100 Yearsof

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 102, No. 3, 530 –545 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
One Hundred Years of Employee Turnover Theory and Research
Peter W. Hom Thomas W. Lee

Arizona State University University of Washington
Jason D. Shaw John P. Hausknecht

Hong Kong Polytechnic University Cornell University
We review seminal publications on employee turnover during the 100-year existence of the Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Applied Psychology. Along with classic articles from this journal, we expand our review to include other
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
publications that yielded key theoretical and methodological contributions to the turnover literature. We
first describe how the earliest papers examined practical methods for turnover reduction or control and
then explain how theory development and testing began in the mid-20th century and dominated the
academic literature until the turn of the century. We then track 21st century interest in the psychology
of staying (rather than leaving) and attitudinal trajectories in predicting turnover. Finally, we discuss the
rising scholarship on collective turnover given the centrality of human capital flight to practitioners and
to the field of human resource management strategy.
Keywords: embeddedness, employee turnover, job attitudes, shocks, participation mindsets
Employee turnover— employees’ voluntary severance of em- Delery, 2005) and reduces financial performance (Heavey et al.,
ployment ties (Hom & Griffeth, 1995)— has attracted the at- 2013; Park & Shaw, 2013). Other investigations documented how
tention of scholars and practitioners alike for a century. In the employees defecting to competitors can undermine their former
early years, journalists documented how employers stemmed employer’s competitive advantage (via human or social capital
quits with pay hikes (Local, 1917; Men Quitting Mail Service, losses or trade secret theft) or survival (Agarwal, Ganco, & Zie-
1906), consultants detailed turnover costs and devised reduction donis, 2009). Finally, turnover has other side effects, such as
strategies (Fisher, 1917a, 1917b), and scholars speculated about hindering workforce diversity when women of color exit (Hom,
why employees leave (Diemer, 1917; Douglas, 1918; Eberle, Roberson, & Ellis, 2008) or spreading via turnover contagion
1919). Since then, hundreds of studies have appeared (cf. Grif- (Felps et al., 2009).
feth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Heavey, Holwerda, & Based on our collective experience investigating turnover (to-
Hausknecht, 2013; Rubenstein, Eberly, Lee, & Mitchell, 2015). taling nearly 100 years), we chronologically highlight key articles
Figure 1 illustrates the rapid growth of turnover research in the in JAP and elsewhere that have shaped turnover research or
Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) and other premier schol- management practice. Like all narrative reviews, we apply subjec-
arly outlets. According to our and others’ counts (Allen, Han- tive judgment in selecting articles, yet focus on highly cited papers
cock, Vardaman, & McKee, 2014), JAP has published more and other influential works noted in literature reviews over the
turnover articles than any other journal. years. We divide our timeline into six epochs that mark key
Such persistent scholarship reflects a longstanding and growing transitions and methodological developments in turnover research.
recognition of how turnover materially affects organizational func- Table 1 highlights key contributions of each epoch, while Figure 1
tioning. Fisher (1917b) first probed hiring and replacement ex- identifies classic papers during that period.
penses, now estimated at 90% to 200% of annual salary (Allen,
Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). Organizational researchers have
shown that turnover disrupts various productivity-related out- The Birth of Turnover Research (ca. 1920)
comes (Hausknecht, Trevor, & Howard, 2009; Shaw, Gupta, &
Although earlier articles on turnover appeared, Bills (1925)
published the first empirical turnover study in JAP, demonstrating
that clerical workers more often quit if their fathers were profes-
This article was published Online First January 26, 2017. sionals or small business owners than those whose fathers worked
Peter W. Hom, Department of Management, Arizona State University; unskilled or semiskilled jobs. While omitting statistical tests of the
Thomas W. Lee, Department of Management & Organization, University
relationship between parental occupational status and turnover,
of Washington; Jason D. Shaw, Department of Management & Marketing,
Bills nonetheless introduced a predictive research design for as-
Hong Kong Polytechnic University; John P. Hausknecht, Human Resource
Studies, Cornell University. sessing whether application questions can predict turnover—an
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter W. approach that evolved into the “standard research design” for test
Hom, Department of Management, Arizona State University, W.P. Carey validation and theory testing for most of the 20th century (Steel,
School of Business, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006. E-mail: [email protected] 2002).
530
A CENTURY OF TURNOVER RESEARCH 531
Figure 1. Historical timeline. Cumulative total includes articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology,
Personnel Psychology, and Academy of Management Journal, thus representing the journals that have published
the greatest frequency of turnover articles over the period.
Formative Years of Turnover Research The Centrality of Job Satisfaction and

(ca. 1920s to 1970s) Organizational Commitment
Later, scholars began exploring attitudinal responses to workplace
Predictive Test Validation conditions (Hulin, 1966, 1968; Weitz & Nuchols, 1955) or percep-
tions of those conditions (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Hellriegel &
With few exceptions (Minor, 1958; Weitz, 1956), turnover
White, 1973; Karp & Nickson, 1973) as prime turnover movers.
articles did not appear again until the 1960s and 1970s. These
Although Brayfield and Crockett (1955) previously summarized find-
studies report predictive test validation for weighted application
ings on relationships between job attitudes and turnover, Weitz and
blanks (WAB; Buel, 1964; Cascio, 1976; Federico, Federico, &
Nuchols (1955) authored the first JAP paper using a predictive design
Lundquist, 1976; Schuh, 1967; Schwab & Oliver, 1974) and other
and statistical tests to establish a negative job dissatisfaction-job
selection tests (e.g., vocational interests, achievement motivation;
survival relationship, yet their criterion also included involuntary
Hines, 1973). During this renewal period, Schuh (1967) reviewed
terminations. Extending this test, Hulin (1966) introduced method-
the accuracy of selection tests in predicting job tenure and con-
cluded that WABs are most predictive because 19 of 21 studies ological features that later became hallmarks of the “standard research
showed that “some items in an applicant’s personal history can be design” (Steel, 2002)—namely, (a) using psychometrically sound job
found to relate to tenure in most jobs” (p. 145). Given this satisfaction measures (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), (b) employing
endorsement, test validation research during this era largely fo- a prospective research design to strengthen internal validity, (c) as-
cused on WABs (Federico et al., 1976). Whereas Schwab and sessing voluntary quits rather than all forms of leaving, and (d)
Oliver (1974) disputed Schuh’s validity conclusions, Cascio focusing on individual-level rather than aggregate-level relationships
(1976) documented that WABs can have similar (moderate) pre- (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955). Using a quasi-experiment, Hulin (1968,
dictive validity for Whites and minorities as well as mitigate p.125) later concluded that a “company program initiated in 1964
adverse impact. Later work further attested to WABs’ superior brought about an increase in job satisfaction . . . and that this increase
predictive efficacy over other selection tests (Hom & Griffeth, led to a reduction in turnover in 1966.”
1995). Yet narrative and quantitative reviews of early WAB tests Early investigations further reported that leavers more negatively
overstated validity because findings were rarely cross-validated perceive leaders (e.g., authoritarian, inconsiderate; Fleishman & Har-
(Schwab & Oliver, 1974) and WAB studies often inflated turnover ris, 1962; Ley, 1966) and proximal environmental conditions (e.g.,
variance by creating equal-sized high and low-tenure comparison pay, shift work, performance reviews, underutilized capacity and
subsamples (i.e., generating artifactual 50% quit rate; e.g., Minor, talents; Hellriegel & White, 1973) than do stayers. Although less
1958). influential than Hulin’s landmark work, these studies shaped future
532 HOM, LEE, SHAW, AND HAUSKNECHT
Table 1
Key Contributions of Each Epoch of Turnover Research
Birth of Turnover Research

Recognition of Turnover Costs
Incipient Inquiry into Turnover Causes
Formative Years of Turnover Research
Predictive Test Validation—WABs
Centrality of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
Realistic Job Previews
Standard Research Design
Foundational Turnover Models
March-Simon Foundational Constructs: Job Satisfaction and Job Alternatives
Mobley, 1977 Model: Intermediate Linkages between Job Satisfaction and Turnover
Comprehensive Taxonomies of Turnover Causes
Rational Decision-Making: Job Comparisons based on Subjective Expected Utility

