The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971, to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States. "Amtrak" is a portmanteau of the words "America" and "track".[1] It is headquartered at Union Station in Washington, D.C.[2]
All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. Common stock was issued in 1971 to railroads that contributed capital and equipment; these shares convey almost no benefits[3] but their current holders[4] declined a 2002 buy-out offer by Amtrak.[5]
Amtrak employs nearly 19,000 people. It operates passenger service on 21,000 miles (34,000 km) of track primarily owned by freight railroads connecting 500 destinations in 46 states[6] and three Canadian provinces. In fiscal year 2008, Amtrak served 28.7 million passengers, representing six straight years of record ridership.[6][7] Despite this recent growth, the United States still has one of the lowest inter-city rail usages in the developed world.
Amtrak's origins are traceable to the sustained decline of private passenger rail services in the United States from about 1920 to 1970. In 1971, in response to the decline, Congress and President Richard Nixon created Amtrak. The Nixon administration secretly agreed with some railroads that Amtrak would be shut down after two years. After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak.[8] Though for its entire existence the company has been subjected to political cross-winds and insufficient capital resources, including owned railway, Amtrak's ridership has maintained consistent growth.
1) Distinguish between those employees that you really want to retain because of the impact they have on your business, and those that you would like to retain but could replace if necessary.
2) For those individuals or groups of employees identified as belonging to the first category, take a proactive approach to retention. The single most sensible step you can take is to conduct a retention interview.
3) Think carefully about your employee value propositions. What is it that each person truly values? Is there a way of increasing the total value on offer by making some minor changes?
Employee Retention Strategies Guide written by retention expert Colin Brown looks at topics such as retention focused recruitment, retention focused orientation, job sculpting, retention focused managing, retention focused career support, work-life balance strategies, reward and communication.
So if you're reading this during June, July or August of 2007 then do take advantage of this special offer. Simply click on the link and it should appear.
I've written a lot about talent retention over the last few years. Many of you will be familiar with the general themes, such as the importance of dialogue, negotiation, flexibility and so on. Of course it is important to stress that not all departures can be prevented, and this is especially true of your top performers.
If you are interested in learning what you need to do in order to keep hold of your best people, then do take advantage of my free 5 part e-course on talent retention. Just click on the link, sign up and then make sure to click on the link in the confirmation email - it's a double opt-in system for CAN-SPAM compliance.
Performance Turnover
Should you be calculating "performance turnover" rather than treating each departure equally?
Writing in Workforce Management Magazine back in May this year, Professor John Sullivan made the case for focusing on performance turnover. As he rightly points out, not all turnover is equal; some turnover is desirable, while other turnover is deeply damaging to the firm.
As I have long stressed, the traditional and most commonly used approach to calculating employee turnover has the potential to be hopelessly misleading, as the emphasis is on the quantity of departures rather than the quality.
If managers are to be assessed and rewarded based on their efforts to minimise turnover, you don't want them to be incentivised to make a special effort to keep onboard unproductive employees.
Professor Sullivan recommends that different weights should be allocated to the loss of a top performer, an average performer and a poor performer. He suggests three, one and zero, as appropriate figures. So the loss of three top performers would result in a performance turnover score of nine, while the loss of three poor performers would produce a performance turnover score of zero.
Employee retention - does it matter?
HR Zone website has an article by Bettina Pickering and Tom Marks, of PA Consulting Group titled employee retention - does it matter? Their basic point is that employee retention is not the key objective to ensuring the overall performance and growth of an organisation.
It is an interesting article and one that contains a certain amount of truth, even if at times, they do tend to go too far with their conclusions. Raw employee turnover figures tell you absolutely nothing about the impact this turnover is having on the business. If an employee has been in position too long, and that will vary from person to person, then you may well see a productivity boost following their departure.
As I have written many times, both here and elsewhere, some departures really hurt the business while others make little difference. It just depends who is leaving, where they are going, the impact it will have, and the time and cost of getting a suitable replacement in position and fully productive in the role.
So it is quite easy to imagine a scenario in which two rival companies each lose 20 employees during the course of 1 year. The employees departing company A are easily replaced at minimal cost, the loss in productivity is minimal and the knowledge they take with them is of little value to their new employer. Constrast that with company B who lose 20 top performers, who have built relationships with key clients, are difficult to replace within a reasonable time frame and whose unique knowledge is now lost to the business. Company B struggles to cope with these 20 departures, clients take their business elsewhere, and the company goes under as a direct result.
