turnover process models: review and synthesis of a conceptual literature

Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 271–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /humres

Turnover process models: Review and synthesis of a conceptual literature

Robert P. Steel a,⁎, John W. Lounsbury b

a University of Michigan-Dearborn, USAb University of Tennessee, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (R.P. Ste

1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.002

a b s t r a c t

Keywords:
Turnover process models have been appearing in the organizational literature since the 1950s.A review of this conceptual literature was performed. Consensus analysis revealed a high levelof cross-model agreement on the importance of three standard turnover-theory components(i.e., employee morale, labor-market mechanisms, intentions to quit/stay). In addition, a reviewof secondary turnover dimensions indicated some degree of consistency in the way particulardimensions have been utilized in the conceptual literature. Areas of conceptual divergence andemerging trends in this area of work are discussed.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

TurnoverTurnover theoryProcess models

The turnover literature has been exhaustively reviewed. The narrative reviews of the 50's, 60's, and 70's (e.g., Brayfield &Crockett, 1955; Vroom, 1964; Porter & Steers, 1973) gave way to meta-analytic reviews in the 80's (e.g., Carsten & Spector, 1987;Cotton & Tuttle,1986;McEvoy & Cascio,1985; Steel & Ovalle,1984; Steel & Griffeth,1989), but results remainedmostly true to form.Recent reviews of this literature have mainly served to buttress earlier conclusions and point the way toward new researchdirections (e.g., Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Tett &Meyer, 1993; Williams & Livingstone, 1994).

The many reviews of the turnover literature share a common characteristic. They are reviews of turnover research. The rareexception notwithstanding (i.e., Hom & Griffeth, 1995), the domain of interest for turnover reviews has almost always been theempirical domain. Byway of contrast, the focus of the current review is squarely onwork in the conceptual arena. More specifically,the present review focuses on process models of turnover. In this review we illuminate points of intersection among the manyprocess models, shed light on their points of divergence, and highlight emerging trends/concepts within this area of study.

1. Rationale and boundary conditions

The body of literature devoted to turnover theory is considerable. Work-outcome variables (e.g., absenteeism, job performance,tardiness) have often been associatedwith relatively sparse conceptual literatures (e.g., absenteeism, Brooke,1986; Harrison,1995;Nicholson & Johns, 1985; Steers & Rhodes, 1978), but this has definitely not been the case with turnover theory. Papers proposingnew turnover frameworks or revisions of existing frameworks have been regular features of the turnover landscape formuch of thelast 40 years. In fact, a count of existing models (including variations and refinements) revealed that there are nowmore turnovermodels in print (n=24) than there were job satisfaction-turnover studies (n=15) at the time of Porter and Steers' (1973) classicreview. Turnover models continue to proliferate, but there has been little attempt to condense or unify this burgeoning literature.

Earlier, Hom and Griffeth (1995) performed a narrative review of the theoretical turnover literature. Their review was entirelydescriptive in nature, and it did not attempt any cross-model comparisons or integrative analysis. In contrast, the currentdiscussion extends Hom and Griffeth (1995) by identifying points of convergence and divergence among extant models. Ouranalysis will examine philosophical underpinnings of prominent theories, recurrent themes in the process model literature, andemergent trends that are setting the stage for future writing in this area of study.

el).

ll rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10534822

272 R.P. Steel, J.W. Lounsbury / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 271–282

This review was guided by a set of preordained boundary conditions. One boundary condition specified appropriate subjectmatter for the review. The focus of the review was entirely on process models of turnover. We were only concerned with processmodels describing the antecedents of employee turnover. Models focusing on consequences rather than antecedents (e.g., Mobley,1982) and models employing alternative descriptive methodologies (e.g., taxonomic methods, Dalton, Todor, & Krackhardt, 1982;categorical systems, Maertz & Griffeth, 2004) were excluded from the discussion.

A second boundary condition was intended to address the subject of conceptual duplication. Refinement of several prominentturnover models was achieved over the course of a series of revisions. To limit the effects of conceptual duplication on the reviewprocess, inclusion rules were limited to themost recent statement of a model by its original authors. In establishing this criterionwewere assuming that the latest statement of a model would incorporate the most complete set of model refinements available.Application of this rule led, for example, to the inclusion of Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino's (1979) statement of the Mobleyet al. turnover theory and the exclusion of earlier statements of the same framework (i.e., Mobley, 1977; Mobley, Horner, &Hollingsworth, 1978). Likewise, application of this rule led to the inclusion of Price and Mueller's (1986) statement of theirturnovermodel and exclusion of largely redundant predecessor frameworks (e.g., Martin, 1979; Price, 1977; Price &Mueller, 1981).

Reviews of the empirical literature have often stipulated that research samples must be independent (e.g., Steel & Ovalle, 1984),but strict application of the same criteria to a body of conceptual literature is not possible. Some turnover models (e.g., Hom et al.'smodel) have a long lineage and are grounded in the work of earlier authors (e.g., Mobley et al.'s model). For that matter, mostcontemporary turnover models reflect the influence of some conceptual forbearer (e.g., March & Simon, 1958). Because theorydevelopment processes are evolutionary and cumulative, identifying a set of independent, non-overlapping turnover modelswould be an all-but-impossible task.

Before focusing on the main objective (i.e., dissecting turnover process models), we provide a backdrop for the discussion byconsidering two aspects of the broader context framing the theory-development process, the conceptual policies of turnovertheorists and research traditions shaping contemporary theory.

2. Theory in context

2.1. Conceptual policies: explicit and implied

Occasionally, turnover models have been expressly intended to apply to the turnover of individuals from specific groups. Forexample, models proposed by Price andMueller (1981) and Prestholdt, Lane, andMathews (1987) were developed for a particularoccupational group—nurses. However, this kind of approach has proven to be the exception rather than the rule. More often thannot, the populational targets of turnover models have been left unspecified.

