Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:53:24.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Reservations About a “Rational Choice” Model Predicting Employee Turnover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Terence R. Mitchell  and
Thomas W. Lee
Terence R. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Thomas W. Lee
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Russell proposes a decision model of turnover in which the attractiveness of the current job is compared with that of an alternative. In turn, an employee chooses the option with the highest judged attractiveness. For example, “Employees make decisions to quit based on the relative attractiveness of their current job compared to alternative jobs or activities” (2013, p. 163). The attractiveness of one's current job and alternative are estimated by a regression equation assessing various attributes of the two targets (i.e., current job and alternative). Evoking March and Simon (1958) for a theoretical foundation, Professor Russell offers a subjectively “rational model” for the choice to stay or leave based on expectancy and expected value type decision models. In his empirical work, he uses a “policy capturing” simulation to identify how new hires personally weigh various job attributes when deciding whether they would quit hypothetical jobs varying in those attributes (Russell & Van Sell, 2012). When these weights are applied to employees' actual survey perceptions of the levels of job attributes, the resulting “simulated turnover intention” score predicts turnover better than a survey measure of quit intentions or job attributes alone. The inference is that turnover scholars can make substantial progress toward the prediction of actual turnover by using this model.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 181 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Beach, L. R., & Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (2005). Image theory. In Smith, K., & Hitt, M. (Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 36–54). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donnelly, D. P. & Quirin, J. J. (2006). An extension of Lee and Mitchell's unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Heckman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers' job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 545–561.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Holtom, B. H., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2006). Increasing human and social capital by applying job embeddedness theory. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 316–331.Google Scholar
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231–274.Google Scholar
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Inderrieden, E. J. (2005). Shocks as causes of turnover: What they are and how organizations can manage them. Human Resource Management, 44, 337–352.Google Scholar
Holtom, B. H., Tidd, S., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (forthcoming). When you measure matters: Temporal dependency in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Human Relations.Google Scholar
Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 831–858.Google Scholar
Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P. F., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2012). When and how is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1077–1096.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, 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.Google Scholar
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711–722.Google Scholar
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5–36.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Hinton, T. R. (2012). When employees are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectories and dispersion influence individual and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating content and process turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 566–582.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Morrell, K., Loan-Clark, J., Arnold, J., & Wilkinson, A. (2008). Mapping the decision to quit: A refinement and test of the unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, K., Loan-Clark, J., & Wilkinson, A. (2004). The role of shocks in employee turnover. British Journal of Management, 15, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, C. J. (2013). Is it time to voluntarily turn over theories of voluntary turnover? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, C. J., & Van Sell, M. (2012). A closer look at decisions to quit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 125–137.Google Scholar
Siebert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., Holtom, B. C., & Peirotti, A. J. (2013). Even the best laid plans sometimes go askew: Career self-management processes, career shocks, and the decision to pursue graduate education. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 169–182.Google Scholar
Tharenou, P., & Caulfield, N. (2010). Will I stay or will I go? Explaining repatriation by self-initiated expatriates. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1009–1028.Google Scholar
Westaby, J. D. (2005). Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 97–120.Google Scholar