Motivational States and Turnover and Demographic variables
Hom et al. (2012) derived motivational states to explain turnover. They did this by crossing
dimensions of desired staying or leaving and high or low perceived control. By combining these,
they came up with four categories namely: enthusiastic stayers, reluctant stayers, enthusiastic
leavers and reluctant leavers.
Enthusiastic Leaving: This refers to a mindset that encompasses desire and freedom to quit.
Hom et al. (2012) asserted that as a mindset, it accounts for a broader set of actions like job
search. In their view, they argued that enthusiastic leaving “begins with a withdrawal state that
evolves into a specific intention to resign for a particular alternative in a roughly predictable
duration when they complete all instrumental steps” (p. 836).
Reluctant Leaving: This refers to those who leave because they must. Hom et al. (2012) also
referred to them as involuntary leavers. According to them, some of the instances that can make
an employee reluctant leave include: summary dismissal, suspicion of being laid off, fired or
retired in the near future, pressure to quit to take care of ailing parents or trail relocating spouses
(p. 836).
Reluctant Staying: Bowen (1982) referred to this group as “intention to quit non-quitters”.
Greenhalgh (1980) referred to them as psychological quits. Greenhalgh (1980) further
maintained that psychological quit occurs when employees feel trapped and not satisfied. Hom et
al. (2012) stated that reluctant staying involves employees who stay because they must. They
stay because of circumstances like personal sacrifice, avoidance of punishment or losses.
Carmeli and Weisberg (2006) stated that if an individual has no alternative opportunity, he or she
would involuntarily stay in their job. This results in change of attitude, effort and declining in
employee performance.
Enthusiastic Staying: This refers to employees who stay because they choose to stay. They are
committed to their work. However, Hom et al. (2012) argued that enthusiastic stayers “remain
due to community sacrifices and normative pressures”. They further stated, “Employees stay
based on ‘desire to stay’ and extrinsic ‘constraints on leaving’” (p. 837).
These categorisations have drawn a number of reactions (Bergman, Payne & Boswell, 2012;
Griffeth et al., 2012; Maertz, 2012). Bergman et al. (2012) considered these categorisations as a
form of typology. In their article, they cautioned other researchers from limiting the
measurement of turnover on this basis. They also acknowledged that this categorisation appeared
to have conceptualised desire and control as equally important predictors. They summarised the
concept of job embeddedness as proposed by Hom et al. (2012) as “a state in which an employee
has a strong desire to stay and high level of control over leaving” (Bergman et al., 2012, p. 867).
They further questioned whether indeed Hom et al. (2012) wanted to suggest a typology. In their
view, Bergman et al. (2012) argued that rarely do typologies capture the complex and
multifaceted experiences of people; and that indeed “people rarely fit the prototype category,
instead being assigned to categories’ based on best fit rather than perfect fit” (Bergman et al.
2012, p. 867).
On the other hand, Maertz (2012) sought clarification on prediction. He contended that the
richness and complexity of withdrawal has been limited to two dimensions and dichotomised to
four categories. He pointed out arguments as to why such dimensions and categories are limiting.
Firstly, Maertz (2012) argued that preference and perceived decision control are dependent and
intertwined dimensions. Secondly, the generalisation of the four categories throughout the
population is limiting. Thirdly, the validity of dichotomising between a weak intent to stay and a
weak intent to quit is problematic. Finally, Maertz (2012) concluded that there is little theoretical
reason to draw firm lines between preferences like weak stay versus weak quit of medium low
control versus medium high control. According to Griffeth et al. (2012), these preferences arise
after a failed job search or job switch. In addition, they clarify that causes of preference to stay or
leave are not mirror opposites.
In reaction, Griffeth et al. (2012) acknowledged the concerns raised by Bergman et al. (2012)
and Maertz (2012). They argued that their typology is a parsimonious way to represent
dimensions and that people can indeed have competing mindsets. They question the need to
predict intentions and argue that intentions are vague, variable and imprecise than actual leaving.
From the foregoing, the best predictor of behaviour is intentions; thus, the best predictor of
turnover should be the intentions to turnover. Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) contended that
the best predictor of turnover intention is self-reported intention to quit.
Turnover and Demographic variables
A review of studies reports a relationship of age and turnover intentions (Ducharme et al., 2008;
Knudsen et al., 2003; Knudsen et al., 2006; Knudsen et al., 2008). Martin and Roodt (2008)
reported significant relation of turnover with age of the respondent. Young people tend to report
higher levels of turnover than older people do. On the other hand, some studies do not report any
significant relationship between age and turnover (Abraham, 1999a; Layne et al., 2004).
Reported studies showing the relationship of gender and turnover intentions indicate significant
correlation. Women tend to have higher levels of turnover intentions (Martin & Roodt, 2008;
Knudsen et al., 2008).
There is mixed discourse regarding the relationship between marital status and turnover
intentions. Martin and Roodt (2008) reported no significant relation between turnover intention
and marital status. However, Mohammed, FitzGerald and Clark, (2012) and Kaur, Mohindru and
Pankaj (2013), concluded the existence of significant associations between Turnover intentions
and marital status.
The relationship between turnover intention and academic qualifications is widely discussed.
