娀 Academy of Management Journal 2005, Vol. 48, No. 4, 607–618.
A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON TURNOVER: EXAMINING STRUCTURAL, ATTITUDINAL, AND BEHAVIORAL PREDICTORS KEVIN W. MOSSHOLDER Louisiana State University RANDALL P. SETTOON Southeastern Louisiana University STEPHANIE C. HENAGAN Louisiana State University This study examined whether structural, attitudinal, and behavioral variables of a relational nature were predictive of employee turnover. Participants were a sample of 176 health care employees from a large public medical center. Using survival analysis over a five-year time frame, we found that two such variables, network centrality and interpersonal citizenship behavior, predicted turnover. Implications of taking a relational perspective toward turnover and other withdrawal behaviors found in organizations are discussed.
lens. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to address relevant relational variables having theoretical links with turnover and test their predictive potential.
Much of the research examining turnover has grown from March and Simon’s (1958) notions concerning the perceived desirability and ease of leaving one’s job. Reviews of this research stream (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Maertz & Campion, 1998) confirm that perceived desirability, often measured as job satisfaction or other job-related attitudes, is negatively associated with turnover. Ease of movement variables, principally assessed through job alternative perceptions and job search behavior, also predict turnover. Despite the wide acceptance of this research lineage, recognition that other factors besides work attitudes and job alternatives may be important for understanding turnover has stimulated some to expand turnover research in new directions (e.g., Mitchell & Lee, 2001). The present study springs from what could be viewed as a paradox in the turnover literature. Although conceptual frameworks have cast turnover within the context of relational processes (e.g., attachment, separation, exchange), most studies have not explicitly emphasized the effects of relational variables on turnover. The theoretical relevance of a relational perspective on turnover has begun to receive greater attention (Dess & Shaw, 2001; UhlBien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000), establishing an impetus to investigate turnover through a relational
THEORETICAL RATIONALE Support for a relational perspective on organizational withdrawal processes is rooted partly in the concept of social capital, which refers to the sum of actual and potential resources available through relationships that individuals have established with others (Leana & Van Buren, 1999). In reviewing the value of social relationships for competitive advantages, Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2000) noted that low-quality relationships can have large costs for organizations, among them higher turnover. Others have suggested that, as constituted in relational networks, social capital may reduce turnover (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993). For the most part, however, such discussions have been framed in terms of strategic organizational concerns that only indirectly address individual processes underlying this mitigating influence. To understand at a more formative level how relationships may affect turnover, it is instructive to consider underlying processes from which relational ties emerge. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) implies that processes fostering workplace ties influence individuals interacting with other organization members. Social exchanges rest on the notion that gestures of goodwill will be recipro-
The helpful comments of David Harrison, Rodger Griffeth, Dan Newman, and Robert Steel on an initial draft manuscript are gratefully acknowledged. 607
608
Academy of Management Journal
cated at some future time. Although instrumental reasons may also be involved, the benefits exchanged often take on value because they symbolize the quality of the relationships. Leaving such exchange relationships may entail a psychic loss, making withdrawal personally costly to individuals. Maertz and Griffeth (2004) identifed constituent forces (attachments to others in an organization) as one of eight distinctive motivational forces underlying “voluntary turnover” (departure from an organization despite having an opportunity to remain). These researchers note that even extensive turnover models have overlooked the potential role of relationships with coworkers and leaders, which may partly explain why few turnover studies have focused explicitly on relational constructs. We believe that the chances of organizational attachment grow concomitantly as individuals develop more extensive, higher-quality social networks. Kahn (1998) suggested that even though people develop work-related connections to move closer to organizational goals, connections are also formed for more complicated reasons. His relational systems perspective suggests that noncognitive elements, such as respect, warmth, and personal regard should be acknowledged as essential in such relationships. Characteristics of high-quality relational systems enmesh individuals within a relational web, making them less susceptible to forces that could dislodge them from their organization. Several researchers have described this circumstance as embedding and have argued that it protects against shocks that lead people to consider withdrawal (e.g., Mitchell & Lee, 2001) and that gradually erode positive organizational attachment (Burt, 2001). As Maertz and Campion (1998) noted, positive work relationships can influence individuals to remain with an organization despite their disliking various features of it. We reviewed the turnover literature through a relational lens, focusing on studies in which social exchange processes (Blau, 1964) or relational systems elements (Kahn, 1998) were evident. Variables connoting key relational processes such as reciprocity, support, and mutual obligation were considered as potential predictors of turnover, as were variables suggesting connectedness with others. Another important stricture in our literature search concerned the locus of exchange. Opportunities to form ties occur more readily in contexts that are free of constraints imposed by status or power differences. Relational ties would also be expected to arise more often among individuals working proximally and among those who are interdependent rather than independent in their tasks and goals. In the workplace, those most likely