It is nevertheless reasonable to assume that turnover theorists have been intending that their models apply to some population(or populations) of individuals, no matter how indefinitely specified that population may be. These types of considerations areimportant because they help to frame a theorist's conceptual policy.

A survey of the turnover theory literature suggests that most turnover models are probably following one of three conceptualpolicies. Models may be intended to perform as universal turnover frameworks. They may seek to provide a more-limited modalrepresentation of turnover processes. Or, they may attempt to specify the unique turnover paths of various subpopulations.

Universal turnover models describe a process that may be appropriated to explain the turnover of any individual. This kind ofmodel provides an overarching framework that is intended to apply, more or less exactly, to the turnover decisions of all workers,without regard to an individual's unique circumstances or situation. A basic assumption of this kind of theory is that at least somemodel components will apply across the board, although the specific ordering andweighting of componentsmay vary from case tocase. Mobley's turnover models (e.g., Mobley,1977) have sometimes been viewed this way (see, for example, Lee &Mitchell,1994).

An equally plausible goal for a theory like Mobley's (1977) would be describing a modal turnover process. Instead of beingbroadly inclusive, a modal-theory approach would attempt to describe a “most typical” or “most frequently-occurring” turnoverprocess. This conceptual policy acknowledges the fundamental diversity among individual decision processes. However,commonalities across individuals may still be identified by focusing on recurrent patterns and by searching for the existence of apredominant decision style.

It is also possible that turnover models may specify essentially different turnover processes for different groups. Subpopula-tional turnover frameworks are predicated on a belief that turnover processes are qualitatively different for people in different kindsof situations. Situational differences may result from personal factors, contextual factors, or a combination of the two. Lee andMitchell's (1994) unfolding turnover model exemplifies a conceptual policy of this type. The unfoldingmodel details four differentdecision paths that apply to different populations.

Each conceptual policy comes replete with its own set of conceptual and empirical challenges. For example, is it reasonable toexpect universal turnover models to specify every construct affecting turnover? Or, conversely, will this kind of model performsatisfactorily by simply identifying only the most important decisional mechanisms? How broadly applicable would a modalturnover model actually be? For example, does it provide a reasonable description of the behavior of a large segment of the targetaudience (e.g., 50%) or does it apply narrowly to the behavior of a much smaller group (e.g., 5%)? Is the model worthwhile if itsapplicability becomes too limited? A challenge for any subpopulational model would be explaining how the varioussubpopulations differ. In other words, why does one group of individuals follow a decision trajectory that is different from thetrajectories followed by other groups? Furthermore, how far may we go in dividing up the target audience (and developing atailored model for each subpopulation) before the law of diminishing returns takes effect?

273R.P. Steel, J.W. Lounsbury / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 271–282

Conceptual policies are one aspect of the conceptual frame giving shape to a turnover theory. Another important aspect of theconceptual frame is the theoretical milieu in existence at the time the model is formulated.

2.2. Turnover models and the conceptual traditions they exemplify

Historical context often has much to say about a model's philosophical orientation and/or theoretical underpinnings.Sometimes, for example, new models are influenced by a dominant conceptual paradigm of the period. Other times, new modelscome to reflect the research traditions of their progenitors. Turnover models have been impacted by developments in decisiontheory, attitude theory, sociology, and labor economics. Table 1 links a number of prominent turnover models with the conceptualtraditions that spawned them.

Many turnover scholars (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999) regard their own models asdescendents of the seminal work of March and Simon (1958). March and Simon proposed the first complete, stand-alone turnovertheory. According to March and Simon, turnover may be viewed as the end-stage product of two companion processes, “theperceived desirability of movement” and “the perceived ease of movement.”

March and Simon's (1958) turnover model was steeped in the conceptual traditions of administrative decision theory (Simon,1960). Administrative theory portrays human decision making as a systematic and orderly process. Administrative decision theorywas the dominant paradigm in decision theory during the period when the March and Simon framework was undergoingdevelopment.

Many subsequent turnover models are off-shoots of March and Simon's (1958) theory. March and Simon's influence may beseen in models as diverse as those proposed byMobley (1977), Steers andMowday (1981), Jackofsky (1984), and Lee andMitchell(1994). Furthermore, vestiges of administrative decision theory are evident in virtually every model in the contemporary turnoverliterature today.

In a series of papers published in the late 1970's, Mobley and colleagues proposed a base turnover model and subsequentextensions and refinements (Mobley, 1977; Mobley et al., 1978; Mobley et al., 1979). Mobley et al.'s framework has beencharacterized as doing the most of any turnover theory to “further understanding of the withdrawal process” (Hom & Griffeth,1995, p. 57).

Originally dubbed the “intermediate linkages model,”Mobley et al.'s framework was initially conceived as a means of detailingcognitive steps that would intervene between the experience of job dissatisfaction and the decision to quit. Mobley et al. drewheavily on conceptual traditions in the domain of attitude theory for insights into this process. As noted in Table 1, Mobley et al.'sframework may be regarded as a focused application of Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

The impact of Mobley et al.'s work on subsequent theorizing is undeniable. Mobley et al.'s (1979) ideas have had a profoundeffect on the work of many later authors (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Steel, 2002).

Conceptual influences on turnover theory have not been limited to the domain of psychology. For instance, turnoverframeworks in Table 1 proposed by Price and Mueller (1986) and Muchinsky and Morrow (1980) have their roots in conceptualtraditions outside the psychological sciences (e.g., labor economics).

Adapting time-honored concepts from the literature on the sociology of organization (Price, 1977), Price, Mueller, andcolleagues fashioned a model of the turnover process with a decidedly sociological perspective (Price, 1977; Martin, 1979; Price &Mueller, 1981, 1986). Tests of the Price-Mueller model have provided a measure of empirical support (e.g., Price & Mueller, 1981).

