Research paper

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY Volume 8, No. 4, Summer 1994

PROMOTION AND EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: CRITIQUE, META-ANALYSIS,

AND IMPLICATIONS Paula Phillips Carson

Kerry D. Carson University of Southwestern Louisiana

Rodger W. Griffeth Georgia State University

Robert P. Steel Air Force Institute of Technology

ABSTRACT: Qualitative reviews of the withdrawal literature have reached in- consistent conclusions regarding the strength of the relationship between pro- motion and turnover. Several issues were addressed in this study which may account for these inconsistencies. First, we differentiate among three distinct operationalizations of promotion: (1) promotion satisfaction; (2) perceptions of promotional opportunity; and (3) actual promotion. We then conduct quantita- tive reviews using meta-analytic procedures on turnover and the three opera- tionalizations of promotion. We found no significant relationships between pro- motion satisfaction and turnover or between perceived promotional opportunities and turnover. However, a significant negative relationship was found between actual promotion and turnover. Theoretical implication of these findings are presented.

Dissatisfaction with promotional processes, insufficient promotional opportunities, and stifled organizational advancement are often cited as primary causes of employee turnover (Johnston, Griffeth, Burton, & Phillips-Carson, in press). Similarly, non-promoted employees, when compared with their promoted cohorts, seem less attached to their co-

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Southern Management Associa- tion Meeting, Novemher 1990. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous re- viewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Please address all correspondence to Paula Phillips Carson, Department of Manage- ment & QM, P.O. Box 43570, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504-3570.

4 5 5 e 1994 Human Sciences Pr«Ba, Inc.

456 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

workers, identify less with organizational goals, maintain a less positive image of the organization, have stronger intentions to quit, and actually withdraw from organizations more frequently (Goldner, 1970). Promo- tions, therefore, appear to occupy a central role in the turnover process (Price & Mueller, 1986).

However, literature reviews examining promotion as an antecedent of turnover are inconsistent and inconclusive. Major theoretical reviews of the withdrawal literature characterize the promotion-turnover rela- tionship as consistently negative (Porter & Steers, 1973), moderately negative (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Mobley, 1982), weakly negative (Price, 1977), and inconclusive (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Calls to study and clarify the interdependence between promotion and turnover have been made (Boudreau & Berger, 1985), but extant confu- sion surrounding the relationship between these variables remains. Therefore, we discuss methodological and theoretical issues which may account for the conflict regarding promotion's role in the withdrawal process.

First, existing turnover reviews have failed to distinguish hetween conceptually related, yet operationally distinct measures of promotion. We clarify this methodological confusion by empirically differentiating between these measures. Second, the qualitative nature of existing re- views and resulting difficulties in cumulating research in a narrative form are identified. To overcome biases associated with traditional liter- ature reviews, we use meta-analytic procedures to quantitatively inte- grate the existing research on promotion and turnover. Third, we use these meta-analytic findings to help define the role of promotion in the turnover process.

Such analysis will clarify methodological questions associated with the turnover paradigm (e.g., what promotion measures predict job with- drawal) as well as theoretical confusion surrounding the promotion construct (e.g., how commonly utilized promotion measures are interre- lated). Addressing these issues will allow researchers to more clearly explicate the promotion construct in future studies. Clarification of the promotion-turnover relationship is also important for at least three practical reasons. First, given the monetary as well as the nonmonetary expenses associated with employee turnover, identification of variables which help managers predict withdrawal could result in cost-savings. Second, due to increased global competition, many enterprises are re- ducing the number of levels in the organizational hierarchy. This restructuring results in fewer opportunities for promotion, and many valuable employees are becoming plateaued. As this lack of opportunity for linear career progression is expected to continue with the aging of the "baby-boom" generation, managers should be aware of the conse- quences of diminished advancement potential on employees' willingness

CARSON, CARSON, GRIFFETH, AND STEEL 457

to remain in the organization. Finally, the analysis may facilitate prac- titioner understanding of the independence of employee attitudes to- ward promotion as compared with actual advancement. Such under- standing may result in more careful management of the employee promotion process.