August
to exhibit these characteristics would normally be described as coworkers. Researchers have noted that feelings of mutual obligation and expectations of reciprocity and supportiveness are hallmarks of high-quality exchanges among peers and coworkers (e.g., Sherony & Green, 2002). In keeping with notions of interpersonal exchange, we refined our search to emphasize variables connoting such relational qualities in a coworker milieu. Our review found sufficient theoretical and empirical support for associating the following relational variables with turnover: network centrality, perceived coworker support, felt obligation toward coworkers, and interpersonal citizenship behavior. Given the health care context in which the current study was conducted, we expected these variables to be especially salient. Because providing care in such a work environment requires giving of oneself emotionally, replenishment in the form of relational and emotional support from coworkers and other employees is important (Parker, 2002). Studies have suggested that the absence of such support can result in withdrawal from an organization (see, e.g., Kahn, 1993). Network centrality should be pivotal in such situations, as stronger ties with coworkers mean more opportunities for employees to exchange “social wares.” Perceived coworker support taps the amount of peer assistance employees feel they have received, and felt obligation indicates the degree to which they feel obliged to reciprocate in kind. Finally, interpersonal citizenship behavior indicates whether employees have actually engaged in helping coworkers. Below, we explain further why each of these variables should be expected to affect employee turnover and provide specific hypotheses regarding such effects. It should be noted that we considered other variables that did refer to coworkers but did not include them in the study, as they were more attitudinal than relational (e.g., satisfaction with coworkers). Other potential predictors had relational overtones deriving from group dynamics (e.g., group cohesion). Because we were interested in the dynamics of interpersonal relations rather than more diffuse group processes, such variables were also excluded. Hypotheses Network centrality. Interpersonal networks delineate interaction patterns among individuals in organizations. These relationship structures facilitate shared meaning about goals and values and act as important identity referents for individuals learning what it means to be part of an organization (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002). Broadly speaking, network centrality refers to the relative
2005
Mossholder, Settoon, and Henagan
numbers of direct and indirect links an individual has with others comprising a social network. Although ways of measuring network centrality have differed depending on the theoretical focus, all pertain to interpersonal ties, making network centrality relational by definition (Brass, 1995). Individuals with high centrality are more connected with others in their organizations, implying greater involvement in assistance exchanges with coworkers, whether the purpose is work-related or more personal. Central individuals may also become valued as sources of future assistance (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001), underscoring their longer-term importance to the organizations and to the members with whom they interact. Some previous studies have examined social networks and organizational turnover, but more in terms of structural rather than relational dynamics (e.g., Krackhardt & Porter, 1986). Recently, researchers have begun to underscore how employee ties may affect their attachment to an organization. For example, Kahn (1998) argued that relationships at work reflect not only necessary task-related links, but a system of deeper attachments that serve collective emotional needs. To the degree that individuals lack a supportive system of relationships, they may become emotionally disengaged, withdraw psychologically then physically from coworkers, and eventually leave the organization itself. A recent study by Burt (2001) suggested connections between individuals and an organization are influenced by the degree of embedding they experience. Individuals having a higher number of ties to others affiliated with an organization are more embedded and deem the organization to be of greater importance to them. Burt (2001) found that the degree of embedding inhibited the decay of individuals’ organizational attachment. His results were consistent with an earlier study by McPherson, Popielarz, and Drobnic (1992) that showed more contacts in a social network led to longer membership duration; more ties meant less turnover. Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez’s (2001) study examining a newly proposed organizational attachment construct, job embeddedness, partially supports Burt’s (2001) and McPherson and colleagues (1992) findings. Job embeddedness predicted voluntary turnover in two organizations. “Links-to-the-organization,” one of six components comprising job embeddedness, gauged personal connections among employees. This component itself correlated with turnover in one of the two organizations, partly corroborating the connection between turnover and relational ties. Lankau and Scandura’s (2002) study yielded additional indirect
609