Normal Science: Theory Testing and Refinement

Alternative Intermediate Linkages between Job Satisfaction and Turnover
Theoretical Refinements of Price-Mobley Models
Expanded Set of Causal Antecedents: Job Performance, Organizational Commitment, Labor Market Features
Multiple Pathways to Leave, including Impulsive Quits
Alternative Responses besides Quitting
Hobos Drift from Job to Job
Functional Turnover: Recognition that Turnover is not Always Bad
The Counter Revolution: The Unfolding Model
Introduction of “Shocks”–Critical Events Prompting Thoughts of Leaving–as Key Turnover Driver
Identify Multiple Turnover Paths: Script-Based, Job-Offer, Affect-Based Leaving
Image Compatibility as Basis for Rapid Job Comparisons
Turnover Speed–Leavers Prompted by Shocks Leave Quicker than Dissatisfied Leavers
Pioneered Qualitative Methodology for Theory-Testing
21st Century Theory and Research
Job Embeddedness–Identifying Job and Community Forces Embedding Incumbents
Embeddedness by Proxy - Family Embedded in Job or Community
Other Embeddedness Forms: Occupational and Expatriate Embeddedness
Evolutionary Job Search Process–Dynamic Learning as Job Seekers Better Understand Labor Markets
Employee-Organizational Relationships and Human Resource Management Systems as Influences on Collective Turnover
Different Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Good-Performer vs. Poor-Performer Turnover
Relationships between Collective Turnover and Organizational Performance
Note. WABs ⫽ weighted application blanks.
theorizing by highlighting broad environmental categories of turnover Wanous, 1973). Though less influential, other articles demon-
causes that comprehensive formulations later adopted (cf. Mobley, strated how orienting newcomers (Rosen & Turner, 1971) and
Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Price, 1977; Price & Mueller, recruiting them from certain sources (e.g., employee referrals;
1981). Inspired by growing beliefs that dissatisfying work features Gannon, 1971) curbed attrition.
(e.g., “monotony of modern factory labor”; Eberle, 1919, p. 313)
induce leaving (Hulin, 1966, 1968), several scholars applied broader Methodological Contribution: The Standard
theories of work motivation or job attitudes—notably, motivator- Research Design
hygiene (e.g., Karp & Nickson, 1973), motivational needs (e.g.,
Hines, 1973), equity (e.g., Dittrich & Carrell, 1979), expectancy (e.g., Early turnover studies were beset with designs that included
Mitchell & Albright, 1972), and reasoned action (e.g., Newman, retrospective collection of predictors (e.g., early WABs) or criteria
1974)—to explain leaving. (e.g., recalled leaving; see Bills, 1925, for an exception). These
flawed designs eventually gave way to the collection of reliable
Realistic Job Previews predictors at time one and subsequent collection of individual
turnover data at a later point (otherwise known as the “standard
A third line of inquiry stemmed from rising awareness that research design,” often attributed to Hulin, 1966, 1968).
effective recruitment and new hire assimilation can improve re-
tention. Weitz (1956) furnished new hires with a booklet about Foundational Models by James March, Herbert
insurance agent work and showed that this “realistic job preview” Simon, William Mobley, and James Price
(RJP) boosted retention, a pioneering finding later replicated by
(ca. 1958 to 1983)
Farr, O’Leary, and Bartlett (1973), who used work samples to
reduce quits among sewing machine operators. These initial tests March and Simon’s (1958) inaugural theory of voluntary turn-
motivated a vast literature on RJP media, mechanisms, and mod- over was a paradigmatic shift (in the Thomas Kuhn sense) away
erators (Earnest, Allen, & Landis, 2011; Griffeth & Hom, 2001; from the prior stream of primarily atheoretical research. Yet this
revolution was delayed until publications by Mobley (1977; Mo- 2002). Their models and methodology dominated turnover theory
bley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978) and Price (1977; Price & and research for years to come, though some scholars tested
Mueller, 1981) who adopted March and Simon’s (1958) central Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action or its
constructs—movement desirability and ease (defining them as job variants (Hom & Hulin, 1981). Mobley et al.’s (1978) initial
satisfaction and perceived job opportunities, respectively)—as cor- testing evoked a plethora of additional tests (Hom, Caranikas-
nerstones for more complex turnover models. In the most influen- Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Lee, 1988). Empirical findings,
tial single paper on turnover, Mobley (1977) elaborated a process in toto, contradicted Mobley’s linear progression of mediating
model of how dissatisfaction evolves into turnover. He theorized a processes and suggested alternative structural configurations (Hom
linear sequence: dissatisfaction ¡ thoughts of quitting ¡ evalu- & Griffeth, 1991; Hom & Kinicki, 2001). All the same, Mobley’s
ation of subjective expected utility (SEU) of job search and costs (1977) constructs (and measures, Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Mobley
of quitting ¡ search intentions ¡ evaluation of alternatives ¡ et al., 1978), if not his original causal sequence, survive in modern
comparison of alternatives and present job ¡ quit intentions ¡ theory and work (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom,
quits. McDaniel, & Hill, 1999; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996).
Later, Mobley et al.’s (1979) ground-breaking content model Further, Mobley (1977) promulgated job search and perceived
specified a large array of distal causes to clarify why people quit alternatives as central constructs for explaining turnover, spawning
(e.g., disagreeable job features underlying job dissatisfaction, de- independent research on their conceptualization and operational-
sirable attributes of alternative jobs). They introduced SEUs of the ization (Blau, 1994; Steel & Griffeth, 1989). Although Kraut
present job and alternatives which, along with job satisfaction, (1975) first showed that quit intentions can foreshadow leaving,
constitute proximal antecedents of search and quit intentions and Mobley’s theorizing firmly implanted this construct into turnover
mediate the impact of distal causes. Like prior scholars (Mitchell theory, claiming that such intentions represent the most proxi-
& Albright, 1972), expectancy theory was central to Mobley et mal—and strongest—turnover antecedent (realizing that its pre-
al.’s (1979) theorizing. They argued that employees may stay in dictive efficacy depends on time lag and measurement specificity).
bad jobs because they expect eventual positive utility (e.g., pro- Over the years, his supposition has been upheld (Steel & Ovalle,
motions, desirable transfers), whereas employees may leave good 1984) and quit intentions (or their variant: withdrawal cognitions;
jobs because they expect higher utility from other employment Hom & Griffeth, 1991) remain essential in virtually all turnover
(performing a rational cost-benefit analysis to compare their job to formulations (e.g., Hom, Mitchell, Lee, & Griffeth, 2012; Price &
alternatives). They further recognized that nonwork values and Mueller, 1986). Given its predictive superiority (Griffeth et al.,
consequences of leaving moderate how job satisfaction and SEUs 2000; Rubenstein et al., 2015), turnover intentions have served as
of the current job and alternatives underpin turnover. a surrogate or proxy for turnover when quit data are unavailable
Informed by a comprehensive review of scholarly writings (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell, 2012). Further, Mobley et
(canvassing disciplines beyond management and psychology), al.’s (1979) expectancy framework for elucidating how employees
Price (1977; Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986) articulated a broad compare alternatives (Hom & Kinicki, 2001) and estimate future
range of turnover determinants. Capitalizing on his sociology career prospects (“calculative” forces; Ballinger, Lehman, &
background, Price’s theories captured not only workplace (e.g., Schoorman, 2010; Maertz & Campion, 2004) persists in present-
integration, pay) and labor market (job opportunity) causes but day thought, though the ubiquity of rational SEU decision-making
also community (kinship responsibility) and occupational (profes- has increasingly been disputed (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). Finally,
sionalism) drivers. Although specifying job satisfaction or quit Mobley et al.’s (1979) provisional ideas about “nonwork” influ-
intentions as mediating between environmental antecedents and ences resurfaced as more specific constructs as work-family con-
turnover, Price’s (2001) models nonetheless highlighted turnover flict (i.e., employees opt out of paid employment to care for
content more than turnover process. All the same, his theories children; Hom & Kinicki, 2001) and “family embeddedness” (i.e.,
emphasized key environmental drivers (revealed by his 1977 re- employees stay to avoid uprooting children or depriving families
view) rather than attitudinal causes (which are not isomorphic; of corporate benefits; Feldman, Ng, & Vogel, 2012; Ramesh &
Weitz & Nuchols, 1955), yielding practical models identifying Gelfand, 2010).
what managers can leverage to reduce turnover. His promulgation Similarly, Price and Mueller’s (1981, 1986) theories have un-
of objective environmental attributes (though he often used per- dergone extensive evaluation (Gaertner, 1999; Kim, Price, Muel-
ceptual indices) also foreshadowed modern inquiry into external ler, & Watson, 1996). Empirical tests have largely, but not uni-
influences such as social cues (Felps et al., 2009), social networks formly, affirmed theorized model paths (methods-related factors
(Feeley, Hwang, & Barnett, 2008), and community or family may explain deficiencies; cf., Gaertner, 1999), yet studies indicate
embeddedness (Mitchell & Lee, 2001; Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). that the original structural networks were oversimplified. None-
theless, research on the Price-Mueller models established that most
theorized explanatory constructs play some role in the termination
Normal Science: Theory Testing and Refinement process, especially their specification of workplace antecedents of
(ca. 1977 to 2012) job satisfaction (Gaertner, 1999).
In particular, Price and Mueller’s “kinship responsibilities” con-
Empirical Directions struct advanced turnover understanding, which historically down-
played or neglected family influences on decisions to stay or leave.
Unlike March and Simon (1958), Mobley and Price empirically Standard theory (March & Simon, 1958) cannot readily account
tested their models, thereby promoting the March-Simon founda- for family causes given the prominence accorded to job satisfac-
tion and the standard research design for theory validation (Steel, tion and job alternatives (Abelson, 1987; Barrick & Zimmerman,
2005). Price and Mueller (1981, 1986) thus conceived how kinship avocations. For them, the complex cognitive processes envisioned
ties can deter turnover, which they captured with questions about in standard turnover models (e.g., systematic search and rational
number of children, marital status, number of relatives residing analysis of jobs) are irrelevant; rather dissatisfaction (or wander-
nearby, and the like (Blegen, Mueller, & Price, 1988). This con- lust) translates directly into quits. Later researchers began identi-
struct foretold—if not directly shaped—subsequent inquiries into fying hobos (Judge & Watanabe, 1995; Woo, 2011) or spontane-
how families can initiate or impede quits, such as exiting for ous turnover paths that do not involve deliberate SEU calculations
full-time elder care (Hom & Kinicki, 2001) or remaining to avoid of the job or alternatives (e.g., script-based leaving, impulsive
loss of health benefits or first-rate schools for children (Feldman et quits, or labor market exits; Lee et al., 1996; Lee et al., 1999;
al., 2012; Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). Finally, Price and Mueller’s Maertz & Campion, 2004).
painstaking construction and validation of predictor measures con- Contesting orthodoxy (cf. Price & Mueller, 1981), Hulin et al.
trasts with customary research practices of using ad hoc measures (1985) further argued that employees do not quit because they
of unknown validity. surmise job availability from local unemployment statistics.
Rather, employees leave when they actually secure job offers. This
astute observation coincided with later findings that many leavers

Later Theoretical Descendants
do not seek jobs before leaving because they instead receive