Muchinsky and Morrow's (1980) framework offers a particularly telling analysis of the effects of labor market mechanisms onturnover decisions. The model's labor-market insights are a by-product of its grounding in the literature of labor economics.Although tests of the Muchinsky-Morrow turnover model have been rare, Carsten and Spector's (1987) meta-analytic study of theeffect of job-market conditions on turnover decisions provided a measure of support for this framework.

Because turnover models are, in essence, extrapolations of decision theory, recent innovations in the area of decision makinghave had a profound influence on some of the newer turnover models in print. For example, as noted in Table 1, the turnovermodels of Lee and Mitchell (1994) and Steel (2002) have been shaped by recent developments in decision theory which portrayhuman decision-making as a nonlinear process.

Beach's (1990) image theory describes human decision making as a process of comparing significant life events (i.e., shocks)against internalized “images” of goals and values. Lee and Mitchell (1994) used Beach's framework as a point-of-departure indeveloping their multi-path model (i.e., Unfolding Model) of the turnover process. Lee and Mitchell argued that a shock to thesystem (e.g., an intense episode of job dissatisfaction) initiates movement along one of four different decision paths leading toturnover.

Table 1Turnover models and the research traditions they exemplify.

Model's authors Research tradition

March and Simon (1958) Administrative decision theoryMobley et al. (latest 1979) Theory of reasoned actionMuchinsky and Morrow (1980) Labor economicsPrice and Mueller (latest 1986) Sociological methodsLee and Mitchell (1994) Image theorySteel (2002) Cybernetic theory


Cybernetic frameworks view human decision making as an integrated process of action, feedback, and adaptation. Adoptingthis conceptual frame, Steel's (2002) evolutionary job search model proposed that job search pathways follow a correspondingprocess. Specifically, Steel argued that job search may be characterized as a series of iterative steps involving market exploration,feedback, and behavioral adjustment.

3. Theoretical convergence

The main goal of our review was identification of areas of theoretical convergence among turnover models. Turnover modelsfocus on the same phenomenological referent—the turnover process itself. If independent observers (or theorists) describe thesame phenomena (e.g., turnover), it is entirely reasonable to expect a degree of overlap in the descriptions they provide. Byhighlighting areas of theoretical convergence, we may begin to lay the groundwork for turnover models reflecting greater cross-discipline consensus.

The first step of our review began with dissection of published turnover models into their constituent components. We thenattempted to determine if conceptual convergence across models was evident for two classes of model mechanisms, coremechanisms and secondary mechanisms.

3.1. Core mechanisms

Constructs like job satisfaction appear with such regularity in turnover theory that they have become virtually synonymouswith the area of study itself. Heavily used constructs, like job satisfaction, are the core mechanisms of turnover theory. Coremechanisms are relatively few in number. They are easily discerned from even a cursory reading of the turnover literature. And,these mechanisms have been a constant focus of turnover research.

For half a century, reviews of the empirical turnover literature have been making a case for the importance of affectivemechanisms in turnover decisions (e.g., Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom et al., 1992;Porter & Steers, 1973; Vroom, 1964). Because the process of linking attitudinal mechanisms to turnover decisions is now all butcomplete, attitudinal constructs (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) have become mainstays of turnover theory(e.g., Mobley, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981).

Reviews of the empirical literature have also consistently shown that behavioral intentions, usually expressed as intentions toquit or stay, are excellent predictors of personnel turnover. For example, Steel and Ovalle's (1984) meta-analysis found thatbehavioral intentions predicted turnover better than attitudinal variables. Subsequent reviews have, in principle, mostlyreaffirmed this conclusion (e.g., Carsten & Spector, 1987; Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom et al., 1992; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Fittingly,behavioral intentions have also come to assume a prominent role in turnover theory (e.g., Jackofsky, 1984; Hom & Kinicki, 2001).

Reviews of turnover literature have also focused on a presumed link between turnover capability and employment alternatives.Steel and Griffeth's (1989) review of this literature showed that perceptual measures of employment opportunity (i.e., perceivedalternatives) have not been particularly effective predictors of retention criteria. Happily, more recent approaches to this problem(Blau, 1993; Griffeth, Steel, Allen, & Bryan, 2005; Kopelman, Rovenpor, & Millsap, 1992) have been yielding more encouragingresults (Griffeth et al., 2000). Although the findings of perception-based job-search studies have often been disappointing,research linking turnover outcomes to objective indicators of job-market activity (e.g., levels of unemployment) has generally metwith more success (e.g., Carsten & Spector, 1987; Gerhart, 1990; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanburg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005; Steel, 1996;

Table 2Consensus analysis of standard turnover-model components.

Model's authors Job attitudes/morale Quit/stay intentions Job search mechanisms

Perceptual Job market

March and Simon (1958) X X XMobley et al. (latest 1979) X X X XMuchinsky and Morrow (1980) X XSteers and Mowday (1981) X X X XRusbult and Farrell (1983) X XSheridan and Abelson (1983) XJackofsky (1984) X X X XHulin et al. (1985) X X X XPrice and Mueller (latest 1986) X X XGerhart (1990) X X X XBlau (1994) X XLee and Mitchell (1994) X XHom and Kinicki (2001) X X X XSteel (2002) X X X XKammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005) X X XCrossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield (2007) X X Xf (of occurrence) 16 9 14 10p (of occurrence) 1.00 .56 .88 .63


Trevor, 2001). Logic suggests that many individuals will search for alternative employment prior to quitting. Consequently, turnovertheorists have routinely made job search, expressed as perceptual measures, objective job-market variables, or both, a standardcomponent of the frameworks they have proposed (e.g., Gerhart, 1990; Steel, 2002).