OPERATIONALIZATIONS OF PROMOTION

Our iterative search for studies examining promotion and turnover found past investigators using three relatively distinct measures of pro- motion: (a) promotion satisfaction, (b) perceptions of promotional oppor- tunities, and (c) actual promotion. Major turnover reviews have reached conclusions about the promotion-turnover relationship without consid- ering the distinctions among these three variables, thus obscuring the true nature of the relationship.

These operationalizations differ fundamentally, as they measure af- fective responses (promotion satisfaction), cognitive responses (percep- tion of promotional opportunities), and behavior (actual promotion). A high degree of congruence among these operationalizations cannot not be assumed (cf. Breckler, 1984). For example, one could be dissatisfied with one's own rate of promotion, yet perceive sufficient opportunities for organizational advancement. Similarly, an individual may be satis- fied with his or her promotional advancement, yet realize that promo- tional opportunities are more limited at higher organizational levels (Greenhaus, 1987). Unlike promotion satisfaction and perceptions of promotional opportunity, actual promotion is an objective behavioral measure, rather than a subjective measure. Furthermore, theoretical and empirical research linking actual promotions to these subjective measures is absent. Actual promotion does not necessarily result in in- creased promotion satisfaction given the stresses associated with in- creased responsibilities accompanying advancement (Mobley, 1982). Nor would one necessarily be promoted even if opportunities are perceived. By ignoring differences among these three operationalizations, re- searchers have been unable to detect the independent effects of these variables on turnover.

THE NATURE OF PAST REVIEWS

Previous reviews of the turnover literature (Mobley, 1982; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Porter & Steers, 1973; Price, 1977) have not focused exclusively on promotions. Instead, their purpose has been to examine a wide variety of turnover correlates, permitting only a

458 • I JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

brief examination of the promotion - turnover relationship. Moreover, these reviews were presented in the traditional narrative format, disre- garding the advantages of quantitative cumulation techniques. Qualita- tive reviews often result in conflicting conclusions regarding underlying relationships (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982). This is clearly illus- trated by attempts of turnover reviewers to draw conclusions from the promotion - turnover literature. Furthermore, weighting and inte- grating studies without the application of statistical procedures is a formidable process, complicated by the existence of artifacts such as sampling error, unreliability of measurements, and range restriction (Hunter et al., 1982).

METHOD

Data Collection Procedure

An extensive search of published managerial and psychological lit- erature was conducted to identify studies relating promotion to turn- over. The initial literature base included all relevant citations in major review articles and books on turnover (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; McEvoy & Cascio, 1985; Mobley, et al., 1979; Mobley, 1982, Porter & Steers, 1973; Price, 1977). Subsequently, both computer and manual searches were made of relevant journals and proceedings. Our search extended back four decades.

To be included in the meta-analyses, studies had to report sample sizes and either correlation coefficients, ts or Fs (all statistics were con- verted to point bi-serial r's; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). Only correla- tions between the measures of promotion (including satisfaction, per- ceived opportunity, and advancement) and actual voluntary turnover were used in the study. Unlike other studies, proxies for turnover such as tenure, intent to leave, stay, or reenlist, or job change potential were avoided to facilitate determination ofthe true relationship between pro- motion and turnover (cf. Sager, Futrell & Varadarajan, 1989). Further- more, we excluded research which did not use the individual as the unit of analysis (e.g., Mueller & Price, 1989) to avoid phenomenological con- tamination dissociated with aggregating individual and group findings.

Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

Table 1 presents characteristics of the studies included in the meta- analysis, categorized by operationalization of promotion. Twenty-one correlations from twenty different published studies were used in the meta-analyses. The total number of respondents included in the an-

CARSON, CARSON, GRIFFETH, AND STEEL 459

Table 1 Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

Investigators Sample Composition N alpha Turnover

r

Promotion Satisfaction Blau (1987) Dreher & Dougherty (1980) F e r r i s (1985) J o h n s t o n , et al. (1988) Koch & Steers (1978) K r a u t ( 1 9 7 5 ) Mobley, e t a l . (1978) N e w m a n (1974) P a r a s u r a m a n (1982) Phillips, et al. (1989) Sager, et al. (1988) W a t e r s & Roach (1971) W a t e r s , e t a l . (1976) Promotional Opportunities Bluedorn (1982) Marsh & M a n n a r i (1977) Martin (1980) Price & Mueller (1981) Price & Mueller (1986) Actual Promotion D r e h e r ( 1 9 8 2 ) Stumpf & D a w l e y (1981) Stumpf & D a w l e y (1981)