The Price and Mobley models spurred many empirical studies unsolicited job offers (a “shock,” Lee et al., 1996; Lee et al., 1999)
but also major conceptual developments, refining or extending or are highly confident about obtaining jobs (after leaving) due to
their core tenets (Steel, 2002). Revisiting Mobley’s (1977) model, bountiful job opportunities in their field (e.g., nursing; Hom &
Hom et al. (Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Hom & Kinicki, 2001) thus Griffeth, 1991). That such turnover occurs more commonly (es-
proposed (and verified) an alternative structural network of rela- pecially in high-tech or professional services industries) than his-
tionships among his constructs. Critiquing the Mobley and Price- torically presumed is also suggested by strategic management
Mueller models, Steers and Mowday (1981) formulated a more research on employee poaching (Agarwal et al., 2009; Gardner,
comprehensive turnover process that (a) added new antecedents 2005).
(notably, performance, other job attitudes), (b) identified modera- Hulin et al. (1985) additionally clarified that dissatisfaction does
tors (e.g., nonwork causes, job search success), (c) explicated other not inevitably culminate in leaving by noting that dissatisfied
ways to manage dissatisfaction besides quitting (e.g., change the incumbents may lower job inputs (leading to psychological with-
situation, withdraw in other ways, cognitively reevaluate the job drawal) or improve their circumstances (via promotion or union-
more favorably), (d) outlined feedback loops (e.g., dissatisfaction ization) rather than leave (with or without job offers in hand).
may prompt attempts to improve the job and if successful, upgrade Though posited earlier (Mobley, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981),
one’s attitudes), and (e) specified multiple turnover routes (e.g., Hulin et al.’s theory formally recognizes that leaving is one among
some employees quit without job offers, while others follow a many ways to cope with dissatisfaction, integrating insights from
“conventional path” by acquiring job offers before leaving). work adaptation theory (Rossé & Hulin, 1985). Later authors
Although rarely tested in its entirety (Lee & Mowday, 1987), expanded the response taxonomy to include work withdrawal and
Steers and Mowday’s (1981) innovative constructs and pathways (scarce) organizational citizenship as turnover alternatives or pre-
nevertheless have had profound impact. To illustrate, job perfor- dictors (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998; Hulin, 1991), which may allow
mance is a prime explanatory construct in Jackofsky’s (1984) time for dissatisfying working conditions to ameliorate (e.g., pro-
pioneering model of the performance-turnover relationship (Stur- motions or transfers; Mobley et al., 1979). Hulin et al.’s frame-
man, Shao, & Katz, 2012) and various attitudinal models of work thus paved the way for recent interest in misbehaviors by
turnover (Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Trevor, 2001). Moreover, re- incumbents trapped in displeasing or poor-fitting jobs (e.g.,
searchers later established that job opportunity moderates how continuance-committed employees or reluctant stayers; Hom et al.,
attitudes and quit intentions affect turnover (Carsten & Spector, 2012).
1987; Hom et al., 1992), amplifying their effects when employees
can easily change jobs (Steers & Mowday, 1981). Subsequently,
Lyman Porter’s Seminal Contributions
other scholars came to realize that dissatisfied incumbents can
respond in other ways, such as avoiding work or reducing orga- Lyman Porter proposed several key constructs that resonate in
nizational contributions, before or besides leaving (Hom & Kin- the turnover literature today. Specifically, Porter and Steers’
icki, 2001; Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985). Finally, contem- (1973) met expectations theory asserts that job satisfaction and
porary investigations increasingly acknowledge alternative retention hinge on how closely a job fulfills employees’ initial job
turnover paths other than the standard job-search ¡ job offers ¡ expectations. Their model has since become a central theory of job
turnover route and impulsive quits (e.g., Lee, Gerhart, Weller, & satisfaction (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992; but, see
Trevor, 2008; Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Maertz & Campion, 2004). Irving & Meyer, 1994, for an alternative view) and stimulated RJP
To resolve a lingering question, Hulin et al. (1985) sought to theory and research (Earnest et al., 2011). Moreover, Porter and his
explain why unemployment rates more accurately predict turnover protégés (Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981) introduced “func-
than do perceived alternatives (Steel & Griffeth, 1989). They tional turnover”—whereby the loss of surplus, low-quality, or
identified a workforce segment peripherally attached to the labor costly labor can enhance organizational effectiveness. Whereas
market and whose quit behaviors are poorly explained by conven- scholars and practitioners historically focused on turnover rates,
tional models. Calling them “hobos,” these individuals freely drift Porter urged scrutiny of who quits given that high talent or per-
from job to job, and may, when dissatisfied or bored, exit the labor former turnover most harms firms. This conceptualization chal-
market periodically to pursue more pleasurable or less stressful lenged the assumption that turnover was always dysfunctional and
motivated lasting inquiry into the directionality and form of the dichotomous outcomes (e.g., residual terms from the turnover
performance-turnover relationship (McEvoy & Cascio, 1987). variable are not normally distributed) and pursued alternative,
Continuing today, this research stream showed how the better-suited analytical methods. For example, Morita, Lee, and
performance-turnover relationship depends on employee perfor- Mowday (1989) advocated calculating survival and hazard func-
mance or social capital value (Shaw, 2015; Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, tions and corresponding statistics (e.g., log rank statistics) to better
& Lockhart, 2005; Shaw, Park, & Kim, 2013; Trevor, 2001), describe the evolving nature of turnover. Huselid and Day (1991)
certain contingencies (e.g., reward bases, pay growth, promotions, showed the superiority of logistic over OLS regression in turnover
joblessness; Hom et al., 2008; Nyberg, 2010; Trevor, Gerhart, & studies, while Hom and Griffeth (1991) demonstrated that struc-
Boudreau, 1997; Shaw, 2015), temporal aspects of performance tural equation modeling (SEM) more fully tests increasingly com-
(Harrison, Virick, & William, 1996; Sturman & Trevor, 2001), and plicated path models descended from March and Simon’s (1958)
cultural values (Sturman et al., 2012). Further, Porter’s initial theory than does OLS regression (e.g., Lee, 1988). Finally, Morita,
rethinking about the nature of the turnover criterion portended Lee, and Mowday (1993) showed the superiority of Cox regression
ensuing development of utility models that estimate turnover’s (a.k.a., proportional hazards models) over OLS and logistic regres-
true costs (Cascio, 1982) and the value of turnover reduction sion if data on the time to employee departures are available or
programs (Boudreau & Berger, 1985). collected.