Substantial empirical evidence has accumulated indicating that affective mechanisms (i.e., job attitudes, morale), intentions toquit/stay, and job search mechanisms (expressed as perceptual mechanisms or job market mechanisms) are important coremechanisms in the turnover process. However, there has been no attempt, as yet, to determine if these empirically-supportedmechanisms are being widely integrated into turnover theory. To remedy this situation, we performed an analysis evaluating theoccurrence frequency of the aforementioned mechanisms in a sample of turnover models. This consensus analysis focused on 16published turnover models that met the inclusion criteria of our study. The models are listed, by authorship, in Table 2. For eachmodel the table shows (with an “X”) whether any of four turnover mechanisms (job attitudes/morale, intentions to quit/stay, jobsearch perceptions, and job market mechanisms) are components of the framework.

Cross-model results are shown at the bottom of the table. Hit-rate frequencies (f) and proportion statistics (P) summarize thefindings. A binomial test (χ, Siegel, 1956) and associated probability statistics were calculated for each of the four coremechanismsshown inTable 2. Therewas universal agreement on the importance of affectivemechanisms. Thesemechanismswere incorporatedinto every model reviewed (P=1.00, χ=0, pb .01). In addition, some type of job search mechanism (perceptual or job market)appears in almost everymodel in the table. Sheridan andAbelson's (1983)modelwas the lone exception to this rule. Perceptual job-search mechanisms were the most prevalent (P=.88, χ=2, pb .01), but objective job market constructs (e.g., unemploymentstatistics) also appear with regularity (P=.63, χ=6, n.s.). Intentions to quit/stay are often among the best predictors of retentioncriteria (Steel & Ovalle, 1984), but these constructs were featured somewhat less often in the sampled models (P=.56, χ=7, n.s.).This situationmay exist because behavioral intentions are closely aligned with a specific research tradition (i.e., theory of reasonedaction, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and turnover models rooted in that same tradition (e.g., Mobley et al., 1979; Hom & Kinicki, 2001).Although the hit-rate for this construct was somewhat smaller than that of its contemporaries, the absolute size of this effect maystill be construed as signifying a fairly broad level of consensus on the usefulness of this construct.

3.2. Secondary mechanisms

Analysis of the data in Table 2 showed thatmodels of the turnover process are routinely constructed around the same three coreturnover mechanisms, attitudinal variables (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), job-search mechanisms (whetherperceptual or market-based), and turnover intentions (i.e., stay-quit intentions). One could easily argue that these mechanisms arethe backbone of contemporary turnover theory. Important as they may be, however, they are by no means the complete story.

Turnover scholars have mined empirical domains (e.g., Griffeth et al., 2000) and conceptual literatures (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein,1980; Hom & Griffeth, 1995) for additional constructs and variables that can help to tell the turnover story. Countless secondary

Table 3Personal factors.

Underlying theme

fof

occurrenceOriginalauthors

Originaldimension

name

Personal traits 5 March and Simon (1958)Mobley et al. (1979)

Muchinsky and Morrow (1980)Steers and Mowday (1981)

Steel (2004)

“Personal traits of individual“Personality and interests”

“Individual factors”“Individual attributes”

“Personality”

Values 2 Mobley et al. (1979)Steers and Mowday (1981)

“Individual values”“Job … values”

Age 3 Mobley et al. (1979)Jackofsky (1984)

Crossley et al. (2007)

“Age”“Age”“Age”

Tenure 3 Mobley et al. (1979)Jackofsky (1984)Gerhart (1990)

“Tenure”“Tenure”“Tenure”

Skill 2 Mobley et al. (1979)Hulin et al. (1985)

“Skill level”“Skills”

Training 2 Hulin et al. (1985)Price and Mueller (1986)

“Training”“General training”

Professionalism 2 Mobley et al. (1979)Price and Mueller (1986)

“Professionalism”

“Professionalism”

Family responsibilities 2 Mobley et al. (1979)Price and Mueller (1986)

“Family responsibility”“Kinship responsibility”

”


mechanisms have been developed from these literatures. These secondary mechanisms have proven indispensable. They are usedto tie important concepts together and to add form to skeletal conceptual outlines.

Initial impressions suggest that there is great diversity in the kinds of secondary mechanisms found in the conceptual turnoverliterature. Because of this diversity, one may be more inclined to view secondary mechanisms as agencies of conceptual discordrather than as agencies of conceptual unification. Nevertheless, the current study held to a premise of conceptual unity underlyingturnover theory, and, therefore, an analysis focusing on theoretical convergence among secondary mechanisms was undertaken.

Because they were handled separately, the core mechanisms (i.e., attitudinal constructs, turnover intentions, job-searchmechanisms) were excluded from the secondary-mechanisms analysis. Turnover-model dimensions evidencing any overlap withcore mechanisms were dropped from this portion of the study. Hence, for example, Price and Mueller's (1986) “commitment”construct was screened out of this analysis as a result of its implicit connection to attitudinal constructs. Steers and Mowday's(1981) “desire to stay or leave” construct was dropped because of its conceptual proximity to intentions to quit/stay. And, Marchand Simon's (1958) “perceived ease of movement” construct was eliminated from consideration because of its affiliation with jobsearch perceptions (Steel & Griffeth, 1989).

Analysis of secondary-mechanisms began with development of an exhaustive list of the dimensions in the Table 2 modelsmeeting our criteria. Initially, 84 secondary dimensions were identified. Cross-listingmodels under dimensions made it possible toidentify turnovermechanisms usedmore than once in the conceptual literature. Single-occurrencemechanismswere deleted fromthe list. In this way, the original list was winnowed to a set of 26 multiple-occurrence dimensions. These dimensions were thenfurther sorted into 5 broad topic areas. Tables 3–7 summarize the findings from each topic area.

Each of the tables has a similar structure. The underlying theme of each dimension is identified in the first column of the table.The second column provides frequency statistics (i.e., f of occurrence) indicating the number of models employing a particularmechanism. The third column in the table identifies the original authors of all models using that dimension. And, the final columnof each table provides exact names of the dimensions as they appeared in original source material.