All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. Common stock was issued in 1971 to railroads that contributed capital and equipment; these shares convey almost no benefits[3] but their current holders[4] declined a 2002 buy-out offer by Amtrak.[5]
Amtrak employs nearly 19,000 people. It operates passenger service on 21,000 miles (34,000 km) of track primarily owned by freight railroads connecting 500 destinations in 46 states[6] and three Canadian provinces. In fiscal year 2008, Amtrak served 28.7 million passengers, representing six straight years of record ridership.[6][7] Despite this recent growth, the United States still has one of the lowest inter-city rail usages in the developed world.
Amtrak's origins are traceable to the sustained decline of private passenger rail services in the United States from about 1920 to 1970. In 1971, in response to the decline, Congress and President Richard Nixon created Amtrak. The Nixon administration secretly agreed with some railroads that Amtrak would be shut down after two years. After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak.[8] Though for its entire existence the company has been subjected to political cross-winds and insufficient capital resources, including owned railway, Amtrak's ridership has maintained consistent growth.
1) Distinguish between those employees that you really want to retain because of the impact they have on your business, and those that you would like to retain but could replace if necessary.
2) For those individuals or groups of employees identified as belonging to the first category, take a proactive approach to retention. The single most sensible step you can take is to conduct a retention interview.
3) Think carefully about your employee value propositions. What is it that each person truly values? Is there a way of increasing the total value on offer by making some minor changes?
Employee Retention Strategies Guide written by retention expert Colin Brown looks at topics such as retention focused recruitment, retention focused orientation, job sculpting, retention focused managing, retention focused career support, work-life balance strategies, reward and communication.
So if you're reading this during June, July or August of 2007 then do take advantage of this special offer. Simply click on the link and it should appear.
I've written a lot about talent retention over the last few years. Many of you will be familiar with the general themes, such as the importance of dialogue, negotiation, flexibility and so on. Of course it is important to stress that not all departures can be prevented, and this is especially true of your top performers.
If you are interested in learning what you need to do in order to keep hold of your best people, then do take advantage of my free 5 part e-course on talent retention. Just click on the link, sign up and then make sure to click on the link in the confirmation email - it's a double opt-in system for CAN-SPAM compliance.
Performance Turnover
Should you be calculating "performance turnover" rather than treating each departure equally?
Writing in Workforce Management Magazine back in May this year, Professor John Sullivan made the case for focusing on performance turnover. As he rightly points out, not all turnover is equal; some turnover is desirable, while other turnover is deeply damaging to the firm.
As I have long stressed, the traditional and most commonly used approach to calculating employee turnover has the potential to be hopelessly misleading, as the emphasis is on the quantity of departures rather than the quality.
If managers are to be assessed and rewarded based on their efforts to minimise turnover, you don't want them to be incentivised to make a special effort to keep onboard unproductive employees.
Professor Sullivan recommends that different weights should be allocated to the loss of a top performer, an average performer and a poor performer. He suggests three, one and zero, as appropriate figures. So the loss of three top performers would result in a performance turnover score of nine, while the loss of three poor performers would produce a performance turnover score of zero.
Employee retention - does it matter?
HR Zone website has an article by Bettina Pickering and Tom Marks, of PA Consulting Group titled employee retention - does it matter? Their basic point is that employee retention is not the key objective to ensuring the overall performance and growth of an organisation.
It is an interesting article and one that contains a certain amount of truth, even if at times, they do tend to go too far with their conclusions. Raw employee turnover figures tell you absolutely nothing about the impact this turnover is having on the business. If an employee has been in position too long, and that will vary from person to person, then you may well see a productivity boost following their departure.
As I have written many times, both here and elsewhere, some departures really hurt the business while others make little difference. It just depends who is leaving, where they are going, the impact it will have, and the time and cost of getting a suitable replacement in position and fully productive in the role.
So it is quite easy to imagine a scenario in which two rival companies each lose 20 employees during the course of 1 year. The employees departing company A are easily replaced at minimal cost, the loss in productivity is minimal and the knowledge they take with them is of little value to their new employer. Constrast that with company B who lose 20 top performers, who have built relationships with key clients, are difficult to replace within a reasonable time frame and whose unique knowledge is now lost to the business. Company B struggles to cope with these 20 departures, clients take their business elsewhere, and the company goes under as a direct result.
Last edited: