Inventory Turnover Rate Calculation

𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗤𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗕𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 — 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗤𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗲. For years, we’ve accepted the idea that “𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 — 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀.” It’s a comforting line. It feels obvious. But new research shows it’s only half the story — and sometimes a dangerously incomplete one. A study using an 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵–𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 lens reveals something far more nuanced: 👉 Some employees leave to escape something (bad managers, burnout, toxicity). 👉 Others leave to pursue something (growth, meaning, flexibility, better alignment). 👉 And most? They leave because of both forces at the same time. This means turnover isn’t a single-story problem. It’s a 𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹-𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 (𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴): • Poor manager behaviour • Lack of recognition • Toxic or political culture • Stress, overload, unclear roles • No psychological safety Yes — these matter. A lot. But they don’t explain the full picture. 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 (𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗢𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴): • Career growth • Skill development • Better pay or opportunities • More meaningful work • Flexibility and autonomy • Stronger culture fit elsewhere These are rarely about “bad bosses.” They’re about better futures. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁: People don’t quit only because of pain. They quit because of comparison — the difference between what they have and what they believe they could have. Turnover is the result of: 𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: “𝗜 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀.” + 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵: “𝗜 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿.” When companies overly focus on fixing the managers, they miss the bigger levers — job design, growth pathways, culture alignment, workload balance, and real opportunities for mobility. Retention isn’t a manager-only issue. It’s a system issue. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀: The most revealing question is NOT - “Why are people leaving?” It is, “What are they escaping — and what are they moving toward?” That’s where the real answers hide. And where the real retention strategies begin.

When I first stepped into HR, the number everyone kept talking about in review meetings was: Attrition. “How many people left this quarter?” “Which department saw the highest exits?” “What’s our turnover rate compared to the industry?” For years, attrition became the north star metric not because it was the goal we wanted to achieve, but because it was the easiest number to track. Leadership often judged whether things were “going well enough” based on exits, without asking the harder questions behind them. Here’s the problem: attrition is a lagging indicator. It tells you who already left. It doesn’t tell you who might leave next. That’s where most companies miss the point. If you want to build teams that are ready for the future, the focus needs to shift from: ❌ “Who walked out?” ✅ “Who’s still here, and can see a future with us?” Think about it: when employees stay by choice, they don’t just fill a seat. They bring experience, mentor others, fuel innovation, and carry culture forward. High attrition doesn’t just cost money it erodes trust, slows execution, and leaves leadership constantly playing catch-up. Of course, not every exit is bad. Healthy turnover brings fresh skills and perspectives. But when good people leave for avoidable reasons, that’s a sign the system needs a rethink. Here’s how leaders can shift the focus from just tracking exits to creating workplaces where employees want to stay: ✅Build listening systems – Regular pulse checks, stay interviews, and feedback loops that go beyond surveys. 👉 When was the last time your organization actually asked employees why they stay or think about leaving? ✅Design growth pathways – Transparent internal mobility frameworks so people can see their next role inside the company, not outside. ✅Integrate wellness with work – Mental, physical, and financial well-being should be part of how work is done, not just perks. ✅Strengthen manager capability – Equip leaders to have meaningful conversations about purpose, performance, and growth. When leaders focus on career growth and capability-building, employees stay by choice, not by policy. They stay because they feel valued, not because they’re bound. And that changes everything. #EmployeeEngagement #InternalMobility #HRLeadership #FutureOfWork

By the time a top performer hands in their resignation, the battle was already lost months ago… If your HR dashboard only tells you who resigned last month, you are driving your company while looking in the rearview mirror. Let's talk about the difference between “forensic” metrics and cultural prediction. Most executive tables still look at monthly turnover rates and exit interviews to measure organizational health. But as I mentioned, when that resignation letter arrives, it is just the final symptom. Exit interviews don't fix the culture; they just document the casualties. Managing complex operations across LatAm has taught me that in high pressure environments, reactive HR is a luxury you simply cannot afford. The real power of AI in People Analytics is not generating prettier charts, it is moving HR from post mortem reporting to predictive design. By crossing and analyzing variables like meeting overload, lack of focus time, and collaboration metadata, we can spot the early signs of collective burnout before the damage is done. (of course, among others!) To make this shift, we need to change how we use our data: • Stop the post mortem: Shift your energy from exit interviews to predictive "stay" analytics. • Connect the invisible dots: Use AI to correlate digital workload data with cultural erosion. • Deploy targeted empathy: AI does not replace the human touch; it tells leadership exactly which team needs an intervention today. Technology should help you protect your culture, not just count who left because of it. Is your HR team predicting your next talent crisis, or just reporting on the last one? #PeopleAnalytics #HRLeadership #FutureOfWork #AIStrategy #LatAmBusiness #CHRO

