Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

CONTROL VOLUNTARY TURNOVER BY UNDERSTANDING ITS CAUSES
135
job, that lower- level employee may impose larger costs on organizational effectiveness
by not helping another employee perform or learn to perform a job. For a higher- level
manager, a focus on one ’s narrowly defined job may decrease the likelihood of meeting
the larger organizational role of representing the company at industry and community
events. At no cost to doing one ’s own job, for instance, this manager may voluntarily
represent the company ’s commitment to community well - being or individual citizenship.
Thus, employees may overly focus on the immediate job and thereby actually hurt larger
organizational functioning.
Organizational behavior scholars have labeled our traditional focus on well - defi ned
and prescribed job behaviors as task performance, in - role performance, or job performance.
In contrast, the broader focus that includes non - job - specific effort, behavior, and
performance but still benefits the larger firm is labeled extra - role performance, contextual
performance, or organizational citizenship behavior. In making decisions about an
employee ’s functional versus dysfunctional and avoidable versus unavoidable quitting,
managers should also decide whether individual and organizational effectiveness can be
enhanced by a traditional focus on the narrowly defined job functions or by a broader
focus on task and contextual performance. In our judgment, the broader focus is typically
better than the narrower view toward individual and organizational effectiveness.
The details of the unfolding model and avoidability
The unfolding model becomes particularly helpful in assessing avoidability because (a) path
4 captures much of the traditional approach, and shocks capture much of the avoidability
issue. Because the speed of path 1 quitting can be unpredictable and the speed of path 2 quitting
can be quite quick, managers may have minimal opportunity to respond to shocks that
may initiate such leaving. Instead, they may need to have already in place a mechanism that
allows for proactive and quick actions aimed at encouraging or discouraging an employee ’s
leaving (e.g. quick counteroffers, rapid and informal grievance procedures, open - door policies
by the firm’s top executives). One technique that we’ve developed is to gather examples of (or
stories about) actual shocks (e.g. specific events that initiate actual quitting) from leavers and
other examples of events that prompted stayers to think about quitting. Managers can then
simply list these examples and ask current employees (a) whether these events would prompt
thoughts of leaving and (b) what scripts they might have in place and follow if the event
were to occur. This information can help managers anticipate the events that likely prompt
thoughts of quitting and scripted actions. As a result, the informed manager can elect to be
proactive (or inactive) in discouraging (or encouraging) leaving.
In contrast, quitting in paths 3 and 4 is more predictable and slower. Because people
search for alternatives and evaluate the located options, managers may have more opportunity
to respond. Thus, they may have more opportunity to craft individualized actions that
can encourage or discourage quitting (e.g. matching pay increases from external job offers,
dealing with accumulated job dissatisfaction, restructuring one ’s job responsibilities, reassigning
employees to other units within the company, loaning employees to external service
organizations like the United Way).
Besides merely reacting to employees ’ withdrawal behaviors and cognitions, managers
can also take a more proactive stance and reduce turnover by attempting to embed
employees within their jobs. Managers may increase their employees ’ job embeddedness by
hiring employees who already have established ties to the organization (e.g. peer referrals)