Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Unfolding Model of Employees Turnover

Unfolding Model of Employees Turnover

Ratings: (0)|Views: 824|Likes:
Published by shanughazi

More info:

Published by: shanughazi on Aug 02, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/14/2009

pdf

text

original

 
 © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of AppliedPsychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2008,
57 
 
(1), 128–150doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00286.x
 Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKAPPSApplied Psychology0269-994X © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2007xxx 200756XXXOriginal ArticleTHE UNFOLDING MODEL OF VOLUNTARY TURNOVERMORRELL ET AL.
 Mapping the Decision to Quit: A Refinement andTest of the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover
 Kevin Morrell*
 University of Warwick, UK 
John Loan-Clarke and John Arnold
 Loughborough University, UK 
Adrian Wilkinson
 Griffith University, Australia
We report a test of an influential theory of employee turnover: the unfoldingmodel (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999).We describe and critique this classificatory model, and propose both theory-based and empirical refinements. The two extant tests of the current versionof the model have both been with accountants in the United States, so thegeneralisability of the model is as yet unproven. We present results of anattempt to classify 352 nurse leavers from the United Kingdom’s NationalHealth Service using the unfolding model. In contrast to the findings of Leeet al. (1999), the model failed to classify a substantial number of nurse leavers,and specific hypotheses derived from the model received only partial support.Classification failures were investigated using both quantitative and qualita-tive data. Leavers were more likely to be classified if they had no dependantsand described their quit as avoidable. Although the unfolding model incorpor-ates more kinds of turnover than traditional turnover models, such systematicclassification failure casts doubt on claims that it offers a comprehensiveaccount of turnover. We explain failures with reference to: (i) shortcomings ina key measure; (ii) the characteristics of the occupational group studied; and(iii) the extremely tight labor market for this group of leavers.Nous testons la théorie influente concernant le turnover des salariés: theunfolding model (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel & Hill,1999). Après avoir décrit et critiqué ce modèle de classification, nous proposonsdes améliorations tant au niveau théorique qu’empirique. La version actuelledu modèle a été testée à deux reprises auprès de comptables des Etats-Unis,
 * Address for correspondence: Kevin Morrell, Institute of Governance and Public Manage-ment, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Email:Kevin.Morrell@wbs.ac.uk
 
 
 
THE UNFOLDING MODEL OF VOLUNTARY TURNOVER
 129
 © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of AppliedPsychology.
 aussi ce modèle n’a pas pu être généralisé. Nous présentons les résultats obtenusen utilisant le “unfolding model” auprès de 352 infirmières du service de santénational du Royaume-Uni qui sont sur le départ. Contrairement aux résultatsobtenus par Lee et al. (1999), le modèle n’a pas permis de classer un nombresubstantiel d’infirmières sur le départ et certaines hypothèses découlant de cemodèle ne reçoivent qu’une validation partielle. Ces échecs de classificationont été analysés tant quantitativement que qualitativement. Il ressort que lessujets étaient plus facilement classés si ils n’avaient aucune personne à chargeet si ils décrivaient leur départ comme évitable. Bien que le “unfolding model”incorpore plus de formes de turnover que les modèles traditionnels, un échecde classification aussi systématique questionne quant à sa revendication àoffrir une approche complète du turnover. Nous expliquons ces échecs par:(i) des imperfections dans la mesure principale (ii) les caractéristiques dugroupe de salariés étudiés (iii) un marché du travail extrêmement difficile pource groupe de personnes sur le départ.
 INTRODUCTION
 The unfolding model (Lee & Mitchell, 1994) is a retrospective, classificatoryaccount of voluntary turnover that treats quitting as a
decision process
 . It iswidely cited (Allen & Griffeth, 2001; Cohen 1999; Griffeth, Gaertner, &Sager, 1999; Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Price, 2000) but to date has receivedlimited empirical attention, despite Maertz and Campion’s (1998) advocacyfor its development. The latest version (Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel,& Hill, 1999) has been critiqued by Maertz and Campion (2004) in theirinnovative synthesis of process and content turnover theories. However, wewere able to locate just two published empirical tests of the unfolding model:Lee et al. (1999) themselves, and very recently, Donnelly and Quirin (2006).Both these papers report data from accountants in the United States. Boze-man and Perrewé (2001) stress the importance of critically testing theory,particularly before extensive application. Without such testing, incompletetheory can become stabilised in the literature. We believed this could applyto the unfolding model, and we therefore sought to subject it to rigorousbut fair empirical examination in a context other than US accountants.Recent debate has hailed the development of improved theory througheffective testing as an important contribution to knowledge (Edwards, 2002).However, studies have to accomplish testing that is flexible enough to allowfor conceptual critique and theory development, while simultaneously pre-serving the logic of a repeated test. There must be sufficient similarity, yetwithout development the test will be open to the charge of not making acontribution (Hendrick, 1991). Following Eden (2002, p. 842), for a test tobe sufficiently similar, it must allow examination of the “same hypothesisedrelationships among the same theoretical constructs”. Given that thisimportant requirement is met, the most potentially useful tests will be thosethat differ as much as possible from the prior study or studies, to establish
 
 
 130
 
MORRELL ET AL.
 © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of AppliedPsychology.
 generality (Rosenthal, 1991). As well as the
where
 and
how
 , difference extendsto
who
 carries out the test (Hendrick, 1991). Researchers unconnected withthe original authors of a theory are preferable, since they are regarded asmore objective (Rosenthal, 1991). This is not to imply that originators of atheory are somehow dishonest—simply that they may be somewhat entrenchedin certain ways of thinking about the theory, and that outsiders are betterplaced to offer new perspectives to take the theory forward.With these issues in mind, our objectives in this study were: (i) to conducta theoretical and methodological critique of the unfolding model; (ii) topropose refinements, without substantively changing its core concepts;(iii) to test the model in a new context and evaluate its effectiveness; and(iv) depending on our findings, to specify ways in which the unfoldingmodel should be developed.
 THE UNFOLDING MODEL
 This has three main features. First, the theoretical basis is
image theory
 (Beach, 1990), an alternative to accounts of decision-making that emphasiserational choice. Image theory incorporates rational choice theory, butstresses the primacy of intuitive or nonrational elements in decision-making.A person may use one or more of three types of images, or schematicknowledge structures, for decision-making. These relate to values (thedecision-maker’s principles), trajectories (desired goals), and strategies (howto achieve those goals). An option is adopted or rejected depending on itscompatibility or fit with subsets of images.Second, the model features two constructs new to turnover research:“shock” and “script”. A shock is a specific event that prompts people toconsider leaving, which in earlier work is compared to “a disturbance intime-series analysis”, where the act of interpretation is “part of an ongoingcontext” (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, pp. 60–61). A script is variously defined asa “preexisting plan of action” (Lee et al., 1999, p. 451) and as “routinized. . . programmed behaviour” (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, p. 71).Third, the model shows how people leave in different and distinct ways,represented by five mutually exclusive decision paths (see Table 1). In paths1, 2, and 3, the quit begins with a shock; a single, jarring event promptingthoughts of quitting. Path 1 leavers carry out an extant plan (script) to quit.They do not search for or evaluate alternatives, or consider likely offers, butleave quickly regardless of image violation(s) or satisfaction. In paths 2 and 3,shock prompts image violation; that is, dissonance between the present joband one or more images. This can be so severe that satisfaction is irrelevantas a quit is triggered without search/evaluation or a job offer (path 2). Alter-natively, it can lead to dissatisfaction, then search/evaluation, and quit aftera job offer (path 3). An offer need not be definite, but only needs to be
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->