Registered N u r s e s MPT Oil Co. Employees' Registered N u r s e s Salespersons Fed. Agency Employees Salespersons Hospital Employees N u r s i n g Home Employees Food Processing Co. Emp. N u r s e s Salespersons I n s u r a n c e Co. Salespersons Clerical Employees

I n s u r a n c e Co. E m p . J a p . Eiectric Co. Emp. Educational Organization Registered N u r s e s Hospital Employees

MPT Employees Bank Tellers B a n k Tellers

1190 88 68

102 77

791 203 108 160 89

164 131 105

141 1033 172

1091 2192

468 189 188

nr- 0.86 0.85 0.84 nr nr nr nr 0.79 0.73 0.87 nr nr

0.91 nr 0.80 0.93 0.92

na"" na na

- 0 . 2 4 ' - 0 . 1 7

0.06 - 0 . 2 0 * - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 0 4 - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 1 3 - 0.32*

0.09 - 0 . 0 7

- 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 2 2 * - 0 . 1 9 * - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 0 5

- 0.36* - 0.33* - 0 . 8 1 *

*indicates t h e correlation reported in the study was significant a t p ^ . ' n r = Information was not reported by t h e study ^ a = Information was not applicable to t h e study

= M a n a g e r i a l , professional, and technical employees

alyses was 7,675. Individual sample sizes ranged from n = SB (Ferris, 1985) to n = 2,192 (Price & Mueller, 1986). Study participants were employed in a variety of different occupations in a diversity of indus- tries. Reported alpha coefficients of promotional measures were all above .70. Finally, individual correlations between measures of promo- tion and turnover ranged from r = - . 0 1 (promotion satisfaction; Para- suraman, 1982) to r = - . 8 1 (actual promotion; Stumpf & Dawley, 1981). Table 2 presents a compendium of operationalizations of the three measures of promotion.

A majority of the research (thirteen of twenty studies) investigated the relationship between promotion satisfaction and turnover. Of these thirteen studies, ten measured promotion satisfaction using the Job De-

460 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 2 Operationalizations of the Promotion Construct

Investigators Scale or Sample Items Items

Promotion Satisfaction Blau (1987) Dreher & Dougherty (1980) Ferris (1985) Johnston, et al. (1988) Koch & Steers (1978) Kraut(1975)

Mobley, e t a l . (1978) Newman (1974) Parasuraman (1982) Phillips, et al. (1989)

Sager, e t a l . (1988) Waters & Roach (1971) Waters, e t a l . (1976) Promotional Opportunities Bluedoni(1982)

Marsh & Mannari (1977)

Martin (1980)

Price & Mueller (1981. 1986) Actual Promotion Stumpf&DawIey(1981) Dreher(1982)

JDP Company developed scale' JDI JDI JDI How satisfied are you with your advance opportunities? JDI JDI JDI How satisfied are you with your promotional opportunities? JDI JDI JDI

Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Single

Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple

Multiple Multiple Multiple

The prohability that an individual will he Multiple ahle to occupy roles within the organization that ofFer greater rewards? Employee perceptions of the likelihood of nf promotion to a higher rank in the organization. The opportunity for movement hetween Multiple different status levels as indicated hy promotion and/or advancement. There is little chance to get ahead. There is Multiple little opportunity for advancement.

Number of promotional increases per year na*" Difference between the initial and the na highest joh level attained divided hy the number of years of continuous service (for employees working a minimum of two years in the organization).

'Information ohtained from G.F. Dreher, personal communication. "Joh Description Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). 'nr indicates this information was not reported in this study, ''na indicates this information is not applicahle to this study.

scriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). With the exception of Kraut's research (1975), all studies utilized multiple-item measures. Only three studies reported a statistically significant correlation coeffi- cient between promotion satisfaction and turnover (Blau, 1987; John- ston et a l , 1988; Sager et al., 1989).

