 = NE 2 = MW 3 = S 4 = W
Location: 1 = Metro 2 = Outside Metro

range
terms
Additional Insight

reserved.
Statistics Concepts and Descriptive Measures
Purpose of Assignment
The purpose of this assignment is to orient students to the key
concepts in statistics. This assignment will introduce students to
the language of statistics. Students will also get a chance to
warm up on evaluating some basic descriptive statistics using
Excel® prior to the course start.
Assignment Steps
This assignment has an Excel® dataset spreadsheet attached.
You will be required to only do one of the three datasets.
Resources: Microsoft Excel®, Statistics Concepts and
Descriptive Measures Data Set
Download the Statistics Concepts and Descriptive
Measures Data Set.
Choose one of the following datasets to complete this
assignment:
· Consumer Food
· Financial
· Hospital
Complete one of the selected worksheets found under Student
Materials (Consumer Food Worksheet, Financial Worksheet,
Hospital Worksheet) with the following:
· For each column, identify whether the data is qualitative or
quantitative.
· Identify the level of measurement for the data in each column.
· For each column containing quantitative data:
· Evaluate the mean and median
· Interpret the mean and median in plain non-technical terms
· Use the Excel =AVERAGE function to find the mean
· Use the Excel =MEDIAN function to find the median

· For each column containing quantitative data:
· Evaluate the standard deviation and range
· Interpret the standard deviation and range in plain non-
technical terms
· Use the Excel =STDEV.S function to find the standard
deviation
· For range (maximum value minus the minimum value), find
the maximum value using the Excel =MAX function and find
the minimum value using the Excel's =MIN function
· The Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet should be used to compute
the required data and show your work.

Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014, Volume .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014, Volume .docx

Similar to Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014, Volume .docx (20)

More from christiandean12115

More from christiandean12115 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014, Volume .docx