Turnover models have long recognized that aspects of the individual affect turnover decisions. Table 3 contains a list ofpersonal-factors dimensions culled from the 16 turnover process models scrutinized for the present review. Turnover-modeldimensions in this group ran the gamut from individual characteristics (e.g., age, skill) to family-oriented (e.g., familyresponsibilities) aspects of the person. Across the models reviewed, the dimension from this group occurring most frequently(f=5) was personal traits (e.g., personality).

Table 4 contains turnover dimensions focusing on the current job and organization. Costs of quitting the current job (f=5) andrewards of the current job (f=4) were the two most prevalent job-oriented themes in the models studied. Job stress factors (i.e.,job stress, role conflict/compatibility) also played a prominent role. Somewhat surprisingly, the only firm-level factor linked bymultiple models to individual turnover decisions was organizational size.

Table 4Job and organizational factors.

Underlying theme

fof


Originaldimension

name

Job-related perceptions 3 Mobley et al. (1979)Jackofsky (1984)Steel (2004)

“Job-related perceptions”“Job complexity”

“interpreted job circumstances”

Expectations ofpresent job

2 Mobley et al. (1979)Steers and Mowday (1981)

“Expectations for present job”“Job expectations…”

Job rewards 4 Mobley et al. (1979)Rusbult and Farrell (1983)

Hulin et al. (1985)Price and Mueller (1986)

“Rewards”“Job rewards”

“Salary; fringe benefits”“Pay”

Costs of quitting 5 Rusbult and Farrell (1983)Hulin et al. (1985)

Hom and Kinicki (2001)Steel (2004)

Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005)

“Job costs”“Utility of direct … costs”

“Cost of joblessness/cost of moving”“Costs of job seeking”“Cost of turnover”

Job stress 3 Sheridan and Abelson (1983)Price and Mueller (1986)Hom and Kinicki (2001)

“Job stress”“Role overload”

“Stress”

Role conflict/compatibility 2 March and Simon (1958)Hom and Kinicki (2001)

“Compatibility of job and other roles”“Interrole conflict”

Organizational size 2 March and Simon (1958)Price and Mueller (1986)

“Organizational size”“Company … size”

Table 5Mechanisms of change: external and internal.

Underlying theme

fof


Originaldimension

name

Desirability of movement 2 March and Simon (1958)Jackofsky (1984)

“Perceived desirability of movement”“Desirability of movement”

Expectations offuture job

3 Mobley et al. (1979)Hom and Kinicki (2001)

Steel (2004)

“Expectations for alternative jobs”“Benefits [of withdrawal]”“Benefits of job seeking”

Efforts to change situation 2 Steers and Mowday (1981)Hulin et al. (1985)

“Efforts to change situation”“Intentions to change situation”

Intraorganizationaltransfer possibility

5 March and Simon (1958)Jackofsky (1984)Hulin et al. (1985)

Steel (2004)Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005)

“Possibility of intraorganizational transfer”“Expectation of company action to … transfer”

“Transfer attempts”“Availability of intraorganizational alternatives”

“Internal alternatives”

Promotion possibility 3 Hulin et al. (1985)Price and Mueller (1986)

Steel (2004)

“Promotion attempts”“Promotional opportunity”

“Availability of intraorganizational alternatives”

Demotion possibility 2 Jackofsky (1984)Hulin et al. (1985)

“Expectation of company action to … demote”“Demotion attempts”

Alternative formsof withdrawal

5 Mobley et al. (1979)Steers and Mowday (1981)

Hulin et al. (1985)Hom and Kinicki (2001)

Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005)

“Alternative withdrawal”“Alternative modes of accommodation”

“Psychological withdrawal”“Job avoidance”

“Work withdrawal”


Many turnover theorists (e.g., Mobley, 1977) assume that deteriorating job situations set the turnover process in motion.Deteriorating job situations, whether real or imagined, create tensionwithin the individual for change. Table 5 showcases change-themed turnovermechanisms. Themodels reviewed imply that there are threemain avenues of change open to an individual facedwith a deteriorating job situation. He/she may look for an extraorganizational remedy (e.g., expectations of future job). They mayresolve this problem by pursuing some form of intraorganizational job change [e.g., intraorganizational transfer possibility (f=5)].Or, they may alleviate the tension for change by modifying current job behavior [e.g., psychological and behavioral withdrawal(f=5)].

Remaining secondary dimensions appeared to cluster into two small groupings. Table 6 deals with secondary turnover-modelmechanisms focusing on the consequences of turnover (i.e., nonwork consequences, performance consequences). Table 7 containsnonspecific decision-process mechanisms (i.e., system shocks, thoughts of quitting). For the most part, the dimensions in Tables 6and 7 appeared infrequently in the models studied.

Fig.1 developed out of our reviewof core- and secondary-turnoverdimensions. The objectwas not to produce yet anothermodelof the turnover process. Instead, the concept map in the figure seeks to fashion the most oft-repeated themes (e.g., personal traits,costs of quitting the current job, etc.) from the turnover-theory literature into a cohesive network. The map posits that aspects ofthe individual (see, Table 3) affect how rewards and quitting costs (see, Table 4) are seen by an individual. General job affect (see,Table 2) acts as an evaluative filter. If the net yield of this job assessment is a negative balance, tension for change (see, Table 5)results. Individuals may seek to change the situation by following one of two pathways. They may choose to immediately enter thejob search and exit process (see, Table 2). Or, they may choose to first pursue an intraorganizational solution (see, Table 5), such as

Table 6Consequences of quitting/staying.

