on the necessary consonance between individual and organizationalcharacteristics for better performance. By the same token we also endorse itsconcomitant (i.e. the fit/misfit) postulate which is also emphasized incontingency theory. The aim is to show that future research on employeeturnover could benefit greatly by fully exploiting the usefulness of the abovepostulate.
Employee Turnover Research
Employee turnover remains one of the most widely researched topics inorganizational analyses. Despite significant research progress there stillremains a great deal of confusion as to what might actually cause employees toleave/remain in their organizations. Also, the lack of convergence among themodels proposed in previous research has added to this confusion.Fundamentally, these models were aimed at enlightening our understandingand predictions of employee movements within/out of the organization.However, the significant divergence among these models seems to militateagainst uniformity and hence generalizations. Among those factors are theexternal factors (the labour market) ; institutional factors (such as physicalworking conditions, pay, job skill, supervision and so on) ; employee personalcharacteristics (such as intelligence and aptitude, personal history, sex,interests, age, length of service and so on) and employee’s reaction to his/her job(including aspects such as job satisfaction, job involvement and jobexpectations) (see Knowles for a more complete description of these factors).Some have speculated on the role of individual performance in effectingturnover[13,15,16]. While individual performance might well trigger intentionsto quit, the argument cannot be sustained at the general level. Performanceoccurs in given contexts and is generally tied to particular situations. It is not,of course, always concomitant with general aptitudes. It may well increase theconfidence of individuals in seeking similar jobs (offering better advantages)elsewhere. However, in general, individuals are aware of the circumstantialcharacteristics leading to their improved performance and may not put it(i.e. performance) at the forefront of the criteria determining their decision toquit. For instance, high performers who have strong value-ties with theirimmediate work-environment may not necessarily foresee a replication of theircurrent behaviour to be equally successful in another organizational setting.Also, the potential effect of performance on turnover does not apply equally toall individuals. Personal styles and perceptions of the work environment couldplay an important role in shaping the above linkage between performance andturnover (see for example Jamal and Vishwanath). But performance as suchis not necessarily a predictor of turnover. Contrary to previous researchevidence, Dreher exposes data which purports that it is not always the goodperformers who tend to leave the organization. Should this pattern persist, thenone would argue that the turnover-related costs would be minimized over timesince it is only the lower-level performers who tend to leave. Dreher onlycompares levels of performance (on a series of aptitude tests) between leavers