support regarding social embedding effects. They found that relational job learning, which measures the degree to which individuals learn about their connectedness to other employees, was correlated negatively with employees’ “turnover intentions” (intentions to leave). In sum, theoretical and empirical research suggests that embeddedness and strong relational ties, as reflected by high network centrality, should inhibit attachment decay and reduce withdrawal tendencies. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1. Network centrality is negatively related to turnover. Perceived coworker support. In work contexts, social support refers to the care and consideration that individuals receive from other organization members. In the present study, coworker support was considered as originating from interactions with others at the same organizational level. Facets of social support have long been considered as potentially reducing individuals’ withdrawal intentions (e.g., Price & Mueller, 1986). However, only two studies investigating direct associations between coworker support and turnover could be found. Iverson and Pullman (2000) determined that coworker support predicted whether employees would be laid off, but not whether they would voluntarily leave their organization. Iverson (1999) suggested that coworker support would reduce turnover because employees could rely on coworkers as work became difficult, but he found no evidence of this effect. These results are somewhat surprising given that organizational support theory research (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) has widely indicated that perceived support from organizations and their agents is negatively related with withdrawal behavior. The theoretical rationale for this finding is that demonstrations of care and consideration engender emotional bonds between individuals and the sources of support. This bonding creates feelings of social integration and identification that increase individuals’ attachment to the support sources. Logically, the association between coworker support and turnover should parallel that found with other types of support. Work-based social support is usually extended by proximal individuals, and thus exchanges of support should reverberate among coworkers, strengthening interpersonal bonds and attenuating shocks that encourage withdrawal behavior. In sum, employees who are the object of coworkers’ caring and concern increase their direct attachment to such coworkers, and through them, indirect attachment to their organization. Thus, we hypothesize:
610
Academy of Management Journal
Hypothesis 2. Perceived coworker support is negatively related to turnover. Felt obligation toward coworkers. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests individuals receiving social wares develop feelings of obligation toward those supplying such wares and seek to discharge those obligations through increased allegiance and extra performance efforts. Viewed as a prescriptive belief that one should care about another’s well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), felt obligation underlies the give-and-take among coworkers in exchange relationships. Sherony and Green (2002) offered that it is an important ingredient in high-quality coworker relations. Felt obligation propels social relations because benefits extended owing to obligations create feelings of investment and encourage individuals to work at preserving this incipient social capital. Because bonds built between relational partners are relatively durable, feelings of obligation may continue to influence relational ties after initial social wares have been requited. Potential relations between felt obligation and turnover have only recently begun to be examined. As part of a study investigating reciprocation of perceived organizational support, Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001) assessed relations between felt obligation toward an organization and employees’ withdrawal behavior. Felt obligation exhibited a significant, negative correlation with withdrawal behavior but did not exert a significant effect in the context of their multivariate model. Although they may not exert a strong effect at a given juncture, felt obligations toward coworkers could elicit longer-term reciprocity in interpersonal exchanges, which would encourage closer relationships and greater interpersonal embeddedness. Given these expected relational effects, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 3. Felt obligation toward coworkers is negatively related to turnover. Interpersonal citizenship behavior. Interpersonal citizenship behavior refers to citizenship behavior directed toward coworkers and immediate others and focuses on cooperative assistance for individuals in need (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). From a relational perspective, behavior performed to benefit coworkers indicates the depth of feeling for and connection with others in an organization. This is especially so because interpersonal citizenship behavior occurs at individuals’ discretion; those who go out of their way to help coworkers are actively demonstrating an allegiance to them. Helping behavior may evoke positive emotions from
August
both parties involved in help exchanges, reinforcing perceptions of mutual obligation. When it is carried out to display the quality of ties with coworkers, interpersonal citizenship behavior may be largely noninstrumental because it is not intended to assist with specific tasks. Individuals may also engage in interpersonal citizenship behavior for instrumental reasons, such as to help coworkers complete tasks or gain organizational status. Such actions could influence individuals’ leaving their organizations in the future. If individuals view their interpersonal citizenship behavior as an investment that increases their value to an organization and profession, they will be more likely to stay and reap potentially ensuing rewards (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998). Thus, when interpreted as an integrative work process, helping becomes a means of displaying behaviors that could have desirable outcomes. For example, in an engineering firm where helping was considered as a communal good and a learning opportunity, individuals perceived that it benefited other employees, the organization, and their own