CARSON, CARSON, GRIFFETH, AND STEEL 461

There were five studies investigating the relationship between per- ceived promotional opportunities and turnover, all of which operation- alized the variable in terms of opportunity to advance up the organiza- tional hierarchy. Two studies (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Martin, 1980) found significant negative correlations between promotional oppor- tunities and turnover.

Finally, significant negative correlations were found between ac- tual promotion and turnover in each of the three samples for which data were available. We elected to use two correlations from the Stumpf and Dawiey (1981) study, as averaging results in a considerable loss of in- formation (cf Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1983). Hence, the samples in Stumpf and Dawley's (1981) research were treated as separate groups.

Statistical Analysis

The meta-analytic procedures recommended by Hunter and his col- leagues (Hunter et al., 1982; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) were applied to the data. Initially, the weighted average correlation and variance were calculated. This weighted average correlation represents an estimate of the population correlation parameter, corrected for sampling error arti- facts. The next step in the procedure was to correct for unreliability of the perceptual measures, promotion satisfaction and perceived promo- tional opportunities. Finally, a 90% credibility interval was constructed around the corrected weighted mean.

RESULTS

Findings of the meta-analyses are presented in Table 3. An initial meta-analysis was conducted examining the overall relationship be- tween promotion and turnover. The corrected mean correlation repre- senting this relationship was r = -.10. However, the per cent of vari- ance due to sampling error, representing the proportion of variance in r which is artifactual, was only 19.85%. Hunter, et al. (1982) propose that if this proportion of artifactual variance is less than 75%, or if true vari- ance represents more than 25% of the total variance, a search for mod- erators is necessary. Since nearly 80% of the variance in this correlation is found to be true variance, moderated meta-analyses based on the op- erationalization of promotion is warranted.

The corrected mean correlation representing the relationship be- tween promotion satisfaction and turnover was not significant (r = - .037, n.s.). The corrected mean correlation between perceptions of pro- motional opportunity and turnover also failed to reach significance (r = - .09, n.s.). Unlike the previous two meta-analyses, the corrected weighted mean correlation representing the relationship between actual

CO •—I

3 O CL. VI

.S 'c ĉ o O5 o to o in CD • O O O O O

- I • • o • p

O

o

o o o o o o

- I

I

5 CO

CARSON, CARSON, GRIFFETH, AND STEEL 463

promotion and turnover (r = - .45) was significant. The results of this analysis support a negative relationship between actual promotion and turnover, reinforcing the conclusions of Cotton and Tuttle (1986) and Mobley (1982).

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Results reveal two important findings: (a) actual promotions are negatively related to turnover, and (b) perceptual measures of promo- tion (satisfaction and perceived opportunity) are unrelated to turnover. The significant relationship between actual promotion and turnover in- dicates as employees advance up the organization's hierarchy, they become less likely to withdraw from that organization. This finding is consistent with an emerging body of literature on the concept of organi- zational entrapment (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983).

Entrapped employees exhibit an attachment to an organization be- cause of continuance commitment rather than affective commitment. While individuals with affective commitment remain as employees be- cause they identify with an organization, those with continuance com- mitment remain because they become "locked in" to an organization. Continuance commitment develops as investments such as organization- specific skills and seniority accrue (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984; SchoU, 1981). Thus, a promoted employee becomes entrapped as it be- comes more and more costly to withdraw from an organization (William- son, Wachter, & Harris, 1975).

The other important fmding in this study indicates that promotion satisfaction and perceptions of promotional opportunities are not corre- lated with employee turnover. This fmding may be attributable to mod- erators of the promotion-turnover relationship. That is, the relationship between promotion perceptions and turnover may be contingent upon either situational characteristics of the promotion process or personal characteristics of the employee. For example, when promotions are based on seniority rather than performance, the employee may feel s/he has little direct influence on the process other than remaining in the organization. Thus, the employee may not be impelled to withdraw from the organization even though s/he may possess negative attitudes to- ward promotion policies (Dweck, 1975). Similarly, individual differences variables, such as locus of control (Rotter, 1966), may influence the rela- tionship between promotion perceptions and turnover (cf Blau, 1987). Finally, employee promotability may moderate the relationship. That is, employees may have negative perceptions toward promotions in an or- ganization, yet may realize they presently lack the requisite knowledge and skills necessary for organizational advancement.

