Craig Russell has done us all a service in his review of current turnover research (2013), but I think he is too severe in his judgment of the validities and relevance of our field's research, and he encourages us to go down some questionable research paths in the future. Despite his expertise in the field, there are several points where I believe other views are more attractive.

We can recognize the usefulness of assessing so many studies and meta-analyses done in recent decades, as summarized in his Table 1 (drawn from Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). But let us also note that Russell would have done readers a bigger favor if the results were presented in some logical order. Right now, not even an alphabetic order among the variables is evident. This is a flaw that obscures key understandings. Looking at the data another way can make one more optimistic about its predictive validity and relevance.