Conceptual Models of Employee Turnover
In a review of employee turnover models, WeiBo, Kaur and Zhi (2010) provided an overview of
research development of employee turnover. They proposed that research models on employee
turnover might be divided into two categories namely: “classification employee
retention/turnover process models” and “new multi routes model” (p.4147). Furthermore, they
explained that the traditional and classical models focus on intermediary variables of job
satisfaction, job attitudes and organisational commitment; this is best exemplified by Mobley’s
model (Mobley, Horner & Hollingsworth, 1978); whereas the multi routes model is based on
influencing factors like social capital and job coupling. This model is best exemplified by Lee
and Mitchell‘s model (Lee & Mitchell, 1994).
Martin and Roodt (2008) revealed that several studies have been conducted and focused on
developing a causal model specifying factors of voluntary turnover. The common theme they
identified is that turnover behaviour is a multistage process that includes behavioural, attitudinal
and decisional components. They quote five models and listed them chronologically. The models
mentioned include: March & Simons model, Mobley’s model, Sheridan and Abelson’s, Price and
Mueller, and Lee and Mitchell model. Further discussion on the models appears below. In all the
models, explanation is given on why employees develop turnover intentions and why actual
turnover takes place.
March and Simon’s Model
This model falls under the organisational equilibrium theory (Allen & Griffeth, 1999). March
and Simons (1958) concerned themselves with employee decision-making behaviour within
organisations. They were able to categorise these behaviour into two, namely: decision to
perform organisational activities and decision to participate in organisations. In addition, the
theory specifies that an employee’s decision to quit is influenced by two factors: “perceived ease
of movement”; this is the assessment of perceived alternatives or opportunities, and “perceived
desirability of movement”; which is influenced by job satisfaction (Perez, 2008).
The validity of this model has been cited as lacking (WeiBo et al., 2010). They point out that
mere relationship of two variables can be lost in many unimportant variables. Xie (2003) pointed
out that this model opened up areas of further research for scholars. Indeed, Martin and Roodt
(2008) agreed that many studies on voluntary turnover consider this model as a precursor.
Mobley’s Model
This model is also referred to as media chain process theory (Allen & Griffeth, 1999). It is
concerned with general turnover. According to Sager, Varadarajan and Futrell (1988), it focuses
on attitudes and intentions in the turnover process. Mobley (1977) stated that it is heuristic,
meaning that it is not tied to any organisational characteristics or the environment. He further
argued that an individual goes through ten stages in the process of employee turnover decision
making. These stages are: “employee evaluation of existing jobs, experienced/perceived job
satisfaction or job dissatisfaction, stimulated thoughts of quitting and evaluation of expected
utility of search and cost of quitting. Subsequent stages include: intention to search for
alternatives, search for alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, comparison of alternatives versus
present job, intention to quit/stay and finally decision to quit or stay” (Mobley, 1977, p. 238).
Later studies analysed this model. Mobley, Horner and Hollingsworth (1978) tested a simplified
version. The simplified version hypothesized “job satisfaction to influence thoughts of quitting,
intention to search, and intention to quit” (p. 142). They also argued that the “probability of
finding an acceptable alternative was proposed to affect intentions to search and to quit” (p. 142).
Hom and Griffeth (1991) noted that the model did not present empirical evidence to support the
differentiation of the stages. Furthermore, they contended that intention to quit takes place before
intention to search. Other studies have looked at Mobley’s model in relation to other variables.
For example, Kim and Kohout (1975) looked at organisational commitment; Price and Mueller
(1981) looked at job satisfaction.
Significantly, Hom, Griffeth and Sellaro (1984) investigated the validity of Mobley’s (1977)
model. They assessed the evaluation of the expected utility of searching and the costs of quitting,
search for alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and comparison of alternatives with the present
job. They found that in general, the best predictor of a model construct was the immediate
causal antecedent. They used path analysis to come up with this conclusion. In addition, they
also questioned the implication of the model especially when it assumes that evaluation and
comparison of job occurs after the job search concludes, or when the job seeker is reviewing his
or her job offers. However, they concluded that evaluation and comparisons take place before
and during the job search. They disputed the causal ordering of the theoretical constructs, they
also found them enriching in the psychology of the turnover process (Hom, Griffeth and Sellaro,
1984).