careers (Perlow & Weeks, 2002). As with other relational variables examined in this study, interpersonal citizenship behavior and related constructs have not been frequently considered in connection with turnover. In their study, Chen and colleagues (1998) found that altruism, an interpersonal helping facet of organizational citizenship behavior, correlated negatively with turnover measured ten months later. Elsewhere, Aryee and Chay (2001) showed that citizenship behavior oriented toward helping individuals negatively correlated with turnover intentions in a union context. We thus hypothesize: Hypothesis 4. Interpersonal citizenship behavior is negatively related to turnover. METHODS Sample Characteristics Some of the data used in the present study were collected as part of a larger study (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) focusing on precursors of interpersonal citizenship behavior; coworker support and network centrality were examined in this capacity. Nearly five years after the initial data collection, we obtained permission to revisit a data collection site and gather information on turnover in order to examine whether salient relational variables predicted turnover. Study participants were employed at a regional medical center in the southern United States. The service-oriented work they performed required much communication and coordination among em-
2005
Mossholder, Settoon, and Henagan
ployees, providing a context where relational dependencies and accompanying attitudes and behaviors could surface. We used an employee survey to collect information on key study variables, sociometric relations, and demographics. A separate survey was used to gather supervisory evaluations of employees’ interpersonal citizenship behavior. Employees were asked to provide the last five digits of their employee identification numbers so that their surveys could be matched with supervisors’ surveys. Participants were informed that their responses were known only by the researchers and would be kept confidential. Both supervisory and nonsupervisory employees received surveys along with postage-paid return envelopes, which they were to put in a collection bin in the administrative offices or mail directly to us. A total of 374 surveys were distributed, and 253 were returned. Of these, 38 surveys could not be used owing to either missing employee identification numbers or lack of matching supervisor surveys; 215 surveys were usable, giving us a 58 percent response rate. There were no differences between the usable and unusable survey groups on tenure, gender, race, or education, but the average age in the unusable group was nearly five years lower (p ⬍ .05). Given that tenure is the most meaningful demographic predictor of turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000), along with the absence of other demographic differences, the potential for response bias was judged as minimal. Human resources personnel helped to determine those employees whose departures from the firm were involuntary (e.g., dismissals), and these cases were eliminated from consideration. This constraint and missing data on other study variables reduced the sample to 176 individuals. Of these 176 respondents, 78 percent were women, 72 percent were Caucasian, and 27 percent were African American. Average respondent age was 37.43 years, and average organizational tenure was 5.04 years. Measures Predictor variables. Three survey formats were used: (1) Likert-type scales ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree,” (2) sociometric questions, and (3) demographic questions. Employees self-reported data on all variables with the exception of interpersonal citizenship behavior, for which supervisors provided data, and network centrality, which was measured on the basis of coworker responses. As appropriate, we averaged responses to items to create the scales. The texts of all scale items and sociometric questions appear in the Appendix.
611
Adopting a relational cohesion approach (Brass, 1995), we constructed a network centrality index as per Ibarra (1993) by having respondents list up to five employees (1) with whom they discussed what was going on in the organization and (2) whom they approached concerning work-related problems or decisions. From these responses, we calculated “indegree centrality” within the organization’s communication and advice networks, respectively: the more coworkers choosing a focal employee, the greater was that employee’s in-degree centrality. Assessing centrality for these two networks allowed consideration of interconnections having social (communication) as well as more work-related (advice) connotations. As research has shown that measures of centrality across networks are highly correlated (r ⫽ .78 in the present study), we combined the in-degree centrality indexes for the two networks to form an overall measure. We developed a measure of perceived coworker support (␣ ⫽ .82) based on Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa’s (1986) perceived organizational support scale. From their measure, we selected the six “highest-loading” items gauging support and reworded them so that the referent was the responding employee’s coworkers. Developed for the present study, the felt obligation toward coworkers measure had three items that reflected psychological feelings of indebtedness toward coworkers. Because these items were written for the present study, we also assessed and found a coefficient alpha of .74 for them using an independent sample of 58 employees in an auxiliary services organization. Coefficient alpha in the hospital sample was .67, despite an average item intercorrelation of .40. As this circumstance may reflect scale length rather than a lack of internal consistency (see Cortina, 1993), we decided to retain this measure. Finally, we used a previously developed measure (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) to assess interpersonal citizenship behavior (␣ ⫽ .96). Eight of 14 items assessed passive support provided to others, and 6 measured active assistance to those in need. Although interpersonal citizenship behavior has been examined previously as comprising two facets, the thrust of the present study was the predictive power of interpersonal citizenship behavior overall. Therefore, we collapsed all of the items to form one scale. Criterion variable. The effects of relational variables on turnover may surface more slowly than those of other types of variables (e.g., economic conditions) because relationships are less formally determined aspects of work and require time to develop. At least two studies have employed a fiveyear survival window in examining socially ori-
