We were discussing the topic of sales force turnover the other day. I argue that if you're turnover is too low (single digits) in your sales force, that you're doing something wrong. I don't pretend to know the ideal ratios, but there must be something that makes your sales team think that your company is some sort of safe harbor if you have a sizeable (20+) sales team and very low turnover. I've been obsessed, as a switcher of companies, to redefine my commitment to my career, goals, and the company that I'm with, instilling enough confidence in my potential employer to hire me, without writing me off as a flight-risk, due to my low rate of tenure in my multiple positions over the past few years.

It is very refreshing to see some research on this topic coming to the fore. In this week's HBR Working Knowledge, Mallory Stark takes a closer look at an article, Knowledge Nomads: Organizational Commitment and Worker Mobility in Positive Perspective from the February issue of HBR, by interviewing the authors Todd L. Pittinsky and Margaret J. Shih. Todd and Margaret posit "...focus instead on lead indicators that measure employee commitment. In our work, we measure commitment as the degree of an employee's psychological attachment to a company and the intensity (quality and quantity) of physical and mental effort the employee expends on behalf of the company. The second important innovation in how we measure commitment is our use of commitment patterns. We measure commitment to company alongside commitment to career, commitment to coworkers and commitment to personal goals. This allows us to see how commitments are compatible or in conflict for employees. And this very quickly identifies the critical opportunities for intervention for managers to elicit commitment."

I couldn't agree more. Commitments to greater goals, such as career, project success, skill building, and continuous learning are far more important to some than who they work for. I know, this is unsettling in some circles. It doesn't mean that the corporate culture is lost on 'knowledge nomads', but rather, it is part and parcel of their overall commitment to themselves and their co-workers.

The real kicker in this article is their view on turnover. As they state, turnover is NOT a problem, but rather a symptom of something greater. Hence, low or high turnover can simply be viewed as indicators or good, bad or indifferent practices or processes, depending on your frame of reference and what side of the corporate fence you're on.

I face the same issue having worked for a number of start ups. Sometimes, you have to admit it is not working, and move on. I think that is a more noble decision than staying for 3 years out of some misguided loyalty. If the company decides hiring you was a bad decision, they certainly won't keep you around for an extra year or two.

Dana - MT-blacklist thinks my domain name is questionable content - so I removed my URL. Am I on the blacklist? That is almost sort of cool ;)