Porter and associates also conceived a new attitude—namely, During these early years of intense empirical testing, investiga-
organizational commitment—that can explain unique—if not tors increasingly sought to explain more variance in turnover—
more—turnover variance than do job satisfaction (Porter, Cram- often indexed R2 in OLS— by expanding predictor sets (Lee &
pon, & Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Mowday, 1987; Price & Mueller, 1981). This index thus became a
They argued that turnover implies the repudiation of organiza- standard for judging turnover theories and progress toward pre-
tional membership, not necessarily job duties that can be assumed dicting turnover (Maertz & Campion, 1998; Lee & Mitchell, 1994;
elsewhere. Ultimately, this early work evolved into a separate Mobley et al., 1979). Yet later turnover scholars began de-
avenue of research on commitment’s entire nomological network, emphasizing R2 once they abandoned OLS (though occasionally
including its impact on criteria besides turnover (Mathieu & Zajac, interpreting analogous but not equivalent indices from logistic or
1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Scholars later expanded Cox regression) and recognized that the accuracy of a given set of
Porter’s conceptualization to include distinct commitment bases antecedents for predicting turnover depends on factors outside the
(e.g., want to stay vs. have to stay) or targets (commit to superiors, scope of the theory being tested, such as turnover base rate,
teammates, etc.; Meyer and Allen [1997]), although Klein, Molloy, measurement correspondence, unemployment rates, and time lag
and Brinsfield (2012) argued for a unified, general definition (Hom et al., 1992; Steel & Griffeth, 1989; Steel & Ovalle, 1984).
(“dedication to and responsibility for a particular target,” p. 137). Further, SEM users focused on structural networks among turn-
Regardless of definition, commitment is clearly inversely related over antecedents—a hallmark of process-oriented models that
to turnover and explains different portions of turnover variance specify elaborate mediating mechanisms (e.g., Mobley, 1977;
than do job satisfaction (Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Klein, Cooper, Steers & Mowday, 1981). They thus primarily interpreted omnibus
Molloy, & Swanson, 2014). Commitment scholars also first ad- model fit indices (and parameter estimates) generated by SEM that
dressed why employees stay, predating the 21st century preoccu- assess the validity of structural paths among turnover causes
pation with job embeddedness (Mitchell & Lee, 2001), designed to (including a priori specified null paths; Hom et al., 1992; Hom &
complement prevailing accounts of why employees leave. Griffeth, 1991). In short, SEM users became more interested in
Finally, Krackhardt and Porter (1985, 1986) pioneered social explaining covariances among explanatory constructs than vari-
network analysis to elucidate how social relationships affect quit ance in turnover.
propensity. Moving beyond conventional views of turnover as
independent events wholly based on individuals’ decisions, Krack- The Counter Revolution: The Unfolding Model
hardt and Porter (1985) observed a “snowball effect” in which
(ca. 1994 to 2000)
occupants of similar structural positions in communication net-
works often quit in clusters. Assessing strength of network ties, Some ideas are so powerful, intuitive, and focused that they can
Krackhardt and Porter (1986) next showed that employees whose stall or hamper the emergence of novel ideas and research. The
close contacts quit tend to form positive job attitudes, presumably March and Simon (1958) model and Price-Mobley derivatives fall
to rationalize why they remain when friends exit. Although their into this category as they seek to maximally explain a single
impact has been overdue, these findings foreshadowed mounting behavior. As our review noted, their theories profoundly shaped
demonstrations that employees remain when they have strong or turnover theory and research. By the early 1990s, turnover re-
interconnected network ties (Feeley et al., 2008; Hom & Xiao, search nonetheless entered a “fallow” period (O’Reilly, 1991)
2011; Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005) or leave when their where scholars made incremental theoretical refinements or ex-
ties end (Felps et al., 2009). tended those well-researched models (Steel, 2002). Responding to
O’Reilly’s (1991) remark about the lack of intellectual excitement
Methodological Contributions: Beyond Ordinary Least in turnover research, Lee and Mitchell (1994) put forth a radically
new turnover theory known as the “unfolding model,” challenging
Squares Regression
the prevailing paradigm. Departing from March and Simon (1958),
Because turnover researchers deal with binary dependent vari- they disputed three assumptions underlying their view—notably,
ables, they understood early on (e.g., late 1970s to early 1980s) (a) job dissatisfaction is a paramount turnover cause, (b) dissatis-
that ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is inappropriate for fied employees seek and leave for alternative (better) jobs, and (c)
prospective leavers compare alternatives to their current job based ters” (those leaving without jobs in hand) and “preplanned quit-
on a rational calculation of their SEUs. To formulate a more valid ters” (those leaving with a definite plan). Their decision types
and encompassing theory, they introduced various novel con- correspond to Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) turnover paths but are not
structs, notably, “shocks” or jarring events (including external identical. To illustrate, Maertz and Campion (2004) differentiate
events) that prompt thoughts about leaving and drive alternative between preplanned quitters (quitting when a specific time or
paths to turnover. Their model specifies four distinct turnover event occurs) and conditional quitters (quitting if an uncertain
paths, including a conventional affect-initiated path (No. 4) in event happens in the future); however, the unfolding model treats
which dissatisfied employees quit after procuring job offers (e.g., both types as Path 1 turnover. Finally, Lee and Mitchell’s (1994)
Hom & Griffeth, 1991). Lee and Mitchell, however, envisioned theory and methodology have been adapted to account for under-
that shocks (of different types) drive other paths. In one path (No. studied forms of turnover, such as “boomerang employees” who
1), some shocks activate a preexisting plan for leaving (matching quit but later return (Shipp, Furst-Holloway, Harris, & Rosen,
script), inducing turnover (e.g., a woman quits once she becomes 2014).
pregnant [the shock] because of preexisting plans to raise a child The unfolding model is a ground-breaking theoretical achieve-
full time). For another path (No. 2), negative job shocks violate ment in the annals of turnover research, identifying novel con-
employees’ values, goals, or goal strategies (image violations, such structs and processes that deepen insight into why and how em-
as a boss pressuring a subordinate to commit a crime) and thus ployees quit. Further, predictive tests sustain key model tenets
prompt them to reconsider their attachment to the company. Un- (e.g., shocks, multiple turnover paths; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wan-
solicited job offers (a shock) induces a third path (No. 3), whereby berg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005; Lee et al., 2008). On the other
employees compare offers to their current job and even seek hand, the unfolding model has yet to be tested in its entirety with
additional jobs for further comparisons. In this path, one first predictive research designs. Its corroboration rests primarily on
quickly judges alternative jobs (unsolicited offers and those from qualitative findings based on leavers’ retrospective reports, which
a search) for compatibility with personal values or goals (image can suffer from recall errors or self-serving biases (Hom, 2011).
compatibility), screens out incompatible jobs, and then calculates
SEUs for the feasible set of job offers (and present job). Echoing Methodological Contributions: Qualitative Research
Hulin et al. (1985), Lee and Mitchell also upended traditional
viewpoints by realizing that leavers do not always quit for other Almost 20 ago, Lee and colleagues (1996) demonstrated how
jobs. Rather, some Path 1 leavers exit the workforce for full-time qualitative design can be deployed for testing complex models,
schooling or stay-at-home parenting. such as the unfolding model. This first qualitative study illustrated
the power of qualitative methodology for model testing and initi-
ated innumerable replications (Holtom et al., 2008; Lee et al.,
Current Scholarship on the Unfolding Model 1999). Lee’s (1999) book further popularized this methodology in
The unfolding model sparked many tests affirming its validity as organizational research. Over the years, extensive qualitative tests
well as radically reshaping understanding of turnover (Holtom, on the unfolding model helped legitimize this approach for both
Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008). The unfolding model or its key theory testing (Maertz & Campion, 2004) and grounded theory
constructs (notably, script-based quits and shocks) have received development (Rothausen, Henderson, Arnold, & Malshe, 2015).
increasing endorsement by scholars and practitioners, becoming
the dominant turnover perspective today (Hom, 2011). Equally 21st Century Theory and Research
important, Lee and his colleagues (1996, 1999) pioneered quali- (ca. 2000 to present)
tative methodology for validating turnover models. Based on in-
terviews with leavers, they classified turnover cases into one of Job Embeddedness Theory
their turnover paths based on pattern matching. They determined
that the majority of leavers followed one of four theorized paths, With the advent of the new century, the fertile and “exciting”
a finding often borne out by later investigations (Holtom et al., scholarship on turnover that began with the unfolding model
2008). Accumulated evidence further concludes that shocks drive continued its forward progress. Again leading the way, Mitchell,
turnover more so than dissatisfaction (Holtom et al., 2008). Lee et Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001) originated job embed-
al. (1999) further examined how turnover paths vary in the speed dedness to elucidate why people stay and thus supplement the
by which leavers first decide to leave and when they leave, finding age-old inquiry into why people leave. Although the act of leaving
that shock-driven paths occur more quickly than affect-driven is merely the opposite of staying, they contend that motives for
paths. leaving and staying are not necessarily polar opposites. That is,
Current scholarship extends or refines the unfolding model. In what induces someone to leave (e.g., unfair or low pay) may differ
particular, Mitchell and Lee (2001) combined this model with job from what induces that person to stay (e.g., training opportunities).
embeddedness theory (see below), positing that embedding forces To delineate the latter motives, Mitchell et al. envisioned a causal-
can buffer against shocks (Burton, Holtom, Sablynski, Mitchell, & indicator construct (or formative measurement model) comprising
Lee, 2010). Next, Maertz and Campion (2004) conceived an inte- on-the-job forces for staying—namely, job fit, links, and sacrific-
grative framework outlining both how and why people quit. They es—as well as corresponding off-the-job forces (i.e., community
identified different processes for four leaver types (“decision fit, links, and sacrifices). Although some on-the-job forces (e.g.,
types”) based on different motivational forces for leaving (impe- job sacrifices; Meyer & Allen, 1997) resemble prior constructs
tuses for leaving, such as negative affect, perceived alternatives, or (e.g., costs of turnover; Mobley, 1977), community embeddedness
normative pressures). Example process types are “impulsive quit- captures turnover deterrents long neglected by prevailing thought
(e.g., nonwork influences; Mobley et al., 1979). In a short time (2004) observed that embedding forces underlying decisions to
span, embeddedness research has mushroomed and clearly estab- participate can shape decisions to perform, consistent with Meyer,
lished that job embeddedness explains additional variance in turn- Becker, and Vandenberghe’s (2004) integration of commitment
over beyond that explained by traditional determinants, such as job and motivational models to explain varied work behaviors, includ-
attitudes and perceived alternatives (Jiang et al., 2012; Lee, Burch, ing leaving.
& Mitchell, 2014). Although a large body of work identifies the benefits of job
Embeddedness theory also stimulated theoretical generaliza- embeddedness, emerging research increasingly documents adverse
tions to elucidate different forms of staying (Kiazad, Holtom, effects. Specifically, Ng and Feldman (2010) noted declining
Hom, & Newman, 2015). Extending this theory cross-culturally, social capital development among embedded incumbents, presum-
Ramesh and Gelfand (2010) thus validated the basic model in ably because they had already amassed social contacts and felt less
India but also advanced “family embeddedness,” comprising a need to cultivate new ones. Ng and Feldman (2012) further doc-
family’s pride in a family member’s employment in a company, umented that rising job embeddedness over time escalates work-
the benefits a family derives from the company (e.g., health family conflicts. Finally, Huysse-Gaytandjieva, Groot, and Pav-
insurance), and family ties to company personnel. Unlike individ- lova (2013) described how the experience of being trapped in a
ualists who stay to fulfill self-interests, they claimed that Indian dissatisfying job (“job lock”) impairs employees’ mental health.
collectivists often join and remain in organizations to satisfy
family needs, status, or obligations. In support, they found that
The Evolutionary Job Search Process
family embeddedness explains unique variance in turnover in India
but also in America. Pointing out the narrow scope of community To close a conspicuous gap in turnover theorizing, Steel (2002)
embeddedness, Feldman et al. (2012) similarly conceptualize that elaborated the job search process, which has been underspecified
family embeddedness in the community also matters— even to by standard theories that assume that successful job pursuits enable
Americans—who may stay in a job or community they dislike employees to quit for better jobs (March & Simon, 1958; Mobley,
because relocating would disrupt spousal careers or children’s 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Going beyond oversimplified (or
education. Mitchell et al.’s (2001) original view of community implicit) representations of job search in prevailing models (Mo-
embeddedness thus underrepresents how families can embed em- bley, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981), Steel (2002) put forth a
ployees (though their community embeddedness index taps em- multistage process through which employees move from passive
ployees’ marital status and number of relatives living nearby) scanning of the labor market to active solicitation of employers.
when families too are embedded in the organization or community His cybernetic theory described how job seekers progressively
(which Feldman et al. [2012] term “embeddedness by proxy”). acquire more particularistic labor market information by selec-
Moreover, Feldman and Ng (2007) conceived “occupational tively attending to certain information levels or sources and gain-
embeddedness,” identifying specific forces relevant to occupa- ing feedback about job prospects and thus their employability. In
tions, such as industry contacts, involvement in professional soci- support, he marshaled evidence that leavers’ labor market percep-
eties, compatibility with occupational demands and rewards, tions better match labor market statistics (e.g., unemployment
human capital investments, and occupational status. This embed- rates) than do stayers’ perceptions, presumably because leavers
dedness form does not necessarily promote loyalty to organizations as actively pursue jobs and thus gather more valid labor market data.
people embedded in professional fields may quit to practice or hone Steel (2002) also explained that individuals can exit without a job
their professional skills elsewhere. Further, Tharenou and Caulfield search when they have other income sources or receive unsolicited
(2010) adapted Mitchell and Lee’s (2001) theory to explain why job offers, whereas others search to upgrade their current circum-
expatriates would stay abroad instead of repatriating, noting that they stances with counteroffers (not because they want to leave; Bretz,
can become embedded in overseas assignments if they derive career Boudreau, & Judge, 1994).
benefits there and fit the foreign culture. Finally, Reiche, Kraimer, and Reiterating Mobley (1982) 20 years later, Steel (2002) advo-
Harzing (2011) established that inpatriates (i.e., foreign nationals from cated abandoning the standard research design for a longitudinal
offshore subsidiaries assigned to corporate headquarters [HQ]) who fit design tracking cohorts over time and repeatedly gauging their
the HQ, have trusting HQ ties, and would give up career prospects labor-market perceptions, search intensity, and job-search success.
available from HQ if they leave, become embedded abroad and thus This design can capture dynamic learning during job search, self-
are less likely to return home. efficacy shifts, and dynamic relationships among job-search vari-
Besides applying Mitchell et al.’s (2001) theory to other forms ables. In line with Steel’s advice, recent panel studies using ran-
of staying, scholars explored indirect embeddedness effects. In dom coefficient modeling (RCM) find that job satisfaction’s
particular, studies report that job embeddedness can attenuate change trajectory explains additional variance in quit propensity
shocks’ deleterious consequences (e.g., higher quit intentions; beyond static satisfaction scores (Chen, Ployhart, Thomas, Ander-
Burton et al., 2010; Mitchell & Lee, 2001), while showing that son, & Bliese, 2011; Liu, Mitchell, Lee, Holtom, & Hinkin, 2012),
employees whose colleagues or superiors are embedded are less upholding the time-honored claim that attitudinal shifts predate
quit-prone (Felps et al., 2009; Ng & Feldman, 2012). Apart from leaving (Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Hulin, 1966; Porter et al., 1976).
loyalty effects, Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, and Holtom Steel’s (2002) cybernetic formulation yielded invaluable in-
(2004) revealed that job embeddedness enhances job performance sights into how employment searches impact leaving. Given its
and organizational citizenship, unifying two distinct research tra- relative newness (and difficulty of implementing longitudinal re-
ditions on employee decisions to perform and participate (March search), his theory has yet to be fully tested. Recent panel research
& Simon, 1958). While motivational and turnover theorists invoke on job search among the unemployed nonetheless substantiate
different explanatory constructs for these decisions, Lee et al. Steel’s methodological prescriptions as the standard research de-
sign misses changes in job search intensity that often occur when also with turnover patterns among good and poor performers
(jobless) individuals seek work over long periods (Wanberg, Zhu, (Shaw, 2015; Shaw et al., 2009; Shaw & Gupta, 2007). This
Kanfer, & Zhang, 2012; Wanberg, Zhu, & Van Hooft, 2010). inquiry further demonstrated that HRM practices reduce attrition
Other scholarly work also sustained other propositions from via collective commitment (Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011),
Steel’s theory—notably, some leavers quit without job offers in differentially affect quit and fire rates (Batt & Colvin, 2011), and
hand (due to impulsive quitting or unsolicited job offers; Maertz & lessen the effects of prior layoffs on quits (via embedding HRM
Campion, 2004), whereas some incumbents solicit job offers to practices; Trevor & Nyberg, 2008). Finally, the most thorough
negotiate better pay or conditions from their employers (Boswell, meta-analysis on antecedents of collective turnover to date iden-
Boudreau, & Dunford, 2004). tified many predictors besides HRM practices, such as climate,
supervisory relations, and diversity (Heavey et al., 2013).
Turnover Rate and Collective Turnover Models Concerning organizational consequences of turnover, and be-
ginning with Fisher (1917b), scholars have speculated about how
The 21st century also heralded significant scholarly attention to
turnover affects organizational performance (Abelson & Bay-
employee turnover at the group, team, work unit, and organiza-

