It costs money to recruit, select, orient and train a new employee to replace someone who’s left the company. And, there’s risk involved, as the new person may not work out.

Professional managers came into being in the last century, along with about 99% of the other groups calling themselves professionals nowadays. It’s typical that well-trained managers would see something that costs money and involves risk as “bad,” although the same conditions – money and risk – are involved in all good investments as well. The craft – okay, profession – of management is dedicated to maximizing production, reducing costs and minimizing risks to generate profits. A dominant theme in traditional American organizations is that of “family.” Many companies endeavored to create an atmosphere that felt, to employees, like one great big family. Perhaps this represented a communal longing to return to a previous era – the Agricultural Age – in which families worked their farms together. If we are a family, people demonstrate loyalty, staying on through good times and bad. This family metaphor broke down during the twentieth century, interestingly, at about the same time professional managers appeared. First, when employees formed collectives, or unions, to balance the awesome power of management and take control of their destinies. Later, a series of radical social changes led us to begin demanding balance between work and family.

Most corporate values and traditions set great store by seniority. These traditions have taught employees that they deserve a raise in pay for staying in the job another year. The values are formalized in vesting plans for stock options and pensions, which favor more senior employees. So, if you reward people for staying around, turnover must be bad.

Perhaps a darker side to this point is that paternalistic traditions of many corporations favor maintaining significant control over employees by limiting their decisions and their options. As one who has served in the manager role for years, I know the pang of loss when an employee offers up a surprise resignation to take a “better” job. After the resignation, I’ve felt guilty for not doing a better job of making this a good place to work. I’ve felt a little incompetent and out of touch for not knowing what was going on during the person’s job hunt. I wondered why I couldn’t have made him stay in this job or made him want to stay in this job. I wondered why I was out of control – having no choices with the resignation news – while the employee obviously had better choices (and, thus, was in control).

But turnover can be GOOD, even essential for your business. Read on to see how.