464 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Another theoretical explanation for t h e non-significant relation- ships hetween promotion perceptions and t u r n o v e r is suggested by cog- nitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Based on t h i s social-psychological theory, employees m a y devalue promotions when they fail to receive one, m i t i g a t i n g a g a i n s t negative a t t i t u d e s toward advancement. Re- latedly, employees' social e m b a r r a s s m e n t about being passed over for promotion m a y cause t h e m to suppress expression of n e g a t i v e views about t h e promotional procedure. Supporting t h i s phenomenon, Hin- drichs (1970) found t h a t when t h e actual reason for w i t h d r a w a l w a s t h e lack of promotional opportunities, employees tended to not report t h i s dissatisfaction while they were organizational m e m b e r s .

A fmal implication to consider is t h a t promotion m a y not be desired or valued hy all employees. M a n y individuals a r e conditioned to seek recognition and achievement t h r o u g h organizational a d v a n c e m e n t (Pfeffer, 1983), b u t not all value t h i s path. T h e r e a r e some individuals who look outside of work for self-realization while others t u r n to t h e i r specialty or profession for growth (Pruden, 1973). O t h e r individuals pre- fer organizations where limited promotional opportunities obscure t h e i r lack of a p t i t u d e for higher level positions (Krau, 1981). And some em- ployees even h a v e a personal s t r a t e g y to avoid t h e tension, anxiety, ad- ditional responsibilities, a n d geographical relocation implied by hier- archial a d v a n c e m e n t (Campion, Lord, & Pursell, 1981). Therefore, w i t h o u t knowledge of an individual's career aspirations, t h e predictive power of promotion perceptions on t u r n o v e r is diminished (Mohley, 1982).

In conclusion, while t h i s research h a s clarified previously ohscured relationships hetween promotion a n d t u r n o v e r , it h a s raised several issues deserving a t t e n t i o n . Researchers should investigate t h e i n t e r r e l a - tionships among affective, cognitive, and behavioral m e a s u r e s of promo- tion. Also, u n d e r l y i n g theoretical justifications for t h e promotion-turn- over relationships should he tested. F u r t h e r m o r e , other moderators of t h e relationship need to be examined. Examples include individual aspi- rations, employee promotahility, promotional equity, a n d s t a n d a r d s for promotion. Finally, future reviews should carefully delineate among t h e different promotion m e a s u r e s . Only in addressing t h e s e issues will a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e promotion construct and i t s influence on outcomes such as t u r n o v e r be possible.

REFERENCES

Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of comnutment. American Journal of Sociology, 27.'32-40.

Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, cognition as distant compo- nents of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, U91-1205.

CARSON, CARSON, GRIFFETH, AND STEEL 465

Campion, M.A.. Lord, R.G.. & Pursell, E.D. (1981). Individual and organizational corre- lates of promotion refusal. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 19, 42-49.

Cotton, J.L., & Tuttle. J.M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70.

Dweck, C.S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford. CA: Stanford University. Goldner, F.H. (1970). Success vs. failure: Prior managerial perspectives. Industrial Rela-

tions Journal, 9, 453-474. Hindrichs, J.R. (1970). Psychology of men at work. Annual review of psychology, Palo Alto,

CA: Annual Reviews. Hunter, J.E., Schmidt. F.L., & Jackson, G.B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research

findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage. Hunter, J.E.. & Schmidt. F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Iaffaldano, M.T.. & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and joh performance: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 97. 251-273. Johnston, M., Griffith, R.W.. Burton, S.. & Pbillips-Carson, P. (1992). The effects of promo-

tion on subsequent job attitudes and turnover: A quasi-experimentat longitudinal study. Journal of Management (in press).