Underlying theme

fof


Originaldimension

name

Nonwork consequences 3 Mobley et al. (1979)Muchinsky and Morrow (1980)Steers and Mowday (1981)

“Nonwork consequences of quitting“Societal consequences”“Nonwork influences”

Job performance 2 Steers and Mowday (1981)Jackofsky (1984)

“Job performance”“Job performance”

”

Table 7Decision process mechanisms.

Underlying theme fof occurrence

Originalauthors

Originaldimension name

System shocks 2 Lee and Mitchell (1994)Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005)

“Shock to the system”

“Critical events”

Thoughts of quitting 2 Mobley et al. (1979)Hom and Kinicki (2001)

“Thinking of quitting a”

“Thoughts of quitting”

a As reported in Mobley (1977).

Fig. 1. Integrative map of the turnover-theory concept space.


transfer or job withdrawal. If intraorganizational solutions provide a satisfactory remedy, turnover theories assume the decisionmakerwill continue his or her current employment. If, on the other hand, internal remedies fail to alleviate the individual's personalturmoil, then turnover theory predicts the individual will enter the job search and exit process (see, Table 2).

4. Conceptual divergence

Turnover models share one indelible constant. They are all attempting to describe the same behavioral process (i.e., theemployee turnover process). Therefore, conceptual overlap among the models is inevitable. But, the substantial conceptualdiversity existing among contemporary turnover models is proof that complete theoretical convergence is still a distant goal.

Attempting to detail all forms of conceptual divergence among turnover models would be a worthy objective, but it is one thatgoes well beyond the scope of the current article. Instead, our discussion will focus on an admittedly selected set of modeldifferences that have important empirical implications.

Absenteeism consistently predicts turnover, suggesting a progression of withdrawal process (Griffeth et al., 2000). However,the only turnover model that has made a concerted effort to incorporate absenteeism into its conceptual scheme is the Hom et al.model (see, for example, Hom & Kinicki, 2001). For that matter, turnover process models have been mostly silent on the subject ofrelationships between turnover and other work outcomes (e.g., job performance, tardiness, etc.). Jackofsky's (1984) model andSteers and Mowday's (1981) framework represent additional noteworthy exceptions in this regard.

Turnover models often give less attention to impetus-producing triggering agencies than to linking or intervening mechanisms(e.g., job satisfaction, intentions to search). Nevertheless, some models have attempted to address the former issue. For example,models developed by Mobley et al. (1979), Hulin, Roznowski, and Hachiya (1985), and Price and Mueller (1986) identify process-energizing mechanisms. These models describe a host of organizational and contextual factors capable of triggering the turnoverprocess. Systematic research designed to isolate the most important triggering mechanisms would pave the way for moreproductive theoretical analysis of these understudied issues. Maertz and colleagues (Maertz & Campion, 2004; Maertz & Griffeth,2004) launched a major program of study in this direction, but it remains to be seen howwell this work will mesh with the more-traditional process-model literature.

Recent articles by Mitchell, Holtom, and Lee (2001) and Steel, Griffeth, and Hom (2002) made similar points. Both articlesargued that turnover scholars have been wrongly assuming that turnover and retention are reciprocal processes. Instead,


Mitchell et al. (2001) and Steel et al. (2002) suggested that turnover and retention should bemore properly viewed as related—butnot necessarily reciprocal—processes. Illustrating this point of view, Steel et al. (2002) noted that different sets of motives maybecome salient as the acts of staying (e.g., friendships with coworkers) and leaving (e.g., career advancement) are separatelycontemplated. In essence, what this view is suggesting is that staying and leaving are different kinds of decisions, and they may bethe products of overlapping, but not necessarily duplicate, antecedent agencies.

If the models in Table 2 are any indication, then one may safely conclude that turnover theory has been single-mindedlyconcerned with explaining why people quit. These models have had relatively little to say about why people choose to stay (i.e.,employee retention), presumably because they have been assuming that a decision to stay will be the exact converse of a decisionto leave. But, if this assumption is wrong and the two processes are not exact complements, then turnover theory may besystematically missing an opportunity to increase explanatory power.

Consider, for example, the situation of internal mobility opportunities. When available, intraorganizational mobility opportunities(e.g., promotional opportunities, transfer opportunities, training opportunities) promote retention by offering employees alternativesto quitting. Internal options make it possible for individuals to satisfy the desire for job movement without resorting to the more-extrememeasure of leaving the organization. As such, they aremost appropriately viewed as a cause of retention. They are not a causeof turnover, at least not directly.

Several of themodels in Table 2 contain a retention-orientedmechanism (ormechanisms) focusing on internal opportunity. Forinstance, March and Simon's (1958) framework acknowledged that “the possibility of intraorganizational transfer” promotesstaying. Price and Mueller's (1986) model suggested that “promotional opportunity” enhances retention. Hulin et al.'s (1985)model noted that attempts to change an unsatisfactory job situation (e.g., promotion attempts, transfer attempts) sometimesresult in an increased likelihood of staying. Also, Steel's (2002) turnover model referred collectively to internally-focused avenuesof mobility as “internal opportunities.” Unlike its predecessors, Steel's (2002) “internal opportunities” concept was not limited totransfers and promotions. Instead, he expanded this concept to also incorporate opportunities for professional growth anddevelopment (i.e., training and educational opportunities).

Turnover-theory frameworks also differ in the importance they place on nonwork contributors to turnover decisions. Turnovermodels have occasionally made reference to nonwork mechanisms (e.g., Mobley et al., 1979; Steers & Mowday, 1981), but suchreferences have often been short on specifics. This situation appears to be changing, however. A recent reformulation of the Homet al. turnover model (Hom & Kinicki, 2001) pointed to interrole conflict (i.e., work-family conflict) as an important nonworkmechanism affecting quit/stay decisions.

5. Emergent themes

Recent work in both the conceptual and empirical arenas has been exploring turnover-process constructs thatmaywell becomethe foundations of 21st century turnover theory. Table 8 identifies a number of emerging constructs from recent turnoverliterature.