612
Academy of Management Journal
ented variables’ impacts on turnover (e.g., Iverson & Pullman, 2000; O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). Also, Sheridan (1985) noted that most voluntary turnover on nursing staffs occurs within 60 months. Nearly five years after the initial survey, in keeping with Griffeth et al.’s (2000) recommendation to use a time frame appropriate for the turnover context, human resources personnel were asked to provide turnover data on the 215 individuals for whom identification information and interpersonal citizenship behavior ratings were available. Their employment status was verified, and separation dates for those no longer employed provided. We measured the survival window in months. We considered voluntary turnover to have occurred when employees left despite having an opportunity to continue with the organization (Maertz & Campion, 1998), and the codings were 0 for “stayed” and 1 for “left.” Control variables. Organizational tenure and age, measured in years, were controlled as both have been found to correlate with turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000). Additionally, researchers examining health care samples (e.g., Iverson & Pullman, 2000) have suggested that gender be controlled as women are overrepresented in such contexts. Gender was coded “male,” 0, and “female,” 1. Finally, we used a four-item general job satisfaction measure (␣ ⫽ .79) as a control because job satisfaction has been consistently associated with turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000). This measure comprised two items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) and two items from Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) index. Controlling job satisfaction helped assure that relations between turnover and correlates of satisfaction with work, such as age and tenure, were not confounded. Analyses Because relationships are established through repeated interactions with others, relational variables may exert their influence gradually in connection with turnover rather than at a single point in time. Survival analysis techniques incorporate timebased dynamics befitting relational variables and are well suited to modeling such processes. Survival analysis methods assess turnover in terms of the conditional probability of a member’s leaving an organization; this probability varies with the duration of organizational membership. Several researchers have noted the general advantages and increasing use of survival analysis on turnover data (e.g., Harrison, 2002). We analyzed data using a proportional hazards
August
survival analysis approach, Cox regression analysis. The proportional hazards assumption of Cox regression requires that the effect of a predictor variable does not change over time. In other words, no interaction between time and the predictor should be observed. One means of testing this assumption is to add time-by-predictor interaction terms to an equation already containing predictor “main effect” terms (Harrison, 2002). We created the necessary interaction terms and tested them for significance following standard procedures (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). None of the interaction terms were significant, and thus the assumption was met. Moreover, for each predictor, we plotted Schoenfeld residuals against time. These residuals were distributed fairly evenly in a band around zero for all predictors, providing visual confirmation of the proportional hazards assumption (Hess, 1995).
RESULTS A confirmatory factor analysis involving the perceptual (perceived coworker support, felt obligation toward coworkers), attitudinal (job satisfaction), and behavioral (interpersonal citizenship behavior) measures was conducted as a means of assessing their viability as separate constructs. To increase indicator stability (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995) and meet sample size guidelines for parameter estimation, we employed the single-factor method (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000) to form a reduced set of indicators for each latent variable (excepting felt obligation, which comprised only three indicators). This procedure reduced the number of indicators per latent variable to three (for coworker support and job satisfaction) or four (for interpersonal citizenship behavior). The comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized rootmean-square residual (SRMR) were used in judging fit. Utilizing LISREL 8, we tested a model with four latent variables. All indicators loaded significantly on their respective latent variables. The resultant indexes suggested an acceptable level of fit (CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽. 04, and SRMR ⫽ .05). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for study variables, along with correlations among the variables. As would be expected, the correlation between age and tenure was moderately strong. Also, coworker support and felt obligation toward coworkers were significantly correlated, corroborating the idea that perceived support from coworkers may engender feelings of social indebtedness. Most of the remaining correlations were relatively low,
2005
Mossholder, Settoon, and Henagan
613
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Variablesa Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Organizational tenure Gender Age Job satisfaction Interpersonal citizenship behavior Coworker support Felt obligation toward coworkers Network centrality Turnoverb
Mean
s.d.