Krau, E. (1981). Turnover analysis and prediction from a career developmental point of view. Personnel Psychology, 34, 771-790.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp.1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally,

McEvoy, G.M., & Cascio, W.F. (1987). Do good or poor performers leave? A meta-analysis of the relationship between performance and turnover. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 30. 744-762.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing tbe 'side-bet theory' of organizational commit- ment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378,

Mobley, W.H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,

Mohley, W,H., Griffeth, R,W., Hand. H.H., & Meglino. B.M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 493-522.

Mueller, C.W,. & Price, J.L. (1989). Some consequences of turnover: A work unit analysis. Human Relations, 42. 389-402.

Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In L.L. Cummmings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 299-357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M, (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in em- ployee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80. 151-176,

Price. J.L. (1977), The study of turnover. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Pruden, H.O, (1973). The upward mobile, indifferent, and ambivalent typology of man-

agers. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 454-464, Rosenthal, R,, & Rosnow, R.L. 11984). Essentials of behavioral research. New York;

McGraw Hill. Rusbult, C.E., & Farrell, D, (1983). A longitudinal test of tbe investment model: The im-

pact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology. 68. 429-438.

Sager, J.K., Futrell. CM.. & Varadarajan. R, (1989). Exploring salesperson turnover: A causal model. Journal of Business Research. 18. 303-326.

Scboll, R.W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a mo- tivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589-599.

Smitb.P.C, Kendall, L.M. & Hulin, C.L, (1969). Measurements of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, Ill.:Rand-McNally,

Williamson. O.F.. Wachter, M.L.. & Harris, J, E. (1975). Understanding the employment relation: The analysis of idiosyncratic exchange. Bell Journal of Economics, 6, 250-278.

466 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE META-ANALYSIS

Blau, G J . (1987). Locus of control as a potential moderator ofthe turnover process. Jour- nal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 21-29,

Bluedorn, A.C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organization. Human Relations, 36, 135-153.

Dreher, G.F. (1982). The role of performance in the turnover process. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 25, 137-147.

Dreher, G.F., & Dougherty, T.W. (1980). Turnover and competition for expected job open- ings: An exploratory analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 766*772.

Ferris, G.R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 778-781.

Johnston, M,W., Futrell, CM., Parasuraman, A., & Sager, J. (1988). Performance and job satisfaction effects on salesperson turnover: A replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 16, 67-83.

Koch, J.L., & Steers, R.M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 119-128.

Kraut, A.I. (1975). Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 233-243.

Marsh, R.M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A predic- tive study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 57-75.

Martin, T.N. (1980). Modelling the turnover process. Journal of Management Studies, 17. 261-274. , . ,

Mohley, W.H., Homer, S,0., & Holl ings worth, A.T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 493-522. , „. .

Newman, J.E. (1974). Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field comparison of Fish- bein's model and traditional job attitude measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59. 610-615. ^ ^ ,

Parasuraman, S. (1982). Predicting turnover intentions and turnover behavior: A multi- variate analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 111-121.

Phillips, P.L., Griffeth, R.W,. Griffin, M., Johnston, M.W., Hom, P.W., & Steel, R.P. (1989). Turnover functionality reborn: Personal and work-related factors that differentiate among high and low performing quitters and stayers. Southern Management Proceed- ings. New Orleans.

Price, J L , , & Mueller, C.W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565.

Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986), Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. JAI P Press

Sager, J.K., Varadarajan, P.R., & Futrell, CM. (1988). Understanding salesperson turn- over: A partial evaluation of Mobley's turnover process model. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8, 20-35.

Stumpf, S.A., & Dawley, P.K. (1981). Predicting voluntary and involuntary turnover using absenteeism and performance indices. Academy of Management Journal. 24, 148-163.

Waters, L.K., & Roach, D. (1971). Relationship between job attitudes and two forms of withdrawal from the work situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55. 92-94.

Waters, L.K., Roach, D., & Waters, C,W. (1976). Estimates of future tenure, satisfaction, and biographical variables as predictors of termination. Personnel Psychology, 29. 57-60.