Mindful of the failings of attitudinal measures of job search (Steel & Griffeth, 1989), Blau (1993) employed a behavioralmethodology to develop measures of preparatory job search and active job search. Blau's measures assess levels of job search byfocusing on previously-enacted behaviors. Preparatory job search, for example, focuses on behaviors reflecting the initiation of jobsearch (e.g., preparing a resume). By way of contrast, active job search focuses on behaviors reflecting intensified search activity(e.g., attending job interviews). In a series of studies, Blau (1993, 1994) demonstrated that his measures of preparatory job searchand active job search reliably predict retention criteria.

Lee and Mitchell's (1994) unfolding model of turnover introduced several new concepts to the turnover-theory literature. LeeandMitchell's framework suggests that system shocksmay set turnover processes in motion. System shocks (e.g., a sudden changein job satisfaction) are jarring worklife events that lead to a re-evaluation by the individual of his or her existing employmentsituation. Confronted by a shock, Lee and Mitchell predict that individuals will perform a search for response alternatives. Scriptsare preexisting plans of action that define a feasible set of response alternatives. When system shocks alter an individual'semployment homeostasis, previously encoded turnover-decision paths are the kinds of scripts that gain prominence as potentialsituation-appropriate responses.

Table 8Emergent constructs in turnover theory.

Construct Description Source

Internal mobilityopportunities

–Opportunities for job change or professional growth available within thecurrent organization

March and Simon (1958), Price and Mueller (1981),Hulin et al. (1985), Steel (2002)

Preparatory job search –Behavior indicative of a preparation for job search (e.g., preparing a resume) Blau (1993, 1994)Active job search –Behavior indicative of an on-going job search (e.g., attending a job interview) Blau (1993, 1994)Shocks –Jarring events triggering the turnover decision process Lee and Mitchell (1994)Scripts –Preexisting plans of action Lee and Mitchell (1994)Interrole conflict –Conflict between work and nonwork roles (e.g., work-home conflicts) Hom and Kinicki (2001)Movement capital –Personal attributes (e.g., skill sets) enhancing an individual's mobility Trevor (2001)Job embeddedness –Ties that bind an individual to present job and organization Lee et al. (2004)Resource substitutability –Substitute resources capable of off-setting financial hardships associated with

quittingSteel (2002)


Job search is an integral part of the turnover process. Job market factors (e.g., unemployment levels, market demand) affect anindividual's employment mobility, but job mobility is not entirely determined by market conditions. Employment mobility is ajoint function of both: (1) opportunity in the relevant employment market (e.g., demand characteristics of the labor market) and(2) the personal resources (e.g., skills and competencies) of individual job seekers. Focusing on the latter portion of this formula,Trevor (2001) described a concept of movement capital. When individuals enhance their marketability by increasing theirknowledge resources (i.e., skills and competencies), their movement capital correspondingly increases. Movement capital is apersonal resource that will enhance the individual's capacity for job mobility.

Recently, Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001) suggested that job embeddedness is a construct that helps to explainemployment longevity. Job embeddedness occurs when individuals become rooted in their current employment, even when theymay have the capacity to move. As service periods lengthen, bonds (i.e., social bonds, community bonds, financial inducements,etc.) between the individual and his or her employer strengthen. The longer this goes on, the harder it becomes for the individualto “break the ties that bind.” Bonding (or embedding) mechanisms may become so encompassing and ubiquitous that theindividual is almost inextricably linked with the organization.

Steel (2002) suggested that personal necessity shapes the likelihood of job search. If individuals have access to alternativesources of financial support (e.g., savings, working spouse, etc), they have the freedom to terminate employment withoutundertaking a job search. However, individuals lacking such alternative support will usually be compelled by personal necessity toperform a job search prior to quitting. Steel dubbed this job search gateway mechanism resource substitutability.

6. New directions in theory development

Process models describing the employee turnover process have been appearing intermittently in the organizational literaturesince the 1950's. Employing a simple box-and-arrow methodology, the typical turnover model describes stages of a decisionmaking process that culminate in turnover action (i.e., quitting or staying). Although the body of research testing these models isuniformly correlational (e.g., Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Lee & Mowday, 1987; Mobley et al., 1978; Price & Mueller, 1981), thefundamental message of these frameworks is one of causation. Taken at face value, these frameworks describe a causal floworiginating in the realms of affect and cognition and culminating in the realm of behavioral action.

Although impetus-producing mechanisms would seem to be a natural extension of turnover theory's causal focus, turnovermodels have not done a particularly good job of describing turnover's instigating mechanisms. A select few models (e.g., Price &Mueller, 1981; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004) address these issues, but many do not. Turnover theory has had far more successarticulating intervening decisional processes (e.g., thoughts of quitting, intentions to search, etc.). Mobley's (1977) workepitomizes this trend. Mobley's (1977) framework was designed to describe what happens after one has experienced jobdissatisfaction (and its presumed causes). Precipitating conditions are implied by the model, but never really addressed.

Research exploring the root causes of turnover decisions is sorely needed. However, at the present time this kind of workis mostly notable for its absence. Studies examining the reasons people provide for their decisions to quit (e.g., Mattis,1990; Sicherman, 1996; Society for Human Resource Management, 2000) represent a step in the right direction. Such studiesare beginning to shed light on some of the more frequently-implicated motivational agencies in the turnover process. It isalso not a surprise to learn that a portion of this work is originating out of the interests of practitioners (i.e., Society for HumanResourceManagement, 2000). Practitioners are discovering that when retention interventions are based on data aboutwhy peoplequit, they tend to be more successful. It stands to reason, then, that turnover models will probably have more appeal for thepractitioner community when they become better at identifying fundamental causal agencies in the turnover process. Hom,Roberson, and Ellis' (2008) recent study represents the kind of bridging study that will be needed to meet the needs of diverseaudiences.

