ORG 5091 Module 2 Capstone Problem Diagnosis Example

Shifting Schedules, Thin Coaching and No One to Ask: Why New Evening Associates Leave an Ohio Warehouse

Student Name

American College of Education

ORG5091: Organizational Leadership Capstone

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

August 14, 2028

Introduction

The proposal for this capstone set out the problem: in the past year the evening crew I lead lost well over half its people, 58 percent of associates left in a year and 64 of 99 departures came within 120 days of hire. This paper diagnoses the causes. It reports what HR records, exit calls, listening sessions, a supervisor session and a pulse survey revealed, organizes the findings with the Burke-Litwin model and weighs alternative explanations before naming the causes the remaining modules will address.

A Model for Organizing the Evidence

Burke and Litwin (1992) proposed a model that separates transformational factors, such as mission, leadership and culture, from the day-to-day factors it calls transactional, among them how work is organized, how managers behave, the policies and tools people use, the climate of the immediate team and the fit between person and job, and traces how both affect motivation and performance. The model is useful here because associates' explanations for leaving mixed both kinds of factors. It also helps separate causes I can influence as shift manager, mainly management practices, work unit climate and local systems, from those set elsewhere, such as company pay policy.

What the Records Show

HR records for 24 months covered 187 second-shift departures. Early departures were not concentrated by hire source; associates hired through the staffing agency and directly left at similar rates within 120 days. They were concentrated in two ways. First, early leavers had worked an average of 7.8 hours of mandatory overtime a week in their final month, compared with 4.1 hours for those who stayed past 120 days. Second, early turnover varied by supervisor from 29 to 61 percent, and the two supervisors with the highest rates led teams of 41 and 44 associates, compared with 28 to 32 for the others.

What Former Associates Said

An HR partner reached 31 of 52 associates who left in the past six months. The most common reasons were not knowing when they would get off work, mentioned by 19, because overtime was often announced an hour before the shift ended; feeling left alone after the first week, mentioned by 15; and finding a job with predictable hours, mentioned by 13. Pay was mentioned by 11, usually as a secondary reason. Several described a first week with a trainer followed by being placed on a picking route without anyone to ask when the scanner flagged an error.

What Current Associates Said

Four listening sessions with 46 current associates, two held in Spanish, repeated these themes. Associates said late overtime notices made it hard to arrange childcare and rides. Newer associates said they hesitated to stop a supervisor, who often covered several areas, to ask a question. Longer-tenured associates said they were willing to help new hires but were measured on their own picking rates, so helping cost them. Several Spanish-speaking associates said training materials and scanner prompts were only in English, which made the first weeks harder.

What Supervisors Said

The five supervisors agreed that overtime decisions came late because daily volume from stores was not confirmed until mid-afternoon and absences were not known until the shift began. The two supervisors with the largest teams said they spent most of the shift solving equipment and staffing problems and rarely talked with new associates after their first days. All five said the shift had three trained floor trainers for about 40 new hires a quarter, so trainers returned to their regular work after the first week.

What the Survey Added

A pulse survey completed by 112 associates gave these themes numbers. Only 34 percent agreed that they usually knew their end time at the start of a shift. Among associates with less than six months of service, 41 percent agreed that they knew whom to ask for help, compared with 78 percent of those with more than a year. Agreement that pay was fair for the work was 52 percent on both shifts, so pay perceptions did not distinguish the second shift from the first.

Weighing the Explanations

Three explanations were tested against the evidence. Pay is a real concern but is unlikely to explain the gap between shifts, because both shifts earn the same base rate plus a second-shift differential and survey responses on pay were identical. Hire source does not explain early exits, because agency and direct hires left at similar rates. The evidence consistently supports three other factors: unpredictable overtime, too little support after the first week and supervisor spans that leave new associates without guidance. These fit research showing that predictable schedules matter to hourly workers; Schneider and Harknett (2019) found that unstable schedules, including short notice, were linked to psychological distress and poor sleep among service workers.

How the Sources Fit Together

Triangulation matters because each source has a bias. Records show what happened but not why. Former associates explain why but may remember selectively. Current associates describe conditions now, but those who stayed may differ from those who left. Supervisors see the operation's constraints but may underestimate their own part. Where all four sources agree, as they did on late overtime notices and the lack of help after the first week, the finding is stronger than any one source could make it. Where only one source raised an issue, such as English-only scanner prompts, the issue is noted but treated as secondary.

Placing the Causes in the Model

In Burke-Litwin terms, the causes are transactional. Unpredictable overtime is a systems problem, rooted in how volume and absences are forecast and communicated. Thin floor training is a management practices and structure problem. Wide supervisor spans are a structure problem that shapes work unit climate, since new associates do not feel able to ask for help. Mitchell et al. (2001) described job embeddedness as built from links to others, fit and what a person would sacrifice by leaving. New second-shift associates form few links, experience poor fit with their lives and have little to lose by leaving, which explains why most exits happen early.

Limits of the Diagnosis

The diagnosis has limits. Exit calls reached 60 percent of recent leavers, and those who answered may differ from those who did not. Listening sessions depend on who volunteered. Supervisor differences may reflect the areas they lead as well as their span. These limits do not change the main pattern, because records, former associates, current associates and supervisors pointed to the same three factors, but they argue for testing any response before applying it to the whole shift.

Conclusion

Early second-shift turnover at the Columbus distribution center is best explained by unpredictable mandatory overtime, support that ends after the first week and supervisor spans too wide for new associates to get help. Pay and hire source were examined and set aside as primary causes. Each cause lies within or close to my scope as shift manager. The next paper will identify alternative responses to these causes, compare them and choose the one to implement.

References

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391

Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. (2019). Consequences of routine work-schedule instability for worker health and well-being. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 82-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418823184