Sheridan’s and Abelson’s Model
This model is also known as the “Cusp-catastrophe model” (Perez, 2008, p. 26). This model was
developed to explain job turnover among nurses. Sheridan and Abelson (1983) based their work
on mathematical catastrophe theory. This theory considers the dynamic withdrawal process that
occurs over time and a discontinuous change from retention to termination. According to
Sheridan and Abelson (1983), the catastrophe theory is a useful phenomenological model for
examining a dynamic withdrawal process. They stated that the cusp catastrophe model is the
most complete description of a one dimensional behaviour space capturing commitment and
tension (Sheridan & Abelson, 1983).
According to Perez (2008), this model has three main characteristics, namely: “withdrawal
behaviour, bifurcation plane and divergence of behaviour” (Perez, 2008, p. 27). Withdrawal
behaviour refers to an employee’s attempt to retain an employment for as long as possible. If the
employee feels they cannot stay any longer, they will then change from retention to termination.
To illustrate this, Sheridan and Abelson (1983) explained that the employee behaviour would
fluctuate from one state to another. The bifurcation plane; or what Sheridan and Abelson (1983)
called the hysteresis zone of behaviour; is a zone that represents a disequilibrium, in which the
employee is about to change from retention to termination status. Divergence of behaviour
occurs on the opposite sides of the bifurcation plane. Sheridan and Abelson (1983) suggested
that employees on opposite sides of the bifurcation plane would demonstrate different
withdrawal behaviour; one might stay and the other one might leave.
Price and Mueller’s Model
Price and Mueller (1981) in their literature review concluded that there are two main categories
of studies on employee turnover namely: literature that explicitly identifies turnover as the
dependent variable and studies that treat turnover as a component of some more general
phenomenon. They noted that this categorisation was weak and lacked inclusiveness. They
further developed a causal model based on this research synthesis (Price & Mueller, 1981, p.
543-44).
The model focuses on voluntary turnover; it focuses on determinants that produce variations in
turnover. These determinants are based on empirical research. The determinants studied include:
“Opportunity, routinisation, participation; instrumental communication, integration, pay,
distributive justice; promotional opportunity, professionalism, general training, kinship
responsibility, job satisfaction and intent to stay” (Price & Mueller, 1981, p. 544). They
recognised that cognitive process influence the decision making for turnover.
Lee and Mitchell’s Model
This is also known as the unfolding model of voluntary turnover. This model explains the
phenomenon of employees’ decision to quit. The model is explained as a retrospective,
classificatory account of voluntary turnover. It focuses on quitting employment as decisional
process (Morell et al., 2006). This model has three features (Lee & Mitchell, 1994), namely:
image theory, ‘shock’ and ‘script’ and decision paths.
Image theory: according to Beach (1990), quoted in Lee and Mitchell (1994), the image theory
incorporates rational choice theory. Beach (1990) asserted that in real decision processes, their
assumptions are contrary to the prevailing view of classical decision theory. They argued that
“screening” rather than “choosing” among options is the most important mechanism for
understanding decisions. Beach (1990) further stated that screening is rapid and crude process of
integrating information into three domain specific images: namely, values, which incorporate
decision maker’s principles, trajectory, which incorporates desired goals, and strategies, which
consider how to achieve those goals. Choices are adapted or rejected depending on fitting with
subsets of images (Morell et al., 2006).
‘Shock’ and ‘script’: Morell et al. (2006) stated that a shock is a specific event that prompts
people to consider leaving employment in an organisation. Lee and Mitchell (1994) theorised
that “it is a distinguishable event that jars employees towards deliberate judgements about their
jobs and, perhaps, to voluntarily quit their jobs” (p. 60). They state that a shock is information
generating and meaningful. They also caution that not all events can be shocks. Furthermore, Lee
and Mitchell (1994) described a script as a “pre-existing plan of action and as routinised
behaviour” (p.71).
Decision paths: this characteristic of the model shows how people leave in
different and distinct ways represented by mutually exclusive decision paths. This
model further specifies that people quit in five prototypal ways in contrast to
models that propose a normative path.
Source: Information taken from Lee and Mitchell, (1994); ‘‘An Alternative Approach: The Unfolding
Model of
Voluntary Employee Turnover,’’ Academy of Management Review 19 51–90.
In summary, the models discussed above give different explanations concerning
turnover. It is the researcher’s conviction then, that the model that best suited this
study was Mobley’s (1977) model. It captures the different thought processes that
an individual could go through during turnover intention and actual turnover.