I've interviewed 47 reliability engineers who left asset-intensive industries in 2025. The exodus isn't about money. It's about something far more troubling. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 These weren't junior techs chasing better pay. These were highly experienced reliability engineers with 8-15 years in field. Team leaders. Subject matter experts. The backbone of reliability programs across mining, oil & gas, and manufacturing. Their reasons for leaving revealed a pattern: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗼𝗽 𝟱 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀: 𝟭. "𝗡𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗨𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀" (𝟴𝟯%) • Recommendations ignored for budget reasons • Data-driven insights overruled by gut feel • Predictive maintenance treated as optional 𝟮. "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗚𝗮𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲" (𝟳𝟮%) • Can't find qualified replacements • Training budgets slashed • Knowledge transfer programs abandoned 𝟯. "𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆" (𝟲𝟴%) • KPIs focused on cost reduction, not prevention • Reliability seen as maintenance expense • No seat at strategic planning table 𝟰. "𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗠𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴" (𝟲𝟭%) • 70%+ time spent on breakdowns • PM programs constantly deferred • Reactive culture despite reliability title 𝟱. "𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸-𝗟𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗘𝗹𝘀𝗲𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲" (𝟱𝟰%) • Constant callouts • Weekend shutdowns standard 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 This isn't just turnover. It's a brain drain costing the industry billions. When experienced reliability engineers leave, they take: • Years of failure pattern knowledge • Undocumented tribal knowledge • Operations relationships • Trust built over decades 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗦𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 • Embed reliability in operations KPIs • Create clear career progression paths • Invest in continuous education • Give reliability a voice in CAPEX decisions • Measure prevented failures 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 Pull your HR data: • Reliability engineer turnover rate? • Average tenure dropping? • Succession plans in place? If you're losing experienced reliability professionals, you're losing your asset performance foundation. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗪𝗲'𝗿𝗲 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 At Holistic Asset Management, we're deploying experienced reliability engineers through our RaaS model to: • Fill critical gaps immediately • Transfer knowledge to your workforce • Build sustainable reliability programs • Demonstrate ROI for leadership buy-in 8 sites transformed in 18 months. Average: 35% reduction in unplanned downtime. The fix requires leadership to understand: 𝑹𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒊𝒔𝒏'𝒕 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒆. 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒕 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒆. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂? DM me to explore how RaaS can bridge your reliability gaps. #ReliabilityEngineering #AssetManagement

WHAT MALAYSIA’S EMPLOYMENT DATA IS REALLY TELLING US A recent statistic revealed that 59% of Malaysian workers quit because of toxic bosses, the highest in Asia Pacific. Another study also showed that the top causes of unhappiness at work among Malaysians include salary and benefits at 54%, limited career growth and poor work life balance at 31%, poor management at 30%, and lack of appreciation at 29%. Look carefully and most of these are not technical problems. They are leadership, culture, process, and organisational maturity problems. I often see organisations operating at 5 levels of maturity: self, team, organisation, customer, and ultimately purpose. The way leadership responds to surveys, engagement, and turnover often reveals which level they are truly operating at. One thing I realised is this: employee surveys, engagement exercises, and turnover discussions often reveal the maturity level of the organisation itself. The survey result is not the real story. The organisational response to the survey is. Sometimes a survey says “workload issue” and management immediately concludes that more manpower is needed. But often the real issue is poor process flow, duplicated work, unclear ownership, slow approvals, inefficient systems, or high performers constantly compensating for weak structures and weaker performers. Employees become exhausted not because work is difficult, but because inefficiency consumes energy every single day. The same thing happens with engagement surveys. Engagement drops and management responds with team building, pizza, family day, wellness week, free coffee, or motivational talks. Meanwhile employees are silently thinking the real issue is leadership, trust, fairness, accountability, politics, and broken processes. Many organisations confuse morale activities with structural solutions. As the saying goes, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” A company can have brilliant strategies, transformation plans, KPIs, and expensive consultants, but if the culture is toxic, political, fearful, inefficient, or disconnected from reality, even the best strategy eventually collapses. You cannot team build your way out of broken culture. The same pattern appears during resignations and high turnover. Organisations often comfort themselves by saying employees left because they received “better offers” elsewhere. Sometimes true. But many employees would stay despite lower pay if leadership was strong, culture was healthy, growth was clear, and the environment remained sustainable. Salary is often not the root cause. It is simply the final trigger that makes leaving worthwhile. A mature organisation therefore does not only ask, “Why did employees leave?” It also asks, “Why were employees emotionally available to leave in the first place?” Because in the end, employees do not disengage from work first. They disengage from leadership. #MalaysiaEconomy