Carbery et al. (2003) and Karatepe et al. (2006) concluded that those with low education level
have a lower turnover intention. Chen et al. (2010) reported that the people with high education
levels have higher expectations in terms of financial rights, benefits and audit compared to those
with lower education level. Iqbal (2010) stated that those with high education level have higher
expectations towards their current employers, which means that the fulfilment of their needs is
much more difficult. In addition, Nyamubarwa (2013) found that seniority and academic
qualifications were push factors in turnover intentions. Moreover, Samuel and Chipunza (2009)
argued that turnover is high in lower level jobs.
The relationship between duration of employment and Turnover intention has also been reported.
Martin (2007) reported significant relationship between tenure and turnover intention. On the
contrary, Somers (1996) suggested that workers with shorter organizational tenure have high
turnover intention.
Dealing with Turnover intention
Intervening against employee turnover intention has received considerable attention (Dunford,
Shipp, Boss, Angermeier, & Boss 2012; Kim & Lee 2009; Silbiger & Pine, 2014; Young, 2015).
Dunford et al. (2012) suggested that when managers plan interventions for employee burnout
they should consider career transitions. Kim and Lee (2009) reported that job relevant
communication and relationship communication reduce turnover intentions. Silbiger and Pine
(2014) suggested that increasing the employees’ sense of their work importance can reduce
levels of burnout and lower turnover. Young (2015) proposed improvement in areas of work life
namely: adjustment of workload, increasing employees control over work and decision making,
adjusting organisational rewards to an employee’s expectations, developing a sense of
community, promoting fairness and aligning personal and organisational values.
Other studies proposed more workplace oriented interventions. McNulty et al. (2007) reported
that participatory management at the organisational level is a strategy to reduce turnover. Gallon,
Gabriel and Knudsen (2003) reported a number of interventions to reduce
turnover. These included increasing salaries, improving benefits, reducing
paperwork, providing ongoing training, providing personal recognition, career
development and shortening working hours (p.
Griffeth et al. (2000) proposed a number of workplace interventions in dealing
with counsellor turnover. These included enabling counsellor independence and
autonomy, training and skill building, team building and conflict management
training, succession planning and leadership training, clarifying boundaries and
role expectations. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) concluded that in order to deal with
predictors of burnout, organisations are expected to provide sufficient amount of
job resources. Briner and Reynolds (1999) argued that workplace based
interventions aimed at reducing stress and burnout, and some of the maladaptive
responses to stress have little or no effect.
References
Abelson, M. A. (1987). Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 382–386. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.72.3.382
Abraham, R. (1999a). The impact of emotional dissonance on organizational
commitment and intention to turnover. The Journal of Psychology, 133(4),
441-455. doi:10.1080/00223989909599754
Abraham, R. (1999b). The relationship between differential inequity, job
satisfaction, intention to turnover, and self-esteem. The Journal of
Psychology, 133(2), 205-215. doi:10.1080/00223989909599734
Acker, G. M. (2011). Burnout among mental health care providers. Journal of
Social Work, 12(5), 475-490. doi:10.1177/1468017310392418
Adeli, S. M., Sindabi, A. & Njong’e, T. (2014). Rekindling the service
provider passion for work: The Three ‘R’ approach in dealing with
burnout among student affairs personnel in Kenyan universities.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 1 (12),
655-675.
Agoi, L.F. (2015). Effect of work engagement on employee turnover intention in
public Sector, Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and
Management, 3(12), 426- 440.
Ahola, K., Kivimäki, M., Honkonen, T., Virtanen, M., Koskinen, S. & Lönnqvist,
J. (2008). Occupational burnout and medically certified absence: a
population-based study of
Finnish employees. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64,
185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.06.022.
Aksu, M. & Temeloglu, E. (2015). Effects of burnout on employees’ Satisfaction
a Research at 3, 4 and 5 Star Hotels in Canakkale City Centre.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(1), 219-230.
Allen, D.G., & Griffeth, R.W. (1999). Job performance and turnover: a review and
integrative multi-route model. Human Resource Management Review, 9,
525-48. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00032-7
Allen, J. P., & Meyers, N. J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1 - 18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1990.tb00506.x
Alexander, J.A., Bloom, J.R., & Nichols, B.A. (1994). Nursing turnover and
hospital efficiency: An organizational-level analysis. Industrial Relations,
33, 505-520.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and
human decision processes. 50 (2), 179-211.
Armstrong, M. (2014). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management
Practice - 13th edition. London and Philadelphia: Kogan page.
Aten, J. D., Strain, J. D., & Gillespie, R. E. (2008). A Transtheoretical model of
clinical supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology,
2(1), 1-9. doi:10.1037/1931-3918.2.1.1
Bachir, F. (2011). Attrition “rate of employee turnover” [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://fadibachir.blogspot.com/2011/06/attrition-rate-of-employee-
turnover.html
Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A
theoretical analysis. Burnout Research, 1, 112-119.
doi:.10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003
Ballinger, G.A., Cross, R., & Holtom B.C., (2016). The right friends in the right
places: Understanding network structure as a predictor of voluntary
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4): 535-48.
doi:10.1037/apl0000061
Barak, M., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and
turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service
employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and meta-
analysis. Social Service Review, 75, 625–661.
Baumeister, R. (2005). Rethinking self-esteem; why non-profits should stop
pushing self-esteem and start endorsing self-control. Stanford social
innovation review, 34-41.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J.D., Kruger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high
self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness or
healthier lifestyles? Psychological science in public interest, 4(1), 1-44.
doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431