5.04 0.78 37.43 4.17 3.84 3.69 2.73 1.54 0.36
5.56 0.41 10.59 0.56 0.74 0.61 0.95 1.51 0.48
1
⫺.06 .43** .04 .02 .02 ⫺.09 .15* ⫺.15*
2
3
.00 ⫺.10 .16* .04 ⫺.01 ⫺.12 .02
.12 ⫺.04 .01 .11 .01 ⫺.14†
4
⫺.07 .24** .06 .06 ⫺.13†
5
.14† .00 .10 ⫺.13†
6
.28** ⫺.01 .04
7
8
⫺.18* .08
⫺.22**
n ⫽ 176. Indicates the turnover rate for the sample after five years. † p ⬍ .10 *p ⬍ .05 **p ⬍ .01 a
b
indicating a degree of empirical differentiation among the variables. Figure 1 shows plots of the estimated survival and hazard functions. Both functions exhibit a consistent linear trend throughout most of the study time frame. Toward the final months of the study, slight plateauing occurs for both functions. Table 2 reports results of the Cox regression analyses. We used likelihood ratio tests to examine the effects of entering control and predictor variable blocks into the model, and Wald statistics to determine whether individual variables were statistically significant. In the first step, only the control variables were entered into the regression equation. A likelihood ratio test indicated there was not a significant (p ⬎ .05) change in model fit. Addition of the relational variables as a set in the second step of the analysis resulted in a significant chi-square change in fit (⌬2 ⫽ 15.97, df ⫽ 4, p ⫽ .003). Examining the regression coefficients with all the variables entered into the model, one can see that a negative association between job satisfaction and turnover was marginally significant (p ⫽ .06). As for the relational variables in the full model, Table 2 shows that both network centrality (p ⬍ .01) and interpersonal citizenship behavior (p ⬍ .05) were significantly associated with turnover. Coworker support and felt obligation toward coworkers did not predict turnover. We computed pseudo-R2s (Harrison, 2002) to show the relative improvement in the association between survival and each significant predictor, adjusting for all other predictors. Adding network centrality to a model containing all other study variables increased this statistic by .04, whereas adding interpersonal citizenship behavior to a model containing all other study variables increased pseudo-R2 by .03. Table 2 also
shows pseudo-R2 for the model containing controls only and the model containing all the variables. DISCUSSION The turnover literature has been dominated by research on how work attitudes, especially job satisfaction, progress into turnover. Although this research stream has contributed much to the literature, there has been an increased interest in the role that less traditional variables (e.g., nonwork) and precipitating shocks play in withdrawal processes (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). The present study represents an initial attempt to determine whether relational variables—specifically, network centrality, perceived coworker support, felt obligation toward coworkers, and interpersonal citizenship behavior— can contribute in this regard. Both network centrality and interpersonal citizenship behavior were significantly related to turnover over the five-year study window, and their effects went above and beyond the effects of job satisfaction. Regarding network centrality, it appears that how individuals are interconnected affects their leaving an organization. Those forming a greater number of ties with coworkers become more embedded and more likely to identify with those around them (Burt, 2001). Such social grounding dampens the effect of real or perceived shocks that may give rise to turnover. Close identification with others is often associated with perceived similarity and more frequent communication, which in turn may reduce the likelihood of turnover (Brass, 1995). Interestingly, felt obligation toward coworkers was negatively correlated with network centrality. Providing others with advice and communication may lead highly central individuals to feel
614
Academy of Management Journal
August
FIGURE 1 Estimated Survival and Hazard Functions
they have discharged their personal obligations to coworkers, and it may indirectly indicate their awareness of the social investments they have made. The association between interpersonal citizenship behavior and turnover is intriguing because interpersonal citizenship behavior is directed at coworkers rather than an organization. How individuals interact with coworkers—in this case, helping them—may presage turnover tendencies and represent a relational manifestation of their organizational attachment. Relationship quality has been found to be positively associated with both helping and help seeking (Anderson & Williams, 1996), in-
timating that relational exchanges may benefit both partners. Thus, interpersonal citizenship behavior can be viewed as a social workplace investment that improves the lot of those receiving help while increasing the chances that help giving will be reciprocated in the future. Alternatively, individuals who have doubts about remaining with an organization or who are actively contemplating leaving may be less likely to help coworkers, knowing that their own exits will nullify future return benefits. The positive correlation between coworker support and felt obligation toward coworkers suggests that receiving social wares may stimulate a need to reciprocate. However, the hypothesized relations of
2005
Mossholder, Settoon, and Henagan
615
TABLE 2 Results of Cox Regression Analysesa Step 1 Predictors Organizational tenure Gender Age Job satisfaction
Step 2
b
s.e.
eb
⫺0.05 0.00 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.30
0.03 0.32 0.01 0.20
0.95 1.00 0.99 0.74
Controls-only pseudo-R2
eb
⫺0.04 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.43†
0.04 0.33 0.01 0.23
0.96 0.97 0.98 0.65
⫺0.29** 0.31 0.02 ⫺0.40*
0.11 0.24 0.14 0.17
0.75 1.36 1.02 0.68
.04
Network centrality Coworker support Felt obligation toward coworkers Interpersonal citizenship behavior Full-model pseudo-R2
s.e.