Most leaders are surprised when a high performer resigns. They shouldn't be. In my experience, employees rarely make the decision to leave overnight. The decision is usually made months earlier. It happens when their ideas are consistently dismissed. It happens when they deliver results but only hear feedback when something goes wrong. It happens when accountability feels uneven, trust starts to erode, and employees begin questioning whether their contributions really matter. By the time the resignation letter arrives, the real problem has been developing for quite some time. What concerns me is that many organizations still treat turnover as a recruiting problem. Often, it's a leadership problem, a culture problem, or a people risk problem. Every departure carries a cost. Work slows down. Institutional knowledge walks out the door. Remaining employees absorb additional responsibilities. Managers spend time replacing talent instead of developing it. The impact extends far beyond filling an open position. That's why I encourage leaders to pay attention to the signals that appear long before someone resigns:  The employee who stops contributing ideas. The high performer who becomes disengaged. The manager with recurring turnover on their team. The growing reluctance to speak up, challenge decisions, or offer feedback. These are not engagement issues. They're early indicators of people risk. The dashboard is usually the last place the problem shows up. By the time turnover appears in a report, employees have often been communicating the issue for months through their behavior. People Risk Is Business Risk. Organizations that retain great talent don't do it because they have better retention programs. They do it because they have leaders who create environments where people can contribute, grow, and succeed. Retention is rarely about keeping people. It's about creating reasons for them to stay.

A resignation is data. Most companies treat it as an event. That is why they keep repeating the same mistakes. Last week, I was speaking with a business owner who proudly shared that he had replaced a departing employee within two weeks. He saw speed as the victory. I saw a different question that nobody was asking: Why did a valuable employee decide to leave months before submitting the resignation? In my experience, employees rarely quit because of one bad day, one difficult project, or one disagreement. They leave when small frustrations compound without resolution. A lack of growth becomes frustration. Frustration becomes disengagement. Disengagement becomes departure. Many leaders focus on replacing talent. Few focus on preventing the loss of talent. That distinction matters more than ever. In today's AI-driven workplace, technical skills can be learned faster, processes can be automated, and knowledge can be documented. What cannot be easily replaced is trust, credibility, customer relationships, team chemistry, and years of accumulated context. One perspective I rarely see discussed is that high turnover is often not a recruitment problem. It is an organizational design problem. When the same role experiences repeated exits, the issue is usually hidden in leadership behaviors, decision-making quality, career progression, workload management, or workplace culture. The companies that consistently retain top talent do not wait for exit interviews. They pay attention to early signals. When talented employees stop sharing ideas, stop challenging assumptions, and stop showing enthusiasm, they are often emotionally checking out long before they physically leave. A vacancy can be filled in weeks. Trust can take years to rebuild. My takeaway: The real cost of losing an employee is not replacing a position. It is losing someone who once believed their future could be built inside your organization. The organizations that win over the next decade will not be those that hire the fastest. They will be those that give great people fewer reasons to leave. LinkedIn LinkedIn News India #Leadership #FutureOfWork #WorkplaceCulture #LinkedInNews

