Turnover Spike in Housekeeping
You manage a 220-room select-service hotel. Housekeeping has run at 78% annualized turnover for the past two quarters, up from 41% a year ago. Exit interviews (only 30% of leavers complete one) cite schedule unpredictability and workload. Room attendant starting pay is $15.50/hr, $0.75 above the local market median. The hotel is running 82% occupancy with a 14.5-minute average clean time budget per occupied room, and your room attendants are averaging 16.2 minutes. Overtime in housekeeping has risen to 6.8% of housekeeping payroll. The GM has approved a one-time $18,000 budget for retention initiatives but wants a plan that pays back within 12 months. Your staffing model shows each departure costs roughly $3,900 in recruiting, onboarding, and lost productivity.
1. Diagnose the most likely root causes of the turnover spike and identify which is most actionable within the $18,000 constraint.
Read the worked answer
Two signals dominate: schedule unpredictability and workload. The exit data is thin (30% response), so treat it as directional, not definitive. The productivity gap (16.2 vs. 14.5 min) combined with 6.8% overtime suggests the workload complaint is real, not perceptual - attendants are absorbing more rooms per shift than the labor standard assumes. Schedule unpredictability is cheap to fix relative to pay. The most actionable lever is schedule stability: publishing schedules 14 days out and reducing last-minute shift changes. This addresses the top stated reason without consuming the full budget. Pay is already above market, so a raise is unlikely to be the efficient fix and would not address the workload driver. Recommend a schedule-stability policy plus a time-study to validate whether the 14.5-minute standard is achievable at current room mix.
2. Build a payback case for spending the $18,000. Show the arithmetic and state the assumption that most affects the answer.
Read the worked answer
At ~$3,900 per departure, $18,000 is recovered by preventing about 4.6 departures - call it 5. With roughly 60–70 housekeeping employees at 78% turnover, annual departures are on the order of 47–55 per year. Preventing 5 is roughly a 10% reduction in turnover, which is a modest and defensible target for a schedule-stability intervention. If the program cuts turnover from 78% to 70%, that is ~5 fewer departures and the budget pays back inside a year. The assumption that most affects the answer is the $3,900 replacement cost - if it is overstated, the payback case weakens materially. Validate that figure against actual recruiting, training hours, and vacancy days before committing. Also note that overtime reduction (6.8% of payroll) is a second, separate savings stream that strengthens the case.
3. The GM asks whether to simply raise starting pay to $16.50/hr instead. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Push back with reasoning, not just preference. Pay is already $0.75 above market median, so the marginal effect of another dollar on turnover is uncertain and the cost is permanent, unlike an $18,000 one-time spend. A $1.00 raise across ~65 housekeeping employees is roughly $135,000 in annualized base wages before burden - far beyond the approved budget and recurring. It also compresses the wage scale, creating equity problems with longer-tenured attendants and adjacent departments. Recommend addressing the stated drivers (schedule and workload) first, measuring turnover for two quarters, and revisiting pay only if the data shows compensation is the binding constraint. Offer to run the comparison and bring back a costed recommendation.