b
.13
a
Unstandardized regression coefficients, standard errors, and exponentiated regression coefficients are shown. p ⬍ .10 * p ⬍ .05 ** p ⬍ .01 †
these two perceptual predictors with turnover did not emerge. One reason for this may be that the five-year period between initial measurement and turnover in the current study is longer than the in-between period of typical turnover studies (see Griffeth et al., 2000), and perceptual variables may not be suited to such lengthy time frames. Also, researchers have noted that even when predictive, perceptual variables tend to exhibit modest effect sizes in connection with turnover. This study provides direct support for the idea that relationships matter, and it corroborates contentions (e.g., Bolino et al., 2002; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000) that their development influences important organizational outcomes. Of course, it should be noted that the relational variables examined in our study represent only one of eight motive categories that drive employees’ decisions about whether to remain organization members. Future research involving relational variables should include variables representing other motive categories, especially ones that have been investigated in previous studies (e.g., affective, alternative, or behavioral forces; see Maertz and Griffeth [2004]). Including other categories would better gauge the predictive strength of relational variables against that of more traditional turnover predictors, such as organizational attitudes (e.g., affective organizational commitment), external environmental factors (e.g., perceived work alternatives), and behavioral correlates (e.g., absences). A recent study suggests that some relational constructs (e.g., on-the-job-embeddedness; Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, and Holtom
[2004]) may share explanatory variance with traditional attitudinal variables (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) in predicting turnover. Others have noted that job satisfaction is a key variable in predicting turnover (Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994). Having assessed job satisfaction in our study, we were able to control for its effects. Unfortunately, because of constraints on survey length, information on other traditional turnover predictors could not be included. Such variables should be incorporated in future studies investigating relational predictors of turnover. It may also be instructive to examine explicitly relational variables in conjunction with more diffuse group-level processes that have been investigated in past research. For example, group cohesion has been found to correlate negatively with withdrawal phenomena (see Griffeth et al., 2000; O’Reilly et al., 1989; Sheridan, 1985), and it is a global reflection of the degree of individuals’ attraction to a group. As noted above, although grouplevel processes are not considered to be explicitly relational, they have a theoretical kinship with relational variables. Including such variables in future studies would represent a logical extension of the present study. Some caveats should be mentioned regarding our findings. First, the data were collected in a health care context, a type of work setting that is in some respects more oriented toward relationships than are other work settings. Replication in a variety of other organizations is needed, as relational variables may operate differently in other types of con-
616
Academy of Management Journal
texts. For example, some researchers have found that in industries where turnover is very high (fastfood restaurants), strong ties may exacerbate turnover among employees with similar roles (see Krackhardt & Porter, 1986). Second, our study was retrodictive, in that it did not begin with a cohort of new employees whose survival rates were tracked going forward. As such, it is not a survival study in the purest sense. Third, some of the measures were based on existing scales as opposed to being developed specifically for the study. Closer consideration of measures focusing on relational constructs is needed in the future. We suggest that relational predictors may contain unique information about withdrawal and hold promise for solving another piece of the turnover puzzle. Our results suggest that when researchers study withdrawal phenomena, interpersonal relationships may be critical to consider along with the more typically emphasized person characteristics. Managing turnover through relational variables will require new and innovative approaches. Rather than simply focusing on individuals to thwart turnover, organizations may benefit from considering broader circumstances, such as how embeddedness may protect individuals from events that function as turnover-inducing shocks. Taking steps to fortify the broader relational climate could involve programmatic actions aimed at preventing both physical and emotional disengagement at work (Kahn, 1998). Such strengthening may not only retard turnover, but may also develop relational social capital that could improve organization-wide productivity (Dess & Shaw, 2001). Systematic efforts should be directed at developing links among individuals, an idea congruent with the growing emphasis on personal learning in organizations (cf. Lankau & Scandura, 2002). A key facet of what individuals learn as organization members may be how they are interconnected and can work with others to develop their own skills and careers. For some time, researchers have proposed that “the people make the place” (e.g., Schneider, 1987). We further suggest that relational ties people form while working together may be the ties that bind. Greater attention to relational systems and behaviors that strengthen interpersonal ties may inform organizations’ efforts to reduce undesired turnover and improve overall effectiveness. Hopefully, the present study will encourage future research efforts having these goals.
August
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. 2001. Workplace justice, citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions in a union context: Examining the mediating role of perceived union support and union instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 154 –160. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2002. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27: 505–522. Brass, D. J. 1995. A social network perspective on human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 13: 39 –79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35: 307–311. Burt, R. S. 2001. Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 619 – 643. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G., & Klesh, J. 1983. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: 71–138. New York: Wiley. Chen, X., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. 1998. The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 922–931. Cortina, J. M. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 98 –104. Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. 2001. Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26: 446 – 456. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 42–51. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500 –507. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta– analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463– 488.
REFERENCES
Harrison, D. A. 2002. Structure and timing in limited range dependent variables: Regression models for predicting if and when. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis: 446 – 497. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. 1996. Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 282–296.
Hess, K. R. 1995. Graphical methods for assessing violations of the proportional hazards assumption in Cox regression. Statistics in Medicine, 14: 1707–1723.
2005
Mossholder, Settoon, and Henagan
617
Ibarra, H. 1993. Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 471–501.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C., & Erez, M. 2001. Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal 44: 1102–1121.