singer, 1984; Mowday et al., 1982; Price, 1977; Shaw, 2011).
tional levels. Whether described as turnover rates or collective

Despite such longstanding conjecture, most studies historically
turnover, such work represents a distinct and emerging area of
scrutinized individual-level turnover effects (e.g., good performer
focus (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Shaw, 2011). Decades earlier,
quits, stayers’ attitudes; Dalton et al., 1981; Krackhardt & Porter,
scholars understood the importance of collective turnover (e.g.,
Mueller & Price, 1989; Price, 1977), but empirical research was 1985). When coupled with occasional pre1990s empirical tests
slow to materialize (Terborg & Lee, 1984, is a rare exception). (e.g., Mueller & Price, 1989; Terborg & Lee, 1984), a spate of
Systematic scholarship on turnover rates appeared in the late 1990s recent primary studies and meta-analytic tests reveal stable nega-
and beyond (e.g., Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia, 2001; Shaw, tive associations between turnover rates and various dimensions of
Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998) with the emerging recognition organizational performance (Hancock, Allen, Bosco, McDaniel, &
that individual-level turnover theories could not be vertically syn- Pierce, 2013; Heavey et al., 2013; Park & Shaw, 2013). Nonethe-
thesized to account for all collective processes and outcomes less, many of these correlations were derived from studies lacking
(Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011). Studies in this domain have theo- a theoretical focus on turnover rates or collective turnover, which
rized and tested organizational turnover’s antecedents (e.g., HRM leaves ample opportunity for investigations that develop new the-
practices, labor market conditions, collective attitudes), conse- ory (e.g., “turnover capacity,” Hausknecht & Holwerda, 2013;
quences (e.g., satisfaction, organizational performance), and “context-emergent turnover theory,” Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013)
boundary conditions of those effects (e.g., unit size, proportion of and/or test existing or emerging models.
newcomers; Hausknecht et al., 2009; Shaw et al., 1998). Regarding boundary conditions, and although some alternative
Regarding antecedents, many studies adopt an employee- findings exist, recent evidence supports an attenuated-U turnover-
organization relationship (EOR; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, performance relationship, such that the linkage is strongly negative
1997) conceptual lens whereby employment relationships are initially, but weakens at high turnover rates (Shaw, Duffy, et al.,
based on two distinct continua: offered inducements (in the form 2005; Shaw et al., 2013). Several studies explored mechanisms
of base pay, benefits, training, job security, and justice from between turnover rates and organizational performance and/or
employers) and expected contributions (in the form of higher moderators of these effects. Kacmar, Andrews, van Rooy, Steil-
performance, organizational citizenship, commitment by employ- berg, and Cerrone (2006) showed that high supervisory and crew
ees; e.g., Hom et al., 2009). To illustrate, “mutual investment” turnover at fast-food restaurants lower store sales and profits by
EOR represents companies furnishing ample inducements to em- prolonging customer wait time (verifying mediation via worsening
ployees but expecting them to reciprocate with high and broad customer service). Shaw and colleagues (2005) examined a differ-
organizational contributions. Other research adopts a single con-
ent type of dysfunctional turnover—those occupying central
tinuum approach and examines how HRM investments (under
niches in workplace communication networks—and revealed how
various labels such as “high involvement,” “high commitment,” or
turnover severs coworkers’ relationships, which thereby disrupts
“high performance” systems; Arthur, 1994; Guthrie, 2001) affect
communication networks, undermines social capital, and ulti-
turnover. These studies, in toto, generally show that HRM invest-
mately reduces productivity. According to their findings, these
ments decrease turnover rates (Heavey et al., 2013).
Even so, overall correlations between HRM investments and patterns are most harmful when stable relationships and social
turnover rates mask nuances tied to specific practices or bundles of exchange among employees exist—when store attrition is low.
similar practices (Shaw et al., 2009), which may exert conflicting Call, Nyberg, Ployhart, and Weekley (2015) further sustained this
effects (e.g., HRM inducement and investment vs. HRM logic by documenting that rising rates of collective turnover in
expectation-enhancing practices). To illustrate, self-managing retail stores most reduce performance in stores with low turnover.
work teams promulgated in high-commitment HRM systems can Finally, Hausknecht et al. (2009) showed that associations between
reduce voluntary quits (by offering intrinsic and social rewards), quit rates and customer service quality were attenuated among
but these systems’ higher performance standards and reward con- smaller work units and those with smaller proportions of newcom-
tingencies also boost voluntary quits (due to greater work stress, ers, factors theorized to reflect greater ability to navigate turnover-
work-family conflict, and income risks for meeting fixed living induced disruption. Consistent with conceptual propositions (e.g.,
expenses; Batt & Colvin, 2011). Studies disclose differential rela- Hausknecht & Holwerda, 2013), the findings demonstrate that
tionships between these practices and overall turnover rates, but turnover effects depend on “who remains” as well as “who leaves.”
Methodological Contributions: Turnover Antecedents’ support) antecedents might be studied. For instance, Hausknecht,
Trajectories of Change Sturman, and Roberson (2011) found that “justice trajectories”
predict quit intentions after controlling for current justice levels,
In response to recurring calls for longitudinal research (Mitchell suggesting that employees use past perceptions or experiences to
& James, 2001; Mobley, 1982; Steel, 2002), Chen et al. (2011) and forecast future workplace conditions. Addressing turnover out-
Liu et al. (2012) adopted a panel design and applied RCM to comes instead, Call et al. (2015) estimated that a one standard
estimate how job satisfaction trajectories predict turnover. Of deviation increase in a retail store’s collective turnover shrinks its
interest, Liu et al. increased explained variance from 5% to 43% by yearly profit by 8.9%! That said, inquiries into trajectories can
moving from static measures of satisfaction (i.e., individual and
meaningfully bolster understanding of turnover’s etiology and
work group scores) to dynamic measures (i.e., changes in satis-
consequences.
faction among individuals and work groups). Using RCM, Stur-
2. Investigate postturnover implications for employees and
man and Trevor (2001) similarly established that performance
organizations. Until recently, scholars have almost always
velocity explains additional turnover variance beyond static per-
thought of turnover as the end point (i.e., the focal dependent
formance scores. Deploying latent growth modeling (controlling

variable). In an imaginative switch, however, Shipp and associates
measurement errors and instability), Bentein, Vandenberghe, Van-