Turnover models also need to do a better job of explaining how the labor market affects individual turnover behavior (Steel,2004). Existing frameworks include perceptual job-market constructs (e.g., evaluation of alternatives) and/or objective job-marketconstructs (e.g., unemployment rate), but the critical link (or links) explaining how labor market properties are translated intoactionable inferences remains obscure.

Turnover theorists must also continue to be cognizant of the evolutionary nature of turnover processes. As Steel (2002) noted,conceptual errors will multiply if we forget that we are using static methods (i.e., box and arrow drawings) to portray a temporally-dynamic process. Dynamic learning occurs as peoplemove through a turnover decision process. As individuals learnmore about theirpersonal job prospects, they may modify/adjust their decision making approach as job search progresses (Lee &Mitchell, 1994; Steel,2004).

Blau's (1993) job search constructs would be a good fit with an evolutionary turnover theory. His constructs use previously-enacted behaviors as indicators of the progress of job search. Blau's approach suggests an evolutionary perspective becausedifferent forms of behavior are associated with preparatory job search and active job search. Blau's (1993, 1994) findings also areconsonant with an evolutionary approach because late-stage job search (i.e., active job search) predicts turnover decisionoutcomes better than early-stage (i.e., preparatory job search) job search. The impressive findings associated with these constructsenable one to make a strong case for their integration with formal turnover theory.

Consensus analysis indicated that turnover theorists agree reasonably well on the basic parameters of a formal turnover theory(i.e., job affect, job search, intent to quit/stay). In addition, select secondary mechanisms (e.g., personal traits; intraorganizationaltransfer possibility) are recurring with sufficient frequency to suggest that they may emerge as important ancillary mechanisms.But there is still more disagreement among models than convergence. Large-scale theoretical convergence remains a distant goal.


Substantially more refinement of these kinds of models will be necessary before the discipline can hope to produce anythingapproximating a universally-accepted statement of the turnover process.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, England: Wiley.Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 313–330.Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288–312.Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396–424.Brooke, P. B. (1986). Beyond the Steers and Rhodes model of employee attendance. Academy of Management Review, 11, 345–361.Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72, 374–381.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.Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of

voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042.Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., & Krackhardt, D. M. (1982). Turnover overstated: A functional taxonomy. Academy of Management Review, 7, 117–123.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Gerhart, B. (1990). Voluntary turnover and alternative job opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 467–476.Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research

implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.Griffeth, R. W., Steel, R. P., Allen, D. G., & Bryan, N. (2005). The development of a multidimensional measure of job market cognitions: The Employment Opportunity

Index (EOI). Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 335–349.Harrison, D. A. (1995). Volunteer motivation and attendance decisions: Competitive theory testing in multiple samples from a homeless shelter. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 371–385.Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77, 890–909.Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76, 350–366.Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 975–987.Hom, P.W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008). Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. Journal of Applied Psychology,

93, 1–34.Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration.

Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233–250.Jackofsky, E. F. (1984). Turnover and job performance: An integrated process model. Academy of Management Review, 9, 74–83.Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanburg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., & Ahlburg, D. (2005). The role of temporal shifts in turnover processes: It's about time. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90, 644–658.Kopelman, R. E., Rovenpor, J. L., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). Rationale and construct validity evidence for the Job Search Behavior Index: Because intentions (and new

year's resolutions) often come to naught. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 269–287.Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, R. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–89.Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of

Management Journal, 42, 450–462.Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of

Management Journal, 30, 721–743.Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Sablynski, C., Burton, J., & Holtom, B. (2004). The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional

absences and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711–722.Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 566–582.Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of

Management, 30, 667–683.Mattis, M. C. (1990). New forms of flexible work arrangements for managers and professionals: Myths and realities. Human Resource Planning, 13, 133–146.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Martin, T. N. (1979). A contextual model of employee turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 313–324.McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 342–353.Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy. The Academy of Management Executive,

15(4), 96–108.Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of

Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121.Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240.Mobley, W. H. (1982). Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 111–116.Mobley,W. H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H. H., &Meglino, B.M. (1979). Reviewand conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522.Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. D., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408–414.Muchinsky, P. M., & Morrow, P. C. (1980). A multidisciplinary model of voluntary employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 263–290.Nicholson, N., & Johns, G. (1985). The absence culture and the psychological contract: Who's in control of absence? Academy of Management Review, 10, 397–407.Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151–176.Prestholdt, P. H., Lane, I. M., &Mathews, R. C. (1987). Nurse turnover as reasoned action: Development of a processmodel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 221–227.Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.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. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in

rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429–438.Sheridan, J. E., & Abelson, M. A. (1983). Cusp catastrophe model of employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 418–436.Sicherman, N. (1996). Gender differences in departures from a large firm. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49, 484–505.Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper & Row.Society of Human Resource Management (2000). Retention practices survey. Alexandria, VA: Society of Human Resource Management.Steel, R. P. (1996). Labor market dimensions as predictors of the reenlistment decisions of military personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 421–428.Steel, R. P. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. Academy of Management Review, 27, 346–360.


Steel, R. P. (2004). Jobmarkets and turnoverdecisions. InR.W.Griffeth&P.W.Hom(Eds.), Innovative theoryand empirical research on employee turnover (pp. 73–82). NewYork: Information Age Publishing.

Steel, R. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (1989). The elusive relationship between perceived employment opportunity and turnover behavior: A methodological or conceptualartifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 846–854.

Steel, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. (2002). Practical retention policy for the practical manager. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 149–162.Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 69, 673–686.Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and postdecision accommodation processes. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior, vol. 3. (pp. 235–281)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391–407.Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings.

Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–290.Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of

Management Journal, 44, 621–638.Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Williams, C. R., & Livingstone, L. P. (1994). Another look at the relationship between performance and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37,

269–298.

turnover process models: review and synthesis of a conceptual literature

Documents