Iverson, R. D. 1999. An event history analysis of employee turnover: The case of hospital employees in Australia. Human Resource Management Review, 9: 397– 418.
Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. 2001. The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 23: 189 – 246. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Iverson, R. D., & Pullman, J. A. 2000. Determinants of voluntary turnover and layoffs in an environment of repeated downsizing following a merger: An event history analysis. Journal of Management, 26: 977– 1003.
Mueller, C., Boyer, E., Price, J. L., & Iverson, R. D. 1994. Employee attachment and noncoercive conditions of work. Work and Occupations, 21: 179 –212.
Kahn, W. A. 1993. Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of organizational caregiving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 539 –563.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. 1989. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 21–37.
Kahn, W. A. 1998. Relational systems at work. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 20: 39 –76. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Parker, V. A. 2002. Connecting relational work and workgroup context in caregiving organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38: 276 –297.
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. 1993. Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4):104 –111. Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. 1986. The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 50 –55. Landis, R., Beal, D., & Tesluk, P. 2000. A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 186 –207. Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. 2002. An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 779 –790. Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24: 538 –555. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C., Burton, J., & Holtom, B. 2004. The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 711–722. Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. 1998. 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A review and critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 13: 49 – 81. Chichester, England: Wiley. Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. 2004. Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications. Journal of Management, 30: 667– 683. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley. McPherson, J. M., Popielarz, P. A., & Drobnic, S. 1992. Social networks and organizational dynamics. American Sociological Review, 57: 153–170.
Perlow, L., & Weeks, J. 2002. Who’s helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 345–361. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. 1986. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698 –714. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437– 453. Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person– and task–focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 255– 267. Sheridan, J. E. 1985. A catastrophe model of employee withdrawal leading to low job performance, high absenteeism, and job turnover during the first year of employment. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 88 –109. Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. 2002. Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 542–548. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. 2001. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 316 –325. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 2000. Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel
618
Academy of Management Journal
and human resources management, vol. 18: 137– 185. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. 1995. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: 56 –75. London: Sage.
APPENDIX Items for Study Measures Items and instructions are given verbatim. Felt Obligation toward Coworkers I often feel like I owe my coworkers. My coworkers have done things for me that I feel I should repay them for. Sometimes I do favors for my coworkers because I feel I am obligated to. Perceived Coworker Support My coworkers really care about my well-being. My coworkers are willing to extend themselves in order to help me perform my job the best I can. Even if I did the best job possible, my coworkers would fail to notice. (reverse-scored) My coworkers care about my general satisfaction at work. My coworkers show very little concern for me. (reverse-scored) My coworkers care about my opinions. Job Satisfaction All in all, I am satisfied with my job. In general, I like working here. I like my job better than the average worker does. I am satisfied with my job for the time being. Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors This employee. . . Takes time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries. Takes a personal interest in coworkers. Always goes out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group. Shows genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal situations. Compliments coworkers when they succeed at work. Tries to cheer up coworkers who are having a bad day. Makes an extra effort to understand the problems faced by coworkers. Listens to coworkers when they have to get something off their chest. Helps coworkers with work when they have been absent.
August
Helps coworkers with difficult assignments, even when assistance is not directly requested. Assists coworkers with heavy workloads, even though it is not part of his/her job. Goes out of his/her way to help coworkers with workrelated problems. Takes on extra responsibilities in order to help coworkers when things get demanding at work. Helps coworkers who are running behind in their work activities. Network Centrality The following instructions preceded five lines that each included a space in which a respondent could enter a name, followed by the words ‘talk” and “advice” in capital letters. In the five blank lines below, print the first and last name of five employees that you interact with on a regular basis. For each employee that you list, circle TALK if you discuss what is going on in the organization with that person. Circle ADVICE if this person is an important source of professional advice when you have a problem or decision to make. There may be instances where you may circle more than one choice for a particular employee. There also may be instances where you circle none for a particular employee.
Kevin W. Mossholder (
[email protected]) is the H. N. Saurage, Jr./Community Coffee Chair and a professor in the Management Department at Louisiana State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee—Knoxville. His primary research interests center on interpersonal workplace interactions, the effects of these interactions on organizational outcomes, and contextual issues that shape such effects. Randall P. Settoon is the department chair and a professor of management at Southeastern Louisiana University. He received his Ph.D. from Louisiana State University. His primary research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, social exchange in the workplace, and trust. Stephanie C. Henagan is currently an assistant professor in the Management Department at Northern Illinois University and is completing her Ph.D. in organizational behavior and human resource management at Louisiana State University. Her current research interests include interpersonal dynamics in the workplace, the effects of social comparison processes on achievement, and affirmative action attitudes.