(2014) extend the unfolding model to theorize and test differences
denberg, and Stinglhamer (2005) showed that a declining trajec-
between employees who quit but are rehired (boomerangs) and
tory for affective organizational commitment predicts ascending
those who do not return (alumni). Boomerangs were more likely
quit intentions.
than alumni to experience a negative personal shock and leave via
Path 1 (but they do eventually return). In contrast, alumni were
Discussion more likely than boomerangs to experience a negative work shock
and job dissatisfaction, and thereby leave via Path 2 and 4a. In a
Looking Back related vein, Hom et al. (2012) encouraged explorations into
“turnover destinations” to learn what drives decisions to pursue
From the early days of applied research (Bills, 1925; Diemer, another job versus other destinations such as stay-at-home parent-
1917; Douglas, 1918; Eberle, 1919) and informed speculation ing or educational pursuits. These authors compel scholars to think
(Barnard, 1983), employee turnover has been a vital issue for beyond the usual view that quitting is the focal end state.
management and applied psychology. Since March and Simon’s 3. Study distinct forms of—and motivations for—leaving
(1958) theory and its elaboration by Mobley (1977) and Price and staying mindsets. Turnover researchers historically strove
(1977), theory-driven research is a proud hallmark of turnover to test new predictors (e.g., job embeddedness) using the standard
scholarship and JAP publications. Over time, ever-more sophisti-
research design (Steel, 2002). To balance the score, Hom et al.
cated and innovative theories of turnover prompted a correspond-
(2012) proposed Proximal Withdrawal States Theory (PWST) to
ing search and adoption of more sophisticated research designs and
argue for greater attention to proximal antecedents. By crossing
statistics. As we reflect on the last 100 years, our knowledge has
two key antecedents— one’s perceived control and preference for
been cumulative—sometimes in a “normal and incremental” fash-
leaving or staying—Hom and associates identify employees who
ion but sometimes in a “disruptive and discontinuous” manner
(a) want to leave and do (“enthusiastic leavers”), (b) want to leave
(Kuhn, 1963). In our view, applied psychologists have learned
but cannot (“reluctant stayers”), (c) want to stay and do (“enthu-
much and should be deservedly proud of their collective efforts
siastic stayers”), and (d) want to stay but cannot (“reluctant leav-
(see Table 1 and Figure 1).
ers”). Traditionally, turnover researchers have examined enthusi-
astic stayers and leavers, but have largely ignored reluctant stayers
Looking Forward and leavers. As such, Hom et al. push our thinking toward a closer
We have highlighted promising new research directions yet broader view of the phenomenon of interest (i.e., voluntary
throughout our review, (e.g., further testing and refinement of quits) as well as different forms of staying.
unfolding model and embeddedness theory, additional network- 4. Expand turnover studies to better capture context.
based investigations, formal tests of job search models), and build Investigations have moved away from a “one size fits all” view of
on those ideas to offer five broad areas in which researchers might turnover, favoring instead theories specifying the conditions under
advance turnover scholarship in the years to come. which particular factors are more or less important to quit deci-
1. Theorize and study change in turnover antecedents and sions (or turnover rates) in a given setting. At the individual level,
consequences. Mitchell and James (2001) called for serious the unfolding model and PWST both reflect this more nuanced,
consideration of time, while Lee et al. (2014) recently renewed that context-rich focus on prediction and understanding. At the collec-
call. Emerging research offers conceptual and empirical tools for tive level, researchers stress the importance of examining contex-
researchers interested in taking time seriously. Chen et al. (2011) tual boundary conditions of antecedent-turnover and turnover-
and Liu et al. (2012) show that whether one’s job satisfaction is outcome relationships (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Nyberg &
increasing or decreasing greatly enhances predictions of turnover Ployhart, 2013). Despite this theoretical shift, Allen et al. (2014)
intentions and behaviors over and beyond a static satisfaction report that the majority of published empirical work scrutinizes
measure. Besides satisfaction (and commitment and job embed- direct effects. Clearly, researchers should delve into context-
dedness; Bentein et al., 2005; Ng & Feldman, 2012), the momen- specific investigations of turnover (while continuing to focus on
tum for a host of common (e.g., job involvement, absenteeism) or building parsimonious and generalizable theory). Indeed, some of
less common (e.g., justice perceptions, perceived organizational the most impactful theories (e.g., unfolding model) emerged from
the recognition that contextual factors can shape the influence of Practical Suggestions for Managing Turnover
turnover’s antecedents.
5. Examine turnover management strategies and practices. Although practitioner articles have mostly vanished from lead-
Researchers and practitioners might partner on field research ing journals, our review suggests some practical lessons. Employ-
aimed at turnover control. Such studies are rare, yet Agarwal et al. ers can use validated selection procedures (e.g., biodata, person-
(2009), for example, studied how firms deter scientists and engi- ality, person-organizational fit) to screen out job applicants who
neers from leaving by aggressively protecting against patent in- might become prospective leavers. Employers should also pay
fringements, while Gardner (2005) clarified how firms defend special attention to on-boarding practices (including RJPs) as
against poaching. Shapiro, Hom, Shen, and Agarwal (2016) theo- longstanding research has shown that most turnover occurs among
rized about how subordinates may “follow” leaders to other com- new hires who face difficulty adjusting to the job. Organizations
panies depriving source firms of their human and social capital. might monitor prominent causes underlying turnover (via surveys
Scholars have yet to consider whether turnover holds implications or personnel records), such as attitudinal trajectories (Liu et al.,
for social mobility, both upward and downward (e.g., Class in 2012) to foreshadow turnover or learn what (deteriorating) work
conditions must be ameliorated to lessen potential turnover. Firms
America: Mobility, measured; Economist Magazine, Feb. 1, 2014).

might also track turnover rate trajectories to project impending
Relatedly, turnover may have different antecedents and conse-

quences in different cultures (Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010) or devel- performance decrements (Call et al., 2015), use dashboards or
oping economies (Hom & Xiao, 2011). Close collaborations be- scorecards to assess turnover costs, and capture data about who
tween scholars and practitioners can ensure the relevance of leaves (e.g., high performers, central actors in networks) and
research as this changing world of work unfolds—a prospect that where they go (e.g., exit workforce, join competitors). Moreover,
seems promising given the rising availability of “big data” in organizations might identify and assess the extent of reluctant
organizations, the burgeoning support for internal workforce ana- staying and reluctant leaving (notably those due to external forces).
lytics teams, and the emergence of thought on how these devel- While many firms assess job engagement (a symptom of reluctant
opments might generate new opportunities to advance turnover stayers), they might also assess this mindset directly as other
theory and research (e.g., Hausknecht & Li, 2015). reasons besides poor job fit (e.g., poor organizational fit, abusive
supervision) may occasion this state. Further, assessing reluctant
leaving and its etiology (e.g., spousal relocation, unsolicited job
Thinking Big (and Golden Opportunities) offer) would help employers better prepare for future turnover (i.e.,
Thinking big by thinking small. In the last 100 years, schol- identify replacements beforehand) or how to counteract external
ars most often theorized about large businesses (e.g., Boeing, forces for leaving (e.g., counter family pressures to leave by
Amazon), but research often occurs in much smaller organizations. offering family benefits or decreasing work-family conflict by
It may be advisable to theorize and study what turnover means in demanding less out-of-town travel).
nascent start-ups (e.g., prior to a prototype product often required
to move beyond angel investors; a.k.a., still in “death valley”). In Conclusion
such small firms, for example, the departure of a few key people
In closing, this article shows that turnover research is dynamic
could well terminate the start-up. Do our 21st century theories
and ever-changing. It had a dominant paradigm and is experienc-
apply to such firms and employees? We think not, but new theories
ing a paradigm shift. The topic’s foci expanded from the individual
should.
to macro levels, from macro levels to cross levels, and from
Thinking bigger. Our sweeping review finds that turnover
cross-sectional to predictive to panel designs. Looking forward,
scholars often theorize and study individuals, work groups or
many new vistas remain to be explored. In our view, turnover is a
entire companies. What often gets forgotten, however, is the in-
healthy and vibrant area of theory and research. Constant improve-
dustry. Might turnover hold different meaning among “declining
ments in theory and research are our legacy, our future, and our
versus ascending industries” (e.g., coal vs. wind energy; brick &
passion. Most important, such changes are embraced by turnover
mortar vs. Internet retail)? Some industries are clearly more ap-
scholars themselves. In our judgment, “the best is yet to come.”
pealing to highly educated, specialized and paid “knowledge work-
ers.” We recommend that future theorists consider how different
industries and their attributes affect turnover. References
Thinking really big. Most theories are often applied to entire Abelson, M. A. (1987). Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turn-
populations (e.g., satisfaction reduces turnover; embeddedness en- over. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 382–386. http://dx.doi.org/10
meshes employees), but what if turnover theories apply differen- .1037/0021-9010.72.3.382
tially across different ranges of employee populations? For exam- Abelson, M. A., & Baysinger, B. D. (1984). Optimal and dysfunctional
ple, might rational decision making models apply better with turnover: Toward an organizational level model. The Academy of Man-
long-term, highly educated employees in stable industries than agement Review, 9, 331–341.
short-term, poorly educated employees in turbulent environments? Agarwal, R., Ganco, M., & Ziedonis, R. (2009). Reputations for toughness
in patent enforcement: Implications for knowledge spillovers via inven-
Might satisfaction-based models rather than embeddedness theory
tor mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1349 –1374. http://dx
better explain quits among fast food workers? After 100 years of .doi.org/10.1002/smj.792
scholarship, our knowledge may have advanced to the point at Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent:
which we can (or should) theorize and test more fine-grained Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy
predictions, which in turn may hold greater value to practitioners of Management Perspectives, 24, 48 – 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
and consumers of our research. AMP.2010.51827775
Allen, D. G., Hancock, J. I., Vardaman, J. M., & McKee, D. N. (2014). Cascio, W. F. (1976). Turnover, biographical data, and fair employment
Analytical mindsets in turnover research. Journal of Organizational practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 576 –580. http://dx.doi.org/
Behavior, 35, S61–S86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1912 10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.576
Arthur, J. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing Cascio, W. F. (1982). Costing human resources: The financial impact of
performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670 – behavior in organizations. Boston, MA: Kent.
687. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256705 Chen, G., Ployhart, R., Thomas, H., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. (2011). The
Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leader– power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between
member exchange and turnover before and after succession events. job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Jour-
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 25–36. nal, 54, 159 –181. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.003 Chen, X.-P., Hui, Cl., & Sego, D. (1998). The role of organizational
Barnard, C. (1983). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests
Harvard University Press. of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922–931. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.922
Barrick, M. R., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2005). Reducing voluntary, avoid-
Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional
able turnover through selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
turnover: An empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,