Your third development director in two years just started last week. Your major donors are about to stop giving, and they won't tell you why. Let me walk you through what's happening in Mr. and Mrs. Smith's living room right now. They're looking at the welcome email from your new development director. It's the third "nice to meet you" message they've received since 2022. They're wondering if they should even bother responding this time. Here's what happened to us this year: We gave a mid-level gift to a nonprofit we've supported for two years. In January. They never acknowledged it. Never thanked us. Radio silence. In August, they introduced us to their new development officer. We replied immediately, wanting to have a conversation and build a relationship with this person. They never responded back. Now we're considering decreasing our giving or stopping altogether. Not because we don't believe in their mission, but because we're wondering: if they can't manage their revenue generation side, how are they actually leading on the program side? This is exactly what Mr. and Mrs. Smith are thinking about your organization. Last year, they built a relationship with Sarah, your previous development director. They shared their passion for your mission, explained their giving philosophy, and even introduced you to two other potential donors from their network. Then Sarah left abruptly. No transition meeting. No introduction to her replacement. Just a generic email from your ED saying "we're excited to announce our new development team member." The replacement lasted eight months before moving on to "pursue other opportunities." Your donors aren't going to tell you this directly. They're just going to quietly reduce their giving and eventually stop responding to your calls. Your turnover problem isn't just costing you staff replacement expenses. It's destroying the relationships that fund your mission. Every time a development director leaves, they take institutional knowledge, donor relationships, and cultivation momentum with them. Stop treating development positions like they're replaceable. Start treating them like the mission-critical relationships they manage. Because in fundraising, donor relationships are built on trust, and trust requires consistency you can't provide with constant turnover.

After analyzing turnover data across thousands of restaurant locations, I've been diving deep into what I call the "ghost employee" problem -- new hires who go through the onboarding process then disappear within their first 90 days. The financial impact is bigger than most operators realize. That's in large part because many don't even count these departures in their turnover metrics. I've been talking to operators who straight up exclude ghost employees from their turnover calculations - "We don't include people who quit during training." I think this is in large part because it's psychologically easier to dismiss these departures as "bad hires" rather than acknowledge the systematic failure in their onboarding process. But those ghost employees consumed real resources, real manager time, and real training dollars regardless of how briefly they stayed. We all know turnover is expensive, but the industry has been surprisingly vague about putting real numbers on what it costs when employees quit in their first 90 days. Cornell University's hospitality research team found the full cost of turnover hits $6,000 (and change) per employee when you account for recruiting, selection, training, administrative overhead, and productivity loss during replacement. Black Box Intelligence™ uses different methodology but gets similar numbers - $2,300 for hourly staff, over $10K for managers, $17K for GMs. The key insight comes from HourWork's analysis of 8,000 QSR locations: only 54% of new hires survive their first 90 days, which means 46% of your training investment generates zero return. For a 25-person restaurant running at industry-standard 135% turnover hires 34 people annually. With 46% early departure rate, that's 16 ghost employees per year. Even using conservative estimates of $2,300 per hourly employee, you're looking at $37,000 in direct costs alone. Per location. But here's what's really interesting. The same Black Box data shows operators in identical markets maintaining 50-75% turnover while competitors struggle with 135% or higher. Same labor market, same pressures - totally different outcomes. The difference isn't compensation or benefits - it's how they handle those first 90 days. We've seen this with customers like Life's Food: A Five Guys Franchise, who cut turnover 50% by replacing traditional onboarding with structured, mobile-first training that actually engages people instead of overwhelming them with information dumps. The real question isn't whether turnover is expensive - it's whether you're measuring the right things. Most operators track overall turnover rates, but the actual profit leak is in that first 90-day window where you're getting zero ROI on training investment. Once you calculate your ghost employee cost and compare it to the price of proper onboarding systems, the business case becomes obvious. The operators winning on retention aren't spending more on training - they're spending smarter.

Don't let a 0.9% resignation rate fool you. Visier Inc.’s May 2026 data shows a four-year low - slightly below the usual 1% seasonal average. But low turnover isn't always a sign of high engagement. Sometimes, it’s just a sign of a cautious market "waiting out" the AI transformation. Leaders must look at the tension behind any number - even those that seem innocent or unthreatening. What our resignation report also tells us is this: 📉 The youngest workers (20–25) still have the highest churn at 2.9%. Instead of using AI to redesign entry-level roles, organizations are using it to replace them. Young workers may not be leaving the workforce—they may be leaving stagnant companies for competitors that offer AI-augmented career paths. 👩🏫 Individual contributors are resigning at 3x the rate of managers. If your frontline is in motion while your management layer stays put, there could be a structural disconnect between the people designing the AI strategy and the people tasked with executing it. ❤️🔥 The AI "Stay" Factor: workers are more likely to stay when their employer has a clear AI growth plan. People aren't just looking for a pay check; they’re looking for AI-resilience. #Leadership #PeopleAnalytics #FutureOfWork #AI #RetentionStrategy