Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

CONTROL VOLUNTARY TURNOVER BY UNDERSTANDING ITS CAUSES
133
“ truly bad ” performers might be fired, having too many marginal performers (e.g. those
persons who are not sufficiently bad to fire) can minimize a firm ’ s productivity. Similarly,
employees who may be labeled “ bad apples ” because they are chronically negative, do not
do their fair share of the work, or bully their co - workers, may have a detrimental effect on
how groups work together, and “ spoil the barrel ” (Felps, Mitchell, and Byington, 2006 ).
The value accrued by encouraging these people to resign can often offset that individual ’s
overall replacement costs. In a related vein, the new employees can oftentimes be a source
of new ideas and mechanisms to shake remaining employees out of their inertia (i.e.
“ getting new blood ” ). In those situations where labor costs are substantial and salaries are
expected to increase consistently over time, turnover can result in substantial savings and
thereby enhance organizational profitability (e.g. replace higher- wage customer service
agents with lower- paid new workers). In short, employee turnover should not simply be
minimized nor dismissed as an unmanageable process.
The evidence. Two empirical studies directly address the functionality and avoidability
of leaving. Based on termination records examined for a seven - month period, Dalton,
Krackhardt, and Porter ( 1981 ) identified the volitional quitting of 1389 former tellers
from 190 bank branches. Next, each former teller ’s immediate supervisor reported
judgments about (a) their preference on rehiring that person, (b) the former employee ’s
job performance, and (c) the ease of replacing that leaver. These voluntary leavers
represented a 32% overall turnover rate. When voluntary leavers were classifi ed into
dysfunctional (e.g. good employees quit) versus functional (e.g. marginal employees quit)
based on the supervisor ’s judgments on preference for rehire and job performance,
the turnover rate of dysfunctional leaving dropped to 18%. When classified by ease of
replacement, dysfunctional turnover (e.g. hard to replace) dropped to 9% of the overall
turnover rate. These data indicate that the quitting of some people is actually functional or
good for the company.
Using a sample of nurses, Abelson ( 1987 ) compared the job attitudes among 136
stayers, 30 avoidable leavers, and 16 unavoidable leavers over a one - year period. Levels of
job satisfaction and organizational commitment were signifi cantly lower for avoidable than
unavoidable leavers and stayers. That is, people who left for unavoidable reasons (e.g. a
spouse relocates) had satisfaction and commitment levels comparable to those who stayed.
People who left for avoidable reasons (e.g. bad work schedules) had worse attitudes than
those who stayed or those who left for unavoidable reasons. In addition, levels of thinking of
quitting and intentions to search and to leave were signifi cantly higher for avoidable leavers
than unavoidable leavers and stayers.
SHOULD TURNOVER BE ENCOURAGED OR DISCOURAGED?
When considered together, these data indicate the desirability of further classifying voluntary
turnover by functionality and avoidability. Nevertheless, it remains the manager ’s
decision as to: (a) whether dysfunctional turnover should be discouraged; (b) whether
functional turnover should be encouraged; and (c) whether such turnover is also avoidable
or unavoidable. These decisions focus the manager on differentiating between people
he wants to keep or lose.