159 –166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.159

Batt, R., & Colvin, A. (2011). An employment systems approach to
Diemer, H. (1917). Causes of “turnover” among college faculties. The
turnover: HR practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 71,
Management Journal, 54, 695–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ
216 –224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271621707100119
.2011.64869448
Dittrich, J. E., & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions,
Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F. employee job satisfaction, and departmental absence and turnover rates.
(2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 24, 29 – 40. http://dx
turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psy- .doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(79)90013-8
chology, 90, 468 – 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.468 Douglas, P. H. (1918). The problem of labor turnover. The American
Bills, M. A. (1925). Social status of the clerical work and his permanence Economic Review, 8, 306 –316.
on the job. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 424 – 427. http://dx.doi Earnest, D. R., Allen, D. G., & Landis, R. S. (2011). Mechanisms linking
.org/10.1037/h0065881 realistic job previews with turnover: A meta-analytic path analysis.
Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behav- Personnel Psychology, 64, 865– 897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
ior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288 – 6570.2011.01230.x
312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1061 Eberle, G. J. (1919). Labor turnover. The American Economic Review, 9,
Blegen, M. A., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Measurement of 79 – 82.
kinship responsibility for organizational research. Journal of Applied Farr, J. L., O’Leary, B. S., & Bartlett, C. J. (1973). Effect of work sample
Psychology, 73, 402– 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3 test upon self-selection and turnover of job applicants. Journal of Ap-
.402 plied Psychology, 58, 283–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035657
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Dunford, B. B. (2004). The outcomes Federico, S. M., Federico, P. A., & Lundquist, G. W. (1976). Predicting
and correlates of job search objectives: Searching to leave or searching women’s turnover as a function of extent of met salary expectations and
for leverage? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1083–1091. http://dx biodemographic data. Personnel Psychology, 29, 559 –566. http://dx.doi
.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1083 .org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb02079.x
Boudreau, J. W., & Berger, C. J. (1985). Decision-theoretic utility analysis Feeley, T. H., Hwang, J., & Barnett, G. A. (2008). Predicting employee
applied to employee separations and acquisitions. Journal of Applied turnover from friendship networks. Journal of Applied Communication
Psychology, 70, 581– 612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3 Research, 36, 56 –73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880701799790
.581 Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. W. (2007). Careers: Mobility, embeddedness,
Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and and success. Journal of Management, 33, 350 –377. http://dx.doi.org/10
employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396 – 424. http://dx .1177/0149206307300815
Feldman, D. C., Ng, T. W., & Vogel, R. M. (2012). Off-the-job embed-
.doi.org/10.1037/h0045899
dedness: A reconceptualization and agenda for future research. Research
Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 31, 209 –251.
of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301. http://dx
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., &
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01725.x
Harman, W. S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job em-
Buel, W. D. (1964). Voluntary female clerical turnover: The concurrent
beddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of
and predictive validity of a weighted application blank. Journal of
Management Journal, 52, 545–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ
Applied Psychology, 48, 180 –182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043613
.2009.41331075
Burton, J., Holtom, B., Sablynski, C., Mitchell, T., & Lee, T. (2010). The Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior:
buffering effects of job embeddedness on negative shocks. Journal of An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Vocational Behavior, 76, 42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06 Fisher, B. (1917a). How to reduce labor turnover. The Annals of the
.006 American Academy of Political and Social Science, 17, 10 –32.
Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., Ployhart, R. E., & Weekley, J. (2015). The Fisher, B. (1917b). Determining cost of turnover of labor. The Annals of
dynamic nature of collective turnover and unit performance: The impact the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 71, 44 –50.
of time, quality, and replacement. Academy of Management Journal, 58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271621707100105
1208 –1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0669 Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior
Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15,
and employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. 43–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01845.x
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 374 –381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Gaertner, S. (1999). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and
0021-9010.72.3.374 organizational commitment in turnover models. Human Resource
Management Review, 9, 479 – 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053- Hom, P. (2011). Organizational exit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of
4822(99)00030-3 industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 67–117). Washington,
Gannon, M. J. (1971). Sources of referral and employee turnover. Journal DC: American Psychological Association.
of Applied Psychology, 55, 226 –228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W.
h0031151 (1992). A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of
Gardner, T. (2005). Interfirm competition for human resources: Evidence employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890 –909. http://
from the software industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 237– dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.890
256. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928398 Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test
Gardner, T., Wright, P., & Moynihan, L. (2011). The impact of motivation, of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal
empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary of Applied Psychology, 76, 350 –366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Per- 9010.76.3.350
sonnel Psychology, 64, 315–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570 Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH:
.2011.01212.x South-Western College Publishing.
Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2001). Retaining valued employees. Hom, P. W., & Hulin, C. L. (1981). A competitive test of the prediction of
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. reenlistment by several models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.1.23
antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of
and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management
26, 463– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305 Journal, 44, 975–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069441
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High involvement work practices, turnover and Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012).
productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states
Journal, 44, 180 –190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069345 and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 831– 858. http://
Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027983
(2013). Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm Hom, P. W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008). Challenging conventional
performance. Journal of Management, 39, 573– 603. http://dx.doi.org/ wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93, 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
10.1177/0149206311424943
.93.1.1
Harrison, D. A., Virick, M., & William, S. (1996). Working without a net:
Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., Lee, T. W., Zhang, A. Y., Fu, P. P., &
Time, performance, and turnover under maximally contingent rewards.
Li, L. (2009). Explaining employment relationships with social ex-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 331–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
change and job embeddedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
0021-9010.81.4.331
277–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013453
Hausknecht, J. P., & Holwerda, J. A. (2013). When does employee turn-
Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi
over matter? Dynamic member configurations, productive capacity, and
ties reinforce Chinese employees’ retention. Organizational Behavior
collective performance. Organization Science, 24, 210 –225. http://dx
and Human Decision Processes, 116, 188 –202. http://dx.doi.org/10
.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0720
.1016/j.obhdp.2011.06.001
Hausknecht, J. P., & Li, H. (2015). Big data in turnover and retention. In
Hulin, C. L. (1966). Job satisfaction and turnover in a female clerical
S. Tonidandel, E. King, & J. Cortina (Eds.), Big data at work: The data
population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 280 –285. http://dx.doi
science revolution and organizational psychology (pp. 250 –271). New
.org/10.1037/h0023613
York, NY: Routledge.
Hulin, C. L. (1968). Effects of changes in job-satisfaction levels on
Hausknecht, J. P., Sturman, M. C., & Roberson, Q. M. (2011). Justice as employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 122–126. http://
a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0025655
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 872– 880. http://dx.doi Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organiza-
.org/10.1037/a0022991 tions. In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
Hausknecht, J. P., & Trevor, C. O. (2011). Collective turnover at the organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445–505). Palo Alto,
group, unit, and organizational levels: Evidence, issues, and impli- CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
cations. Journal of Management, 37, 352–388. http://dx.doi.org/10 Hulin, C., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities
.1177/0149206310383910 and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and
Hausknecht, J. P., Trevor, C. O., & Howard, M. J. (2009). Unit-level an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233–250. http://dx.doi.org/10
voluntary turnover rates and customer service quality: Implications of .1037/0033-2909.97.2.233
group cohesiveness, newcomer concentration, and size. Journal of Ap- Huselid, M. A., & Day, N. E. (1991). Organizational commitment, job
plied Psychology, 94, 1068 –1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015898 involvement, and turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis.
Heavey, A. L., Holwerda, J. A., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2013). Causes and Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 380 –391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
consequences of collective turnover: A meta-analytic review. Journal of 0021-9010.76.3.380
Applied Psychology, 98, 412– 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032380 Huysse-Gaytandjieva, A., Groot, W., & Pavlova, M. (2013). A new per-
Hellriegel, D., & White, G. E. (1973). Turnover of professionals in public spective on job lock. Social Indicators Research, 112, 587– 610. http://
accounting: A comparative analysis. Personnel Psychology, 26, 239 – dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0072-2
249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01135.x Irving, P. G., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Reexamination of the met-
Hines, G. H. (1973). Achievement motivation, occupations, and labor expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied
turnover in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 313–317. Psychology, 79, 937–949. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.937
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036300 Jackofsky, E. F. (1984). Turnover and job performance: An integrated
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). process model. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 74 – 83.
Turnover and retention research. The Academy of Management Annals, Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P. F., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2012).
2, 231–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211552 When and how is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? a meta-
analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1077–1096. extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450 – 462. http://dx.doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028610 .org/10.2307/257015
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1995). Is the past prologue?: A test of Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C., Burton, J., & Holtom, B. (2004).
Ghiselli’s hobo syndrome. Journal of Management, 21, 211–229. http:// The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job
dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100203 performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Van Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Management Journal, 47, 711–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159613
Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure everyone can be replaced . . . but at what Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding
cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance. Academy of model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Jour-
Management Journal, 49, 133–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ nal, 39, 5–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256629
.2006.20785670 Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization:
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., & Ahlburg, D. An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday’s model of turnover.
(2005). The role of temporal shifts in turnover processes: It’s about time. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 721–743. http://dx.doi.org/10
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 644 – 658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ .2307/256157
0021-9010.90.4.644 Ley, R. (1966). Labor turnover as a function of worker differences, work
Karp, H. B., & Nickson, J. W. (1973). Motivator-hygiene deprivation as a environment, and authoritarianism of foremen. Journal of Applied Psy-
predictor of job turnover. Personnel Psychology, 26, 377–384. http://dx chology, 50, 497–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024045
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01145.x Liu, D., Mitchell, T., Lee, T., Holtom, B., & Hinkin, T. (2012). When
Kiazad, K., Holtom, B. C., Hom, P. W., & Newman, A. (2015). Job employees are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajec-
embeddedness: A multifoci theoretical extension. Journal of Applied tory and dispersion influence individual-and unit-level voluntary turn-
Psychology, 100, 641– 659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038919 over. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1360 –1380. http://dx.doi
Kim, S. W., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W., & Watson, T. W. (1996). The .org/10.5465/amj.2010.0920
determinants of career intent among physicians at a US Air Force Local, C. (1917, Dec 16). News from cities and towns south of tehachepi’s
hospital. Human Relations, 49, 947–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ top–Los Angeles county items. Los Angeles Times (1886 –1922). Re-
001872679604900704 trieved from http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url⫽http://search
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The
.proquest.com/docview/160470332?accountid⫽4485
assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (1998). 25 years of voluntary turnover
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 222–238. http://dx.doi
research: A review and critique. In C. Cooper & I. Roberson (Eds.),
.org/10.1037/a0034751
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing
13, pp. 49 – 81). New York, NY: Wiley.
workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting as-
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating
sumptions and removing confounds. The Academy of Management Re-
content and process turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal,
view, 37, 130 –151.
47, 566 –582. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159602
Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. (1985). When friends leave: A structural
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY:
analysis of the relationship between turnover and stayers’ attitudes.
Wiley.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 242–261. http://dx.doi.org/10
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-Analysis of the
.2307/2393107
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commit-
Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover em-
ment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
bedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
0033-2909.108.2.171
Kraut, A. I. (1975). Predicting turnover of employees from measured job McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1987). Do good or poor performers
attitudes. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13, 233– leave? A meta-analysis of the relationship between performance and
243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90047-1 turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 744 –762. http://dx.doi
Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The function of dogma in scientific research. In A. C. .org/10.2307/256158
Crombie (Ed.), Scientific change (Symposium on the History of Science, Men Quitting Mail Service by Hundreds. (1906, Dec 31). The Atlanta
University of Oxford, 9 –15 July 1961) (pp. 347–369). London, UK: Constitution (1881–1945). Retrieved from http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu
Basic Books and Heineman. .edu/login?url⫽http://search.proquest.com/docview/496039778?
Lee, T. W. (1988). How job dissatisfaction leads to employee turnover. accountid⫽4485
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 263–271. http://dx.doi.org/10 Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand
.1007/BF01014043 Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Miller, J., Hom, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. (2001). The high costs of low
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. wages: Does maquiladora compensation reduce turnover? Journal of
Lee, T. W., Burch, T. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). The story of why we International Business Studies, 32, 585–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/
stay: A review of job embeddedness. Annual Review of Organizational palgrave.jibs.8490986
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 199 –216. http://dx.doi.org/ Minor, F. J. (1958). The prediction of turnover of clerical employees.
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091244 Personnel Psychology, 11, 393– 402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
Lee, T. H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I., & Trevor, C. (2008). Understanding 6570.1958.tb00027.x
voluntary turnover: Path-specific job satisfaction effects and the impor- Mitchell, T. R., & Albright, D. W. (1972). Expectancy theory predictions
tance of unsolicited job offers. Academy of Management Journal, 51, of the satisfaction, effort, performance, and retention of naval aviation
651– 671. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.33665124 officers. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 8, 1–20.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90033-5
unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. The Academy of Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M.
Management Review, 19, 51– 89. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L., & Hill, J. W. turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. http://dx
(1999). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A replication and .doi.org/10.2307/3069391
Mitchell, T., & James, L. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the Park, T. Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational
specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 268 –
26, 530 –547. 309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030723
Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). The unfolding model of voluntary Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational
turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive the- commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organiza-
ory of attachment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 189 –246. tional Behavior & Human Performance, 15, 87–98. http://dx.doi.org/10
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23006-8 .1016/0030-5073(76)90030-1
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal
job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin,
62, 237–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237 80, 151–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034829
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Some unanswered questions in turnover and with- Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational
drawal research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 111–116. commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric techni-
cians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603– 609. http://dx.doi.org/10
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979).
.1037/h0037335
Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process.
Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
Price, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover.

2909.86.3.493
International Journal of Manpower, 22, 600 – 624. http://dx.doi.org/10
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evalu-
.1108/EUM0000000006233
ation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model for turnover for
Psychology, 63, 408 – 414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.4
nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543–565. http://dx.doi
.408 .org/10.2307/255574
Morita, J. G., Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1989). Introducing survival Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital
analysis to organizational researchers: A selected application to turnover employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 280 –292. http://dx.doi.org/ Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will they stay or will they go? The
10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.280 role of job embeddedness in predicting turnover in individualistic and
Morita, J. G., Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1993). The regression-analog collectivistic cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 807– 823.
to survival analysis: A selected application to turnover research. Acad- http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019464
emy of Management Journal, 36, 1430 –1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ Reiche, B. S., Kraimer, M. L., & Harzing, A. W. (2011). Why do inter-
256818 national assignees stay? An organizational embeddedness perspective.
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 521–544. http://dx.doi
perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitudinal, and behav- .org/10.1057/jibs.2011.5
ioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 607– 618. http:// Rosen, H., & Turner, J. (1971). Effectiveness of two orientation ap-
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843941 proaches in hard-core unemployed turnover and absenteeism. Journal of
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages. San Applied Psychology, 55, 296 –301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031533
Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rossé, J. G., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of
Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1989). Some consequences of turnover: A employee health, withdrawal and change. Organizational Behavior and
work unit analysis. Human Relations, 42, 389 – 402. http://dx.doi.org/10 Human Decision Processes, 36, 324 –347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
.1177/001872678904200502 0749-5978(85)90003-2
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee Rothausen, T., Henderson, K., Arnold, J., & Malshe, A. (2015). Should I
commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative stay or should I go? Identity and well-being in sensemaking about
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007. http://dx.doi.org/ retention and turnover. Journal of Management. Advance online publi-
10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991 cation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569312
Newman, J. E. (1974). Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field Rubenstein, A. L., Eberly, M. B., Lee, T., & Mitchell, T. R. (2015,
comparison of Fishbein’s model and traditional job attitude measures. January). Looking beyond the trees: A meta-analysis and integration of
voluntary turnover research. Academy of Management Proceedings,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 610 – 615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
2015, 12779. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.20
h0037334
Schuh, A. J. (1967). The predictability of employee tenure: A review of
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational
the literature1. Personnel Psychology, 20, 133–152. http://dx.doi.org/
embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital.
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1967.tb02275.x
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 696 –712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
Schwab, D. P., & Oliver, R. L. (1974). Predicting tenure with biographical
a0019150
data: Exhuming buried evidence. Personnel Psychology, 27, 125–128.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The effects of organizational and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1974.tb02068.x
community embeddedness on work-to-family and family-to-work con- Shapiro, D., Hom, P., Shen, W., & Agarwal, R. (2016). How do leader-
flict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1233–1251. http://dx.doi.org/ departures affect subordinates’ organizational attachment? A 360-degree
10.1037/a0029089 relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 41, 479 –502.
Nyberg, A. (2010). Retaining your high performers: Moderators of the http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0233
performance-job satisfaction-voluntary turnover relationship. Journal of Shaw, J. D. (2011). Turnover rates and organizational performance: Re-
Applied Psychology, 95, 440 – 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018869 view, critique, and research agenda. Organizational Psychology Review,
Nyberg, A. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2013). Context-emergent turnover (CET) 1, 187–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041386610382152
theory: A theory of collective turnover. The Academy of Management Shaw, J. D. (2015). Pay dispersion, sorting, and organizational perfor-
Review, 38, 109 –131. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0201 mance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1, 165–179. http://dx.doi
O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1991). Organizational behavior: Where we’ve been, .org/10.5465/amd.2014.0045
where we’re going. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 427– 458. http:// Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1998). An
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002235 organization-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 41, 511–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ Terborg, J., & Lee, T. (1984). A predictive study of organizational turnover
256939 rates. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 793– 810. http://dx.doi.org/
Shaw, J. D., Dineen, B. R., Fang, R., & Vellella, R. F. (2009). Employee- 10.2307/255879
organization exchange relationships, HRM practices, and quit rates of Tharenou, P., & Caulfield, N. (2010). Will I stay or will I go? Explaining
good and poor performers. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1016 – repatriation by self-initiated expatriates. Academy of Management Jour-
1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.44635525 nal, 53, 1009 –1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533183
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart, D. E. (2005). Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement deter-
Turnover, social capital losses, and performance. Academy of Manage- minants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover.
ment Journal, 48, 594 – 606. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005 Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621– 638. http://dx.doi.org/10
.17843940 .2307/3069407
Trevor, C. O., Gerhart, B., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997). Voluntary turnover
Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2007). Pay system characteristics and quit
and job performance: Curvilinearity and the moderating influences of
patterns of good, average, and poor performers. Personnel Psychology,
salary growth and promotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
60, 903–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00095.x
44 – 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.44
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualiza-
Trevor, C. O., & Nyberg, A. J. (2008). Keeping your headcount when all
tions of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational about you are losing theirs: Downsizing, voluntary turnover rates, and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 50 – 68. http://dx the moderating role of HR practices. Academy of Management Journal,
.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993112 51, 259 –276. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767250
Shaw, J. D., Park, T. Y., & Kim, Y. (2013). A resource-based perspective Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alter-
on human capital losses, HRM investments, and organizational perfor- native approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does in-
mance. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 572–589. http://dx.doi.org/ vestment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40,
10.1002/smj.2025 1089 –1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256928
Shipp, A. J., Furst-Holloway, S., Harris, T. B., & Rosen, B. (2014). Gone Wanberg, C., Zhu, J., Kanfer, R., & Zhang, X. (2012). After the pink slip:
today but here tomorrow: Extending the unfolding model of turnover to Applying dynamic motivation frameworks to the job search experience.
consider boomerang employees. Personnel Psychology, 67, 421– 462. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 261–284. http://dx.doi.org/10
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12039 .5465/amj.2010.0157
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. J., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The Measurement of Wanberg, C. R., Zhu, J., & Van Hooft, E. A. (2010). The job search grind:
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally. Perceived progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort.
Steel, R. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit Academy of Management Journal, 53, 788 – 807. http://dx.doi.org/10
and function. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 346 –360. .5465/AMJ.2010.52814599
Steel, R. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (1989). The elusive relationship between Wanous, J. P. (1973). Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance,
perceived employment opportunity and turnover behavior: A method- job attitudes, and job survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58,
ological or conceptual artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 327–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036305
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The
846 – 854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.846
effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288 –297.
research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.288
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673– 686. http://dx.doi.org/
Weitz, J. (1956). Job expectancy and survival. Journal of Applied Psychol-
10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.673
ogy, 40, 245–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0048082
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and postde- Weitz, J., & Nuchols, R. (1955). Job satisfaction and job survival. Journal
cision accommodation processes. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw of Applied Psychology, 39, 294 –300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 235–282). h0044736
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Woo, S. E. (2011). A study of Ghiselli’s hobo syndrome. Journal of
Sturman, M. C., Shao, L., & Katz, J. H. (2012). The effect of culture on the Vocational Behavior, 79, 461– 469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011
curvilinear relationship between performance and turnover. Journal of .02.003
Applied Psychology, 97, 46 – 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024868
Sturman, M. C., & Trevor, C. O. (2001). The implications of linking the Received June 1, 2015
dynamic performance and turnover literatures. Journal of Applied Psy- Revision received January 30, 2016
chology, 86, 684 – 696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.684 Accepted February 8, 2016 䡲

100 Yearsof

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Yearsof

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Yearsof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association

2017, Vol. 102, No. 3, 530 –545 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103

One Hundred Years of Employee Turnover Theory and Research

Peter W. Hom Thomas W. Lee

Jason D. Shaw John P. Hausknecht

Keywords: embeddedness, employee turnover, job attitudes, shocks, participation mindsets

Formative Years of Turnover Research The Centrality of Job Satisfaction and

Birth of Turnover Research

Rational Decision-Making: Job Comparisons based on Subjective Expected Utility

Normal Science: Theory Testing and Refinement

astute observation coincided with later findings that many leavers

do not seek jobs before leaving because they instead receive

programs (Boudreau & Berger, 1985). collected.

employee turnover at the group, team, work unit, and organiza-

tional levels. Whether described as turnover rates or collective

formance scores. Deploying latent growth modeling (controlling

measurement errors and instability), Bentein, Vandenberghe, Van-

America: Mobility, measured; Economist Magazine, Feb. 1, 2014).

Relatedly, turnover may have different antecedents and conse-

turnover: An empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,

716 –721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.6.716

